She probably is just not well informed on Wikipedia I mean most people outside of our little bubble have no fucking clue what goes on here Back when Roth did his little thing with the New Yorker it turned out that many of the things he was saying were not accurate He identified the wrong article as being where the error took place neglected to mention that the article on his book actually did accurately state that the book was not based off the one guy and so forth There was nothing willful about it he just wasn t sufficiently clued in on the situation You should calm down though Eventually the controversy will fade from view and these folk will depart I doubt many will seriously remember it