Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 4

message: Keeping that NPOV tag is silly and disruptive.  No relevant facts were left out of either.  It is a fair compromise that does justice to both sides.  This dispute is over, whether or not you personally are persuaded.  Move on.  Yakuman (数え役満) 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you should understand, the point of dispute is the unnecessary and unjustified inclusion of content. So including the disputed information does not resolve the dispute. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. --lquilter 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No personal attacks, please. I appreciate that you see your version as a "compromise", but with all due respect, it does not actually compromise or address the disputes. The previous compromise version by User:Doldrums compromised between the people who thought both (a) the incident was non-notable and (b) the assailants' race was non-notable and undue weight; Doldrums' version (diff) included the incident, and foregrounded Gordimer's take on it. Your version (diff) simply adds back in the assailants' race, wiping out the (a)-(b) compromise, and returning it back to a version that includes both disputed pieces of information. Hence the tag. --lquilter 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't have to be defensive.  I'm not looking for a fight with you, although you seem armed for one.  There was no personal attack. As it stands, you are a revert away from a 3RR block. Your disruptive tone and behavior do not show good faith. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replacing warnings that are being discussed on this page is not really a WP:3RR issue, and I'm surprised you would suggest that it is. (Especially since you have removed the warning yourself three times.) However, if you're in doubt, please go ahead and post on the Administrators' noticeboard, since if this is a type of 3RR it would be useful for both of us to know that.--lquilter 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't believe it is a 3RR issue, you may be proven wrong if you make that fourth revert.  I refer to your constant attempts to reinsert that unnecessary NPOV tag, not this page.  That's why I warned you.  Yakuman (数え役満) 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This "meta-dispute" is getting silly. No more needs to be said on this matter. If you remove the tag inappropriately -- while there is still a NPOV dispute -- I will put it back rather than reverting the actual content. If you think this is a 3RR matter, please do take it up with the Administrators' noticeboard. There is no need for further discussion of the NPOV tag itself. --lquilter 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your whole disruptive campaign is silly, yet you want to drag it out.  Obviously, I have no desire to take it up with the Administrators' noticeboard. Yakuman (数え役満) 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously. --lquilter 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, anon editor  75.213.227.60 (gee, I wonder who that could be) just reinstated Yakuman's disputed version, and removed the NPOV tag; I replaced the NPOV / disputed section tag because this section includes disputed content. I invite anon user 75.213.227.60 to describe its reasons for reverting. (And Yakuman now has an opportunity to press this issue before the administrators noticeboard, should she feel so inclined, because I have clearly and without question replaced this tag more than 3 times on this article.) --lquilter 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary NPOV tag

message: Well, none of the several anonymous IP editors who stepped up the plate after Yakuman dropped out of the conversation bothered to explain their reverts and removals of the NPOV-section tag. Since they clearly want something in, but didn't explain what, I rewrote the version (diff) to respond to (a) anonymous editor 70.23.* who thinks the incident itself is notable; (b) Doldrums' useful points that the high-security aspect is nowhere documented (it isn't really notable anyway); (c) Doldrums' point about deleting unnecessary detail (wedding ring, storage closet, daytime); (d) Andyparkerson's version that mentioned crime rate; (e) Teratornis' point that it is notable because of Gordimer's attitude. I did not include the race of the assailants because nobody has yet documented that the race of the assailants was a factor in their decision to atack, or had any effect. If this version appears to be uncontroversial, we can (eventually) remove the NPOV-section tag. --lquilter 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i feel that the "otherwise unnotable" and "inspired a humanitarian response" are original commentary on the incident. would prefer a straight recounting of what happened, unadorned with such comments, instead. o/w it's fine by me. another small point is the high-security stuff is not merely undocumented, but contradicted by the Times source. Doldrums 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're definitely right about the "otherwise unnotable"; I regret that I let my wiki-talk assertions seep into mainspace editing. I'l delete the otherwise unnotable thing, and maybe you can take a stab after at rewriting to delete the humanitarian response piece. --lquilter 19:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the quick response (and for expanding the rest of article). the section looks fine by me. Doldrums 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (1) Contrary to your assertion, the assailants' race has yet to be shown to be relevant or notable. The truthfulness of that fact is not being challenged, but truth is not enough to insert trivial facts. (2) Your proposed edit did not attempt to resolve the dispute whatsoever; it simply included all the dispute content. Doldrums' edit, by contrast, carved a middle ground between the neither-are-relevant people (including me) and the both-are-relevant people (you). (3) Sorry to hear that you can't support the current version (), but that's why we have a NPOV tag on the page: to facilitate discussion and eventual resolution of this dispute.  So please feel free to offer support for your assertions that the assailants' race is relevant and notable, and not simply a trivial fact that lends WP:NPOV#Undue weight to this incident. Right now, it looks to me like just one more minor demographic detail about the assailants, such as their age, their occupation, their birthplace, their marital status, and so on, and as such, it is simply a distraction from the encyclopedia article about Gordimer. The reason Gordimer is notable is her writing, and so this article really needs considerable more work on the subject of Gordimer's notability -- not on a minor 6-month-old criminal assault that had no discernible impact on her life or anyone else's. But if you have cites to published articles asserting that race was a factor in this attack, or that the assailants' race affected Gordimer, or that it had any other impact in the world, please put them forward. --lquilter 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Gardimer is notable for getting in on the ground floor of the ANC anti-apartheid movement and reaping the rewards of it.  Her writings largely consist of political agitation.  The "international recognition" was more about her "political engagement" that the work itself.  I say this not to soapbox, but to demonstrate an alternate theory of notabillity than that presented above. Yakuman (数え役満) 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yet the awards she has won have all been literary awards, prima facie evidence that her recognition is primarily about her work. ... There's no controversy about the fact that she's a major political activist, though, so I'm not sure why you even bother to mention this. ... lquilter 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yakuman, please quit describing the version you cobbled together as a "compromise" version.  It is not a compromise between the two positions, one of which thinks both the incident and the race are irrelevant; and the other of which thinks the incident and race are relevant (the one because of the other, in fact). Therefore, the version you wrote precisely recapitulates one of the positions, and is in no sense a compromise. lquilter 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid personal attacks.  I did not "cobble" something together.  I drafted a good-faith compromise. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't question that it was a good faith attempt at a compromise; I am merely pointing out that it is not, in fact, a compromise at all. --lquilter 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the sarcasm.  As another person in this same debate has said of you, "until you can get those you oppose banned, your m.o. is to wear them down through interminable flame wars."  I made a good-faith compromise, which you won't accept because the text does not suit your WP:SOAPBOX agenda.  I must ask you to stop wasting my time with this.  Yakuman (数え役満) 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't being sarcastic; I was acknowledging your good faith, but pointing out that your version is not a compromise.  ... A note in passing: Your rhetorical style is quite interesting. You say things like, "stop wasting my time on this" as if someone is forcing you to participate in the debate, or forcing you to edit this article. It's an interesting technique, and I wonder if you do it on purpose, or if it's just your style? ... At any rate, regardless of your rhetorical choices, so long as you post the disputed text without addressing the complaints about it, the conversation will continue here on the talk page. Rather than asking fellow editors to quit bothering you with their disagreements with your editorial choices, you need to respond to the substance of their comments.  I refer you to earlier discussions for that substance, which you have yet to address. --lquilter 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asking "editors."  I'm asking you.  Please stop the flame wars.  Yakuman (数え役満) 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another version

message: Here are some of the significant problems with the version that User:Yakuman inserted on 4/4 several times (diff1, diff1.5, diff2, diff3):
* The incident is not notable. While it was newsworthy, it is not encyclopedia notable. It is almost 6 months old and apparently had no lasting impact on Gordimer or the world. 
* The incident is described disproportionately to other aspects of Gordimer's biography. Were every such minor incident in Gordimer's life to be described with a paragraph of text, this article would be a small book.
* The comment about "grim irony" is a POV. Moreover, it is sourced from an editorial, not a news source. (And the editorial is factually inaccurate in its characterization of Gordimer's works; see, e.g., July's People.) POV was acknowledged by Yakuman. 
* The facts are in dispute. The version currently listed says "four" men; other sources say "three".  See, e.g., the NYT article .
* The race of the assailants has not been shown to be notable. Biographical and demographic details of people mentioned in passing in the article need not be described unless they are relevant to the incident. For instance, we don't describe the race, age, marital status, sexual preferences, etc., of the attorney, Gordimer's husband, or other people mentioned in the Gordimer biography.
Since this version incorporates the same text from older versions, it incorporates the same problems. Doldrums' compromise version of 3/26 (diff) or mine of yesterday (diff) include the event, foreground Gordimer's response, and leave out disputed and unnecessary detail. Andyparkerson's version of 3/3 (diff) is a bare-bones factual version that would also be an okay compromise. --lquilter 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing new here that hasn't been discussed before.  You will accept nothing short of censoring the verified fact that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer.  See below for more on this subject.  Yakuman (数え役満) 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The points have all been raised before (by other editors as well as me) but nobody has yet raised any point other than (a) one editorial comment (cited) that it is "ironic"; and (b) that Johannesburg has a black-on-white crime problem. The "ironic" point is self-evidently a POV.  User 70.23.* characterized this incident as part of a black-on-white crime wave, but there's no citation or discussion anywhere to support that assessment, so it constitutes uncited opinion at best. --lquilter 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: “In the sort of black-on-white crime that has become a daily occurrence in South Africa,Ilana Mercer,   + "The genocide in democratic South Africa", <I>World Net Daily</I>, January 19, 2007.] Gordimer was robbed on 26 October 2006 by three black men in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, and was assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring….”</I>
which you not only immediately deleted, but at the time you deleted all reference to the incident. And since you violated WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA in your very first statement to me, when you called me a racist before I had said word one to you, and you just lied, in seeking to cover your tracks, you are guilty of a classic case of WP:VAN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadine_Gordimer&diff=prev&oldid=111073910
By the way, in the matter of shifting grounds, when the attack had just occurred, Lquilter said it was too new. Now he says it’s too old. He means to censor the truth ...
by any means necessary.
In struggle,
70.23.199.239 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: problems with Yakuman's 4/4 version

message: Okay, Yakuman and I have been having a few side conversations, and I credit us both for attempting to ease tensions. I'm posting a synthesis of my thoughts & understandings and hope we (all of us, but Yakuman and me particularly) can both agree to these groundrules:
* Avoid inflammatory rhetoric and accusations of sockpuppetry, censorship, conspiracies, accusations of personal attacks, actual personal attacks, characterizing one another's motives or intents, and so on.  Address only substantive points. 
* I believe we would all agree that the true bone of contention is the issue of the assailants' race. I am posting below two versions that are fairly short and eliminate all points of disagreement except for the assailants' race. I propose that we then post the +race version, with the NPOV tag, and let it sit for a month while we discuss on talk page, and/or take it to mediation (or whatever the appropriate procedure is).
*# In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home. She was not seriously injured.
*# In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home by four black men. She was not seriously injured.
* Other work on the article and in wikipedia should proceed separately, and we should strive to not let this dispute spill over onto 3rd party talk pages, AIV pages, and so on. 
* If you agree, please sign below. --lquilter 04:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted the +race version, only to have it reverted by Yakuman. At this point I'd be willing to accept anything that doesn't mention the "grim irony" of the situation. I've tried to remove just that sentence, but again have had it reverted by Yakuman. There seems to be little dialogue here, other than a few people trying to find a solution, and others maintaining that anything other than the version Yakuman keeps reverting to is censorship. We may be at an impasse. I don't know where to go from here. Andyparkerson 14:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome to my world since November. Anyway, I think mediation is in order, because none of the proponents of inclusion of this incident or of the assailants' ethnicity have engaged in dialog on this matter. When asked for justification they have largely refused to give any other than claiming censorship. When they have offered partial justifications (this was serious to Gordimer; this is ironic; this is part of a pattern of black-on-white violence in South Africa) they have not responded to refutations or critiques of the arguments.  I want to take this to mediation, because I took it to an RFC in Nov/Dec, and although everyone (at that time) agreed that the content was non-notable, 70.23* refused to respect the opinions of the majority of the editors. I was advised that the majority of editors could just keep reverting 70.23* since he was in the minority, but that has led to nothing but ongoing edit warring, and since then Yakuman has taken up the 70.23*'s flag on this page (and generally).  Andyparkerson, if you want to look up mediation procedures and draft it, I'll contribute to it. --Lquilter 15:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: seeking rapprochement

message: In Wikipedia, anybody can edit. Anybody! But the downside of everybody being able to edit is that they often do.
While Wikipedia makes a big deal about everybody getting to edit, in fact there's a number of things they don't like to see edited, and which are undone (deleted, reverted) as soon as they're recognized. This includes:
* Vandalism (saying things people don't like)
* Libel (saying things people don't like)
* Hate speech (saying things people don't like)
* Disruption (Pointing out that you keep getting deleted for "vandalism", "libel", and "hate speech") 
Naturally, this leads to conflict: anger, flamewars, quoting of the wikipedia laws of the second, acronyms flying like panties in a dryer. And in this melee, it's kind of a toss-up who will actually "win". With enough effort, the people who added new information might be stopped from doing so, or the people who wanted to get rid of all that nasty new information will be thwarted and Wikipedia will incrementally improve. You could hold wagers on it, with the occasional surprise in each direction making it interesting. "I got 4:1 odds that they're going to be able to leave the paragraph in! Place yer bets! Place yer bets!"
But this fun and enjoyable back and forth obscures a more dark side: people end up having enormous amounts of their time wasted. They make an effort to improve the Wikipedia, add paragraphs of information, do actual research, and then some yamnut comes along and declares it null and void because of their unique interpretation of the ever-shifting "law." Yakuman (数え役満) 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the inordinate waste of time. My efforts to research and write about her works to make this more than a stub article have been significantly hindered by the edit warring that 70.32* and more recently Yakuman have done over this one paragraph about a 6-month old assault that has merited, in all the writings of all the world that I have seen cited or found myself, only a few very short AP-style news articles in the biggest newspapers, and one editorial.   --lquilter 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sidebar:Everybody is Welcome! Except You!

message: The Andyparkerson edit  showing on the page as I write this is fine by me.  Principle is that we should try to give the readers a decent amount of material and let them make their own decisions. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I make many edits of this, trying to find some permutation that will be acceptable. Please don't take any one of my edits to be how I think this article should read; it is merely an attempt to arrive at some state of rest. As for giving readers a decent amount of material, my main problem with the article as it stands now is the "grim irony" quote. It is clearly R.W.Johnson's opinion, and represents his individual point of view. Just because his point of view is published somewhere does not make it germaine to the article. Many people have many differing points of view. Andyparkerson 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article spends plenty of time praising of her and all this "international recognition," which is simply the POV of a committee.  Here we have only one sentence with any negativity; it doesn't even move the scale.  BTW, someone who read my quotation above thought I said you were *puppeting.  I did not make that accusation, nor do I intend to attack AP, and I regret any confusion.  I copied a piece of a commentary, decribing the futility of deletion campaigns. In the original, this is an explanation for why people create *puppets. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV#Undue weight. one non-notable journalist finds the racial aspect "ironic", 3 other journalists don't even find the racial aspect worth mentioning. yet, u insist that that one person's view shld be given roughly the same weight, in number of words, as her Nobel citation gets in the article. Doldrums 10:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  In response to Yakuman above: If you think this is a hagiography, feel free to write and cite critiques of Gordimer's works or her political activism; it should be no problem to do so. Regardless, I fail to see what relevance discussion of Gordimer has to discussions of a 6-month old minor assault and attributes of her assailants. --lquilter 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current edit

message: I have retracted my initial refusal of mediation to allow 70.* a chance to vote on this matter.  Since he has been the flag-bearer on this issue, if he votes "Agree," I intend to go along with him.  That's only fair.  Yakuman (数え役満) 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can sign on at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer. --lquilter 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Retraction

message: The issue of BLP and notability is quite simple. In a biographical entry, notability means notability in relation to the subject of the entry. If that notability cannot be established, the rule, as stated in WP:BLP, is quite clear: "Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out." The example given in BLP policy is that of a messy divorce: if notability cannot be established, leave it out. Notability does not mean that it was mentioned in a newspaper article. It means a lot more than that. The race of those who attacked the subject of this entry is clearly and definitely not notable in relation to the subject of the entry. It should not be included unless several reliable and legitimate secondary sources not only mention it, but argue for the notability of this fact. As it stands, the way this event is described is utterly unencyclopaedic. Do not confuse WP:BLP and censorship. FNMF 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no issue that it is sourced.  A group of editors decided that mentioning that black perps robbed Nadine Gordimer is a "racist" edit.   They've been disrupting Wikipedia for months about this, even trying to get their opponents banned.  Waving a bloody shirt about an editor's "racism" is beyond the pale in contemporary English-speaking society. It also violates the spirit of good editing practices on Wikipedia.  Yakuman (数え役満) 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologise if my capital letters offended your tender sensibilities, but in a situation where flagrant BLP violations have been ongoing for months due to the committed efforts of some editors, clarity is called for. I repeat again: notability must be established in relation to the subject of the entry. This does not mean notability in relation to the political or sociological situation in South Africa. It means notability in relation to Gordimer. And establishing notability means providing several legitimate and reliable secondary sources arguing for and establishing this notability in relation to Gordimer. This has not been done. You are entitled to believe that the race of Gordimer's attackers is notable in relation to Gordimer's life: what you should do, then, is write an article explaining this and have it published in a legitimate and reliable secondary source. Then other editors at Wikipedia can read your article and consider it as a reference. Failing that, if you do not have legitimate and reliable secondary sources establishing that the race of the attackers is notable, then repeatedly inserting this information is a refusal to follow the BLP policy which insists on editing biographical entries sensitively. It furthermore shows clear evidence of POV-pushing. Anybody who may be POV-pushing on a BLP entry should immediately recuse themselves from editing that entry. To ignore this comment is to extend oneself an invitation to consequences. FNMF 05:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yakuman, you clearly do not understand that notability must be established FOR THE SUBJECT OF THE ENTRY. NO sources have been provided establishing that notability. Notability does not mean in relation to anything external to the subject of the entry, such as South African society, but rather explicitly means in relation to the subject of the entry. Without legitimate secondary sources establishing that, you are POV-pushing. Furthermore, the sensitivity and conservatism requirements of WP:BLP make clear that material must not be included unless it is clear that notability has been established. Your refusal to conform to policy even where it has been explicitly pointed out is now clear. FNMF 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not declaring that the race of the attackers is not notable. I am declaring that you have provided no legitimate and reliable secondary sources arguing and establishing that the race of the attackers is notable in relation to Gordimer herself. Not one word you have written addresses this crucial point, which I have made several times. No matter how many times you declare that it is not wrong to mention a fact, that does not mean you have established sufficient grounds for mentioning that fact in an entry about a living person. You have not done so. You are clearly POV-pushing, and you should cease editing this entry altogether. FNMF 06:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether you are a member of any organisation has nothing to do with whether you are POV-pushing. Writing "Gordimer writes about the sufferings of blacks; in this case they were the perpetrators" carries an inference that the race of her attackers is relevant to her writing. That inference is the only sentence which does anything to establish notability in relation to Gordimer. But that inference is not supported by legitimate secondary sources. It is supported only by a passing remark in an article about the attack. Given the lack of sources, the sentence you wrote constitutes original research. And given that that sentence was the only sentence which (even implicitly) attempted to establish notability in relation to Gordimer, therefore notability of the race of the attackers has certainly not been established. And given that you nevertheless make the inference, you are pushing a point of view, regardless of how neutral you imagine yourself to be. I have said nothing about racism, and don't intend to. The "real issue here" is violation of policy. FNMF 06:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not disputing whether race is relevant to Gordimer's writing; I am disputing whether any sources establish the notability of the race of her attackers for her writing. It may be "obvious" to you, but that does not mean it is supported by sources. You have provided no evidence for such support, other than a passing remark in an article about the attack. If you believe it is obvious, you need to go and write an article explaining the connection, have it published in a reliable source, and hope that editors will refer to your article when editing Wikipedia. You should not be making the argument in this encyclopaedia. The fact you consider the notability obvious, despite being unable to provide sufficient sources, is further evidence of your POV-pushing. FNMF 06:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I note for the record that Yakuman has not even attempted to address the central issue: that notability for a BLP entry means providing several legitimate and reliable sources establishing the notability of the fact for the subject of the entry. Until and unless this central issue is addressed, the race of the attackers must be considered a non-notable fact, and as such it must be deleted from the entry without requiring further discussion. Editors must be prepared to address WP:BLP concerns; to be unwilling to do so reflects very poorly on the editor's contribution. FNMF 07:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have explained this more times than is necessary. But let me explain it one more time. WP:BLP states explicitly that entries about living persons must be edited with sensitivity and conservatively, and that entries should not be "controversial in tone." Sensitivity, conservatism, and avoidance of controversy have been clearly neglected at this entry. WP:BLP is not intended to ensure that only notable individuals receive entries; it is intended to ensure that BLP entries only contain attributable and notable information about the subject of the entry. Notable means notable in relation to the entry. Thus WP:BLP also explicitly demands strict adherence to WP:ATT, which includes strict adherence to WP:NOR. NOR demands that material not be included that advances an interpretation of facts (see here, where NOR forbids introducing an "analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article"). Asserting a connection between the race of Gordimer's attackers and her writing is an interpretation, and therefore cannot be stated in the entry without sufficient sources. In the case we are dealing with here, there is another important reason that the notability of the fact in question must be established, in order to warrant inclusion in the entry. The reason this notability must be established is because reporting the fact in the entry is considered by numerous editors to be controversial and insensitive. This is sufficient reason to demand evidence of notability. Thus the question is how to establish the notability of the fact, and the question is not whether the fact is verifiable. Establishing the notability of the fact means providing substantial evidence for that notability (and I say again, notability in relation to the topic of the article, that is, in relation to Gordimer herself). Where a fact is not considered of great relevance to a person's life by any secondary sources, an encyclopaedia is not the place to assert that relevance. One passing reference in a newspaper article about the attack does not establish this notability sufficiently to warrant inclusion in the entry. If you have other evidence establishing this notabililty in legitimate secondary sources, please provide it on the talk page for evaluation by editors, so that it can be sensitively and conservatively included in the article, if there is consensus to do so. Until that time, there are no grounds for inclusion of this fact, however verifiable. I hope this clarifies the policy situation once and for all. FNMF 08:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP and notability 

message: This article has been protected from editing for one week.  Recommend an article content WP:RFC to bring in fresh opinions. DurovaCharge! 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did an article content WP:RFC back in December when this first happened, and all of the editors who came in felt the race of the assailants was not notable. See RFC diff and Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 (RFC comments are unfortunately scattered throughout because contents weren't refactored yet. Sprotch, Doldrums, Taxico, and Skaptur came in on the RFC and all thought it was not notable. Nobody who came in on the RFC thought it was notable.)  --lquilter 13:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to establish a broader consensus it might be worth running that request again.  It only takes a few moments to open the RFC. DurovaCharge! 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I'll try to get to that today or tomorrow. --lquilter 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Done. (diff) --lquilter 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: saving my version here, because of protection. Doldrums 08:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On October 26, 2006, Gordimer was attacked and robbed in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, but was not seriously wounded. The high profile robbery drew attention to the contentious debate over violent crime in South Africa.  Gordimer said the men responsible were a product of a society grappling with the legacy of South Africa's past and suggested that providing education, training and employment was the way to reduce crime, not recruiting more police.
* Doldrums, did Gordimer use the term gang? I didn't see that in the article. Maybe "Gordimer said the robbery was the result of a society..." ?--lquilter 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: u're right, she referred to "the robbers". Doldrums 06:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doldrums

message: *The Roberts Bio section is missing the last sentence:
:Roberts, a controversial black author, had criticized her as a hypocritical white liberal with a paternalistic attitude toward blacks. 
*Here's the unexpurgated crime story:
:On October 26, 2006, the 83-year-old Gordimer was robbed in her home in Parktown, near the crime-ridden urban center of Johannesburg, then assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring.     Gordimer later said four black men attacked her, taking the ring, plus cash and car keys.       Neither she nor her 66-year-old domestic worker was seriously injured, after being locked in a storeroom for 30 minutes before their rescue by private security.   This sort of black-on-white crime has become a daily occurrence in South Africa.,Ilana Mercer,   + "The genocide in democratic South Africa", <I>World Net Daily</I>, January 19, 2007.], 
:While Gordimer’s books focus on blacks as victims under apartheid, in this situation they were the perpetrators. She said the gang responsible was the product of a society grappling with the legacy of South Africa's past.   Gordimer suggested that providing education, training and employment was the way to reduce crime, not recruiting more police.  The daytime robbery  was one of a series of attacks on prominent South Africans, both black and white, that intensified that country’s political debate about crime.  
(Enjoy your vacation!) Yakuman (数え役満) 08:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is important to stick to policy here. Whether Johannesberg is experiencing a crime wave is not a notable fact in relation to the subject of this entry, therefore it should not be included. If people are interested in Johannesberg, that is the entry they should go to for such information. By opening the door to some facts not notable in relation to the subject of the entry, it becomes very difficult to argue against the inclusion of particular non-notable facts. Only by adhering to policy consistently can policy in fact be maintained. If compromise means a compromise with policy, it will not produce desirable outcomes, even if it seems at first glance to lessen conflict. The state of Johannesberg society is no more notable than the race of the attackers, and therefore should be excluded unless and until sufficient evidence of that notability can be provided and agreed upon by a consensus of editors. A change of tack is required here, if months of further fruitless conflict is to be avoided. It can be avoided, but only by relentlessly sticking to policy. FNMF 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hear what you're saying, and don't disagree. This does reflect my original stance: That the incident was incredibly minor, receiving only a few scanty mentions in news articles; that the race was completely not shown to be notable; and that the "irony" comment was simply an editorial POV. However, under constant edit-warring from 70.23* and more recently Yakuman, my compromise position (largely following Andyparkerson's suggested compromise) has been generally that it's okay to mention the incident. I will note that with all the "details" that people keep trying to add in, the incident really begins to assume undue weight, even without the unnecessary details about the assailants' ethnicity. --lquilter 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: the cheetah is the fastest land animal. This is a fact, but you wouldn't mention it the Gordimer article. Why not? Because it is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Whether something is a fact or not is not what determines whether it should be included in an entry or not. Notability in relation to the subject is what determines that. And for BLP entries, where controversy is involved, it is very important not to include facts unless there is sufficient supporting sources establishing the notability of the fact for the subject of the entry. Even facts that seem non-controversial, such as discussion of the crime situation in Johannesberg. It is because editors do not pay sufficient attention to this aspect of BLP policy that they wind up arguing about the wrong things with disruptive editors for months on end. I strongly urge adhering to this principle in order to resolve this problem. This will prove more effective than any mediation process, so long as editors enforce the policy. FNMF 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Material

message: Yakuman added a viewpoints template tag, citing "Systemic bias; too admiring; little critical disscussion; what exists has been edit warred for months; see talk" in his edit summary, but didn't actually tell anybody what his issues were here on the talk page. So I'm trying to lay out the issues he alluded to so they can be addressed. --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "viewpoints" tag

message: * could he please elaborate, since I'm not sure what he's getting at. --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "systemic bias"

message: Actually, there's very little content in there about her glowing prose, her fabulous activism, etc.; it's a pretty dry narrative. so i'm not sure what this means.  --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "too admiring"

message: * Again, IMO there's little positive discussion, either; just the facts.  --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "little critical disscussion" (sic)

message: * The only thing that has been edit warred has been the info about the assault, which is hardly "critical discussion", so that makes this statement wrong and/or confusing  --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "what exists has been edit warred for months"

message: Per Durova's suggestion above, I am posting a request for comments (RFC) on RFC Bios page.  (diff) This is what I'm posting, which is a modified version of the one I posted on Dec. 2, 2006. 
: The Nadine Gordimer article has been the subject of an edit/revert war regarding one paragraph of text. The controversial text is a reference to an Oct., 2006, robbery of Gordimer's home, which includes the race of the perpetrators and a quote stating that it is "ironic" that Gordimer was attacked by 3 black men, given Gordimer's anti-apartheid position. Third-party comments greatly appreciated at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#RFC (April, 2007) on robbery. 
For RFC editors, the shortest available summary is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Nadine_Gordimer which just asks the questions without citing any policies. A quick scan over the contents of any of the archives or the current talk page will give you the basic arguments, which have been repeate ad nauseum for 5 months. --lquilter 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC (April, 2007) on robbery