Talk:Nadine Gordimer: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:33, 9 April 2007 editDianaW (talk \| contribs)793 edits →No wikilawyering please, I'm English.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:04, 4 October 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk \| contribs)Bots6,575,135 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2024-10-03. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger
(212 intermediate revisions by 53 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|living=no\|listas=Gordimer, Nadine\|1=
	{{RFMF\|Nadine Gordimer\|01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)}}
	{{~~WPBiography~~\|~~living~~=yes\|~~class=Start\|importance~~=\|a&e-work-group=yes}}		{{WikiProject Biography\|politician-work-group=yes\|politician-priority=Mid\|a&e-work-group=yes\|a&e-priority=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Africa\|importance=mid\|South Africa=yes\|South Africa-importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Women writers \|importance= top}}
			{{WikiProject Lithuania\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Women's History\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Jewish Women \|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{oldpeerreview\|archive=1}}

			{{OnThisDay\|date1=2018-10-03\|oldid1=862316199\|date2=2020-10-03\|oldid2=981381911\|date3=2021-10-03\|oldid3=1047619395\|date4=2023-10-03\|oldid4=1178416768\|date5=2024-10-03\|oldid5=1248834692}}

	{{archivebox\|		{{archivebox\|
Line 6:		Line 15:
	* ] - assault discussion part 1 (2006/11/18 - 2007/3/5)		* ] - assault discussion part 1 (2006/11/18 - 2007/3/5)
	* ] - assault discussion part 2 (2007/3/5 - 2007/3/22)		* ] - assault discussion part 2 (2007/3/5 - 2007/3/22)
	* ] - ~~other~~ 2007 ~~archives~~		* ] - assault discussion part 3 (2007/3/22 - 2007/4/12 )
			* ] - assault discussion part 4 (2007/5/10 - 2007/5/22 )
			* ] - other 2007 archives
	}}		}}



	== praise ==

	It might be interesting to add that she is friends with Nelson Mandela and that Seamus Heaney has called her one of "the guerrillas of the imagination" . The trouble is, I am a bit unsure about where to insert that info in the article. ] 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	: Nelson Mandela should go into a moreo detailed bibliographic section that talks about her personal history, relationships, career, etc. Seamus Heaney quote I would put in a a discussion of her literary works. ... I want to work on these pieces too, and not just this silliness with anon editor; substantive edits take more time & I'll have more time in the next couple of months. --] 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	:: I started pulling out some subheadings. The middle heading ("Recognition and continued political engagement") might be a good place for both of the quotes you mention. --] 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	== debut short story in biobox ==		== debut short story in biobox ==
Line 25:		Line 26:
	: I've also seen "Come Again Tomorrow", published in ''Forum'' when she was 14, cited as her first work. ... Really need to go get some definitive critical biography for this. --] 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)		: I've also seen "Come Again Tomorrow", published in ''Forum'' when she was 14, cited as her first work. ... Really need to go get some definitive critical biography for this. --] 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			It appears that there is alot of confusion in regards to Nadine Gordimer's 'debut literature item'. "Come Again Tomorrow is the most likely one, though i'm no expert on the subject! I think, though, that the media should be ashamed of themselves; they still haven't published a proper article (newspaper) on Nadine Gordimer's achievements, even though she won a Nobel Prize for our country! Perhaps the newspapers should consider interviewing her, and asking her opinion? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Afrikaner? ==

	Why is she listed as an Afrikaner? ] 16:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)ahassan05


	==attack on Nadine Gordimer & attackers' race (cont'd)==

	]
	]


	===Ongoing edits===
	Doldrums introduced a new version (3/26) to try to resolve the NPOV dispute (); the new version foregrounds Gordimer's response and doesn't mention the assailants' racial identity. User 70.23* reverted the new version to an old one without discussion, describing the new edits as "censorship" (, , (three reverts in 25 hours on March 29/30, of both 130.* and Doldrums edits)); and Doldrums put it back asking for discussion (). Yakuman added back in the disputed material, foregrounding the attack in the discussion, and removed the NPOV-section tag (). Lquilter replaced the NPOV dispute tag (). --] 12:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	Yakuman removed the NPOV tag without discussion (); I replaced it again, because the disputed material about the assailants' race renders the section non-neutral. ()). Yakuman, simply combining two disputed pieces of content does not create "consensus"; consensus is arrived at through discussion and actual agreement among the disputing parties that a version is acceptable to all. This version is not acceptable to all parties. Specifically, it's not acceptable to me. Although I think it has yet to be demonstrated that the incident has any notability whatsoever, I am willing to compromise on mentioning the incident itself. But I am unpersuaded by any arguments thus ventured that the race of her assailants is notable. (The arguments thus far are that (a) it is ironic because she is an anti-apartheid activist; and (b) it is part of a Black-on-White crime wave.) So, NPOV-section tag is still needed. --] 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	: Stop this campaign to revive a dead dispute. ] 14:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:: Copied from ], where Yakuman responded on the substance of the issue: ''Race is something you are born with. That's as neutral as it gets. In other words, it is a plain fact. Are people to believe that the woman was robbed by Hispanics? Asians? Swedes? You have no case to keep that tag alive. ] 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)'' () Actually, ] is a rather fraught concept to begin with. However, that aside, the point as has been made repeatedly is that we do not mention the "race" of each and every person in each and every incident throughout wikipedia. Rather, we do so when it is relevant. Here, I contend that nobody has shown that the race of the assailants or Nadine Gordimer is in any way relevant to this incident-- there's no evidence that it caused the event or that there has been any fallout from the incident regarding race. Clearly, the assailants' race is relevant to some people's ''opinion'' of race relations in South Africa, or how Nadine Gordimer "ought" to have responded. But no objective, real-world showing of relevance has yet been made, other than these opinions that it ''ought'' to be considered. So since the assailants' race has no independent relevance (other than some people's opinions that it matters), including it unnecessarily is ]. Rather than edit-war with those who insist on including this non-notable and non-neutral information, I am including the NPOV-section tag. --] 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	You made this case before. The dispute remains dead. ] 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	: Can you explain why you think so? --] 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:: Further explanation is not only unnecessary, it allows to carry on your edit war. ]. ] 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	::: "Further" explanation? You have yet to explain why you think your compromise version addresses the dispute. --] 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:::: That I can't explain in a way that suits your ideology is true. There's nothing I can do. ] 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::: Actually, my "ideology" isn't at issue here, because this isn't about the ''substance'' of the dispute; this is about the NPOV tag and is a question of logic: When a dispute is about ''including'' or ''not including'' content, how is including the content a "compromise"? --] 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:have reverted the Yakuman's version 'coz -
	:#the "high-security" stuff is flatly contradicted by the source.
	:#no reason to think that "she was locked up in the storeroom" is notable enough to be in her biography.
	:#still no reasons advanced why the race of the attackers is notable enough to be mentioned. lquilter and others have pointed out that details such as race of an attacker are not mentioned in an encyclopedic biography unless there is a compelling reason to do so. editors who have suggested that the race ''is'' significant would be better served by showing that it is so, for instance, by providing a source where Gordimer, or some other notable person/organisation says so. ] 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: You're repeating the same arguments; this is just filibustering and is unhelpful. ] 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::i'm pointing out that a statement in the article is contradicted by the source provided. u think that constitutes "filibustering and is unhelpful"? ] 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	===Unnecessary NPOV tag===
	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. ] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	: 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 ]. --] 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	You are on an ideological crusade and refuse to accept that you are not allowed to censor facts you dislike. In the interest of good faith and fair dealing, I drafted a compromise edit. I was ] and created a version that include facts from both sides. You are now making the attack, regardless of how you interpret the past. Stop this campaign to revive a dead dispute. Do not include me in a disruptive war of words. ] 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	: ], 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 ] 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 () included the incident, and foregrounded Gordimer's take on it. Your version () 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. --] 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:: 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 Misplaced Pages to make a ]. ] 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	::: Replacing warnings that are being discussed on this page is not really a ] 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 ], since if this is a type of 3RR it would be useful for both of us to know that.--] 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::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. ] 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: 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. --] 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::::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. ] 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::::: Obviously. --] 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			== Removed Faux "Banned by the Apartheid Gov't" assertion ==
	::: 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.) --] 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			I noticed with astonishment the claim that...
	===Another version===
	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 () 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. --] 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	: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. ] 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: 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. --] 19:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) ... (I took a stab at both - please feel free to edit back. I realize that it's basically back to your version, which I am okay with.) --] 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::thanks for the quick response (and for expanding the rest of article). the section looks fine by me. ] 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			"July's People was also banned under apartheid, and faced censorship under the post-apartheid government as well: In 2001, a provincial education department temporarily removed July's People from the school reading list, describing it as patronizing and offensive."
	I'm still in the conversation, but I can only repeat that you are trying to restate issues that were brought up before and ended with no consensus, thus my edit is the only viable option that shows any respect to both sides. As I see one side will not be satistied until the account of the attack is redacted or censored, I must insist that you stop reopening an old wound. We are at an impasse here, as you can't create a consenus that "black" cannot be used. You just can't. It is a relevant true, cited fact. So my option is the only viable option. I should point out that 3RR has been stomped on here. As I would rather not see tempers frayed any further, I won't make a further issue of it in this instance. I'm sorry this makes you unhappy, but there's no better option. ] 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	: (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 ] 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. --] 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

			I lived in South Africa from 1981 to 1993 during the end of the apartheid government there. I read "July's People" having bought a copy at a CNA (Central News Agency), a chain of shops in South Africa selling magazines, newspapers and books, in Pretoria shortly after it was published in 1982. I don't know how it could have been banned when you could buy it at the CNA.
	Enough, already! How about we don't change the section for a month, and then revisit it then? We can also agree not to argue about it for a month. No edit-warring. No constant 3RR threats. Let's just leave it alone for 30 days. I think that's reasonable. ] 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	: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. ] 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			I also noticed...
	: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. ... ] 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			"In 2001, a provincial education department temporarily removed July's People from the school reading list, describing it as patronizing and offensive."
	: 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. ] 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Please avoid personal attacks. I did not "cobble" something together. I drafted a good-faith compromise. ] 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			which is a sentiment that I totally agreed with.
	:: 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. --] 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			One thing that wants remembering is that all sorts of books in South Africa were "banned" for a period of a few days to a few months and subsequently achieved wide sales to the public in South Africa. The implication in biographical faux-historical screeds like this one is that the banning was permanent till the ANC took over and sometimes not even then. Nothing could be further from the truth on the ground. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::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 ] agenda. I must ask you to stop wasting my time with this. ] 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			You will find many purportedly anti-apartheid writers like Gordimer and Hope among many others who claim that this or that one of their books or short story collections were "banned under apartheid". More often than not these were marketing ploys by their publishers to drum up sales, not serious attempts at censorship on the part of the apartheid gov't of that era. Christopher Hope makes a similar claim for his 1981 book, "A Separate Development".
	::::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. --] 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not asking "editors." I'm asking you. Please stop the flame wars. ] 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth50
	===problems with Yakuman's 4/4 version===
	Here are some of the significant problems with that User:Yakuman inserted on 4/4 several times (, , , ):
	* ''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 () or mine of yesterday () include the event, foreground Gordimer's response, and leave out disputed and unnecessary detail. Andyparkerson's version of 3/3 () is a bare-bones factual version that would also be an okay compromise. --] 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			I bought that one at the CNA in Pretoria, too, a few years after it was published. Hope had it over Gordimer at that time of being able to write a narrative that didn't ooze self-righteous pretentiousness, a fault that Gordimer has never seemed to have been able to overcome. ] 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
	: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. ] 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: 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. --] 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

			: Interesting. The book is widely cited as "banned", so I'm reinstating the sentence (which also states that it was censored post-apartheid), along with references. If you can dig up more specifics about how long it was banned, that would be great, or if you could find a published source stating that it was available for sale during those times, that would also be great. Alas, personal anecdotes about finding the book available for sale don't really qualify. (Moreover, I would note that an item might be officially "banned" or "censored" and still be widely available. "Banning", as you note, can refer to a lot of things, and doesn't necessarily indicate how long, what level of enforcement, etc.) At any rate, I've now rewritten to clarify that only two of her works were banned for lengthy periods of time; and I plugged in several cites. --] 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
	===protection request===
	FYI: After reinserting her version of the paragraph containing disputed material, replacing a more neutral paragraph, (), Yakuman , with a somewhat accurate albeit highly selective rendition of the facts. (It's good form to let folks know that sort of thing, I think.) Since the onus is really on people seeking to ''include'' information to substantiate notability etc., maybe the best "compromise" on how to write this paragraph is to delete it altogether. --] 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			: Good! I'll see if I can find something about how long her stuff was banned.
	:I think the way it is now, where it lists what happened and her reaction to it, are fine. It does seem to be less and less notable as time goes by. I would be happy with something along the lines of "In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home. She was not seriously injured." Of course, I would be equally happy if there were no mention of the robbery at all. I'm sure it peeved her at the time, but she's probably over it by now.

			: "Alas, personal anecdotes about finding the book available for sale don't really qualify." The personal anecdote was mentioned here in discussion, not on the article page as a challenge to an unsupported assertion that the works mentioned were actually banned.
	:I wish there were a way to protect one section. But I don't think protection is the way to go here. We just need to come up with something that works for both sides. It seems that removal of all mention of the robbery is not acceptable. It also seems that the "grim irony" version is equally unacceptable. How about every editor with a view on this (all 5 of us) come up with a version that he could possibly believe would be acceptable. Then we can compare, and come up with some solution. ] 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

			: "or if you could find a published source stating that it was available for sale during those times, that would also be great." Most things are "available for sale" barring going out of print. I'll see what I can do, though. ] 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
	:: Okay, all of these are acceptable to me: (1) don't mention it at all; (2) Michaelbarreto version of 10/29/2006 ; (3) Doldrums' compromise version of 3/26 (); (4) my compromise of 4/3 (); (5) Andyparkerson's version of 3/3 (); (6) Andyparkerson's suggestion above (4/5) (). --] 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
			* I haven't seen any progress on this since I added a bunch of explanatory information providing further details and cites about levels of censorship, official ending, and so on. Assume this issue is resolved? --] 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

			== restructure "work and themes" section? ==
	:::You're ''still'' trying to censor the verifiable fact that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. This business of calling every redaction a "compromise" edit simply mocks and insults my previous attempt to end this mess. You're even trying to censor that she's a leftist. See below. ] 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

			The work-by-work material in there now is clunky and amateurish,* and (a) I believe it would be more graceful and useful as a review of Gordimer as a writer if there were a section primarily looking at persistent themes in Gordimer's work, and tracing when they started arising and how they were handled over her works. (b) I'm ambivalent about the work-by-work section. I realize that some readers want to get information on each individual work, and it is a useful place to chart other chronological issues, such as awards, censorship/availability, relationship to Gordimer's biography, etc. But work-by-work alone is not adequate for a literary biography. Thoughts?
	===Andyparkerson's Proposed Version===
	In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home. She was not seriously injured.<ref>{{cite news \| title = Gordimer's sorrow for men who robbed her \| url = http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1937666,00.html \| date = November 2, 2006 \| publisher = Guardian Unlimited}}</ref>
	: This works for me. --] 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

			<nowiki></nowiki> (Yes I'm the one who mostly put in the material in a work-by-work format but I excuse myself because getting any* useful information in the article was difficult at the time.)
	::This simply deletes substantive details that LQ wants deleted. It says nothing substantive, in short, it attempts to reverse my compromise. It leaves out details of the perps, the location, the other victimt, etc. Adding material is preferable to censorship. I don't want to rehash a debate that has carried on for months, which is what LQ seems (even in good faith) to want. Maybe if LQ suggested a version of this graf that she would accept that does not censor the verified fact that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer, we might not have an impasse.
			] 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

			* I added a subheading to reflect a break between generic discussion of style and work-by-work discussion. Will flesh that out more over time. --] 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
	::I have produced a fair compromise that contains all details from both sides. LQ rejected it, mocked me for it, and even ''sought to have me blocked for it''. (It's good form to let folks know that sort of thing, I think.) She claimed I added and readded unverified material (with sockpuppets), when the text was my GF union of two versions in toto. Once I discovered the problem, in her complaint against me, I deleted it. She ''knew'' I had simply combined pre-existing grafs, this strikes me as an obvious ] to ensure that Misplaced Pages forgets that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. This defeats my assumption of good faith. ] 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

			==flags==
	::: Well, if the versions I listed aren't acceptable, then I would alternatively be happy to consider versions that include the race if someone could produce citations that support the ''notability'' and ''relevance'' of the assailants' race. (An opinion of "irony" isn't enough.) Most of the news accounts didn't even bother to mention it. (I dispute Yakuman's second paragraph almost in its entirety.) --] 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
			An editor recently put two little country flags in the Gordimer infobox. I'll say it straight out, that I really don't like flags for the most part: I find them visually intrusive, first of all. And I find them simply inappropriate for private citizens, since they imply an affiliation with a government, and at least imply that whatever that flag represents is something important about that person's identity. The visual emphasis of the flag is what creates or strengthens the implication. ... That said, I accept that many editors find them appropriate and not distracting, so I'd rather raise the issue here for discussion. --] 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
			* I removed the old South African flag from Nadine Gordimer's birthplace per ] (merely a proposal) which strongly suggests to not include birthplace flags in infoboxes. In fact it urges against birthplace flags in at least three different places in that proposal, which, although it hasn't been accepted, suggests that birthplace flags are particularly problematic. (I agree.) Discussion? --] 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
			* I left the new South African flag in for now because it is her current citizenship. However, as a private citizen who has no particular affiliation with the SA government, either as representative to the world or as participating in the government, I don't think it's necessary to include the flag. Discussion? --] 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
			:I think the way it is now, with the small South African flag listed beside her nationality, is fine. I certainly don't see it as her endorsing whatever values might be implied by the flag, or any sort of governmental role. I think it is simply a little icon listed beside the country name. It is not unusual to see this in the real world. I think it merely adds a little color to an otherwise drab black and white page. Plus, it's tiny.
			:Of course, I realize that these aren't reasons to leave it in, but merely reasons not to take it out. Those are two seperate issues. But for all the recent peace this page has seen, I agree with you that we should not be too hasty removing the flag. ] 00:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
			:: The feeling on ] is that in infoboxes it's distracting and redundant of information already present (the country). Just FYI. --] 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
			:::I'm not arguing policy, and I'm sure that others have thought more about this than I have. I just think flags are pretty. ] 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
			:: I see your "flags are pretty" with a "flags are ugly but the SA flag isn't as ugly as most". <g> --] 13:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
			:::I'll grant you that flags aren't as pretty as butterflies and daisies, but if we peppered the pages of wikipedia with unicorns and rainbows, we'd have a Hello Kitty version of wikipedia. Hey..... maybe that's not such a bad idea. What better way to end edit wars than with Hello Kitty? ] 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

			== Some Monday For Sure ==
	::::Again, you're rehashing the same old "tell me why I can't censor the black perps" arguments. Again, I tried to settle things and ''you tried to block me for it'', to support your campaign to ensure that Misplaced Pages forgets that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. This defeats my assumption of good faith. ] 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::: I dispute that, but since you keep raising it, ''someone else'' brought up an issue on the AIV about anonymous editors, and I added your contributions & timing to the edit history. I'm not going to keep responding to these charges. Let's stay on the topic of the Nadine Gordimer article. --] 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::::You could have cleared up the confusion; instead you worked to make things worse. First, you tried to censor that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. Then you went after 70; you personally attacked him even today, questioning whether he ever made good faith edits. Now you've tried to have me blocked. Your tactics don't leave anyone room to move. I've been acting in good faith and you're pulling tights. ] 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

			The short story collection "Some Monday for Sure" (published in 1976 and appearing in the Heinemann African Writers series) seems to be missing from the bibliography. Can it be added?
	===seeking rapprochement===
	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.<ref>{{cite news \| title = Gordimer's sorrow for men who robbed her \| url = http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1937666,00.html \| date = November 2, 2006 \| publisher = Guardian Unlimited}}</ref>
	*# In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home by four black men. She was not seriously injured.<ref>{{cite news \| title = Gordimer's sorrow for men who robbed her \| url = http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1937666,00.html \| date = November 2, 2006 \| publisher = Guardian Unlimited}}</ref>
	* 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. --] 04:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
	** ] 04:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (obviously)
	** ] 21:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
	: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. ] 14:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: 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. --] 15:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

			And what (if anything) does it owe by way of inspiration to Virginia Woolf's short story collection "Monday or Tuesday"? The naming cannot be coincidental, I should think.
	===Mediation===
	It is fair to say that the discussion on what to include (if anything) about the robbery of has gone on for several months and has gotten us nowhere. Each side is still arguing its original points, and there seems to be no spirit of cooperation here, or willingness to compromise on key issues. Lquilter has repeatedly mentioned that mediation might be a good idea, and I must agree with her. Mediation is a voluntary process, and its results are non-binding. If both sides do not agree to the mediation, then it will not occur, for its results would then be meaningless. It is, however, the next step toward Arbitration, which is binding. The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is not to force one viewpoint on others. It is very important that all sides agree to this mediation. I am in the process of drafting the Request for Mediation. If you have a problem with mediation, or do not wish to participate, please speak up now at ]. ] 23:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
	:I am posting the above paragraph on the talk pages of the following users:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]

			] (]) 16:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Decline''' mediation as there is nothing to mediate. ] ] 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Yakuman, you can decline here ] -- but I'm amazed that anyone could think there is nothing to mediate. --] 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			== Attacked in home ==
	: With all due respect, I was actually willing to compromise on mentioning the event itself; I was also willing to compromise on mentioning the race of the assailants if some relevance could be shown and cited. On the "ironic", yeah, I agree, I'm not willing to compromise to include the "ironic" comment unbalanced by anything else. If there were ''other'' editorial perspectives then we could have balance ... but virtually nobody outside of wikipedia editors Yakuman and 70.23* (and Teratornis briefly) have ever thought this incident was notable enough to write about it. ... Which to me just raises the question: ''why does this incident even need to be in an encyclopedia entry at all?!?'' --] 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			Where would it be appropriate to include the recent attack and robbery of Gordimer in her home? Her "Biography" section cuts off before the 60s.
	* Note: Although DianaW was a major participant in November and December, her last edit on these pages was Jan. 6, 2007, and her last edit on wikipedia at all was Feb. 7. It would be great if she participated, but her non-participation shouldn't scuttle the current mediation request. The same for Teratornis, who in the middle of March contributed briefly but significantly to the discussion (on the 70.23/Yakuman side) without edit-warring. It would be great to have participation from that editor, but is there an "FYI" that doesn't require their participation to do mediation? The current editors AP, LQ, Yak, Dol, and 70.23; and the consistent editors have been 70.23* and Lquilter. --] 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
	::I didn't realize DianaW hasn't been active in 2 months. I will try to remove her name from the RfM. If I am unable to do that, I will have to resubmit it later. Plus, I don't think it is useful to argue this matter anymore on the talk page, at least when it concerns previous edits. Everyone knows what the other one thinks should and should not be on the page. Any further rehashing of the argument seems like a waste of time. I know the adage is "Take it to Talk," but at some point all the talking has been done. I think we have reached that point, where open discussion will bring us no further. ] 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			Also, advice on whether the more factual article by the Guardian or the more detailed article by the Times that passes this off as symptomatic of South Africa, is the more appropriate reference? -] (]) 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Hi, I've checked in sometimes to see what's going on here but I'm not able to participate at this time. I'll add a comment to that effect at the Mediation page, hopefully so as not to derail your efforts. Good luck - you'll need it. I've survived one other "mediation" and "arbitration" at wikipedia and wasn't left feeling very positively about wikipedia. Basically, anonymous editing (not to mention anonymous "administrating") means the zealots are going to win. Mr. Seventy Twenty Three (whose real identity I think the rest of you know? but the rules protect him, rather than protecting the article from him) can just come back in 6 months under a new name - and if you don't care for that sort of game, you can't compete. But in any case, right now I don't have the hours of time every day this takes. Sorry to sound so negative, I do admire all your efforts on this article, though. I actually have a longer essay of Coetzee's on Gordimer, and have been meaning to get around to adding some quotes from it to this article, but can't promise when.] 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
			* significant discussion about this in the talk archives. please refer there if any questions. the short of it is that while it was newsworthy, it wasn't encyclopedic (i.e., a major feature of her life). --] (]) 13:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

			== the WHAT prize? ==
	:Sorry, now I see my name had already been removed anyway.] 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

			In the infobox on the top right of the page, it is stated that that Nadine Gordimer won "the Penis Prize", 1991. Eh, right. Have replaced it with the Nobel prize, but I though I should notify you that someone apparently thought this was funny. Hope they won't try it again... ] (]) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
	===No wikilawyering please, I'm English.===
	Mediation simply drags out a silly dispute longer. One problem is that Stix was chased off and has no say in any of this, so I get to do twice the work. I also don't see to have the inordinate amount of time to fight over one issue that LQ seems to have.

			== Picture ==
	If you think Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a bastion of sensitivity, see ], where the entire article raises more issues than our disputed paragraph. Good grief, its an African-American female rape ''accuser'' illustrated with a mugshot! If y'all want to dispute, go fight over that one.

			Could we try to get a better picture--one that includes more of her than the interviewer? Thanks, ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	The very fact that there's a dispute is evidence that there's political ramifications to the incident, which deserve coverage. Otherwise, the article is a banal hagiography anyway. We don't really need more wikilawyering over this. Let the readers read what I provided and let them make their own conclusions. ] 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
			* looks like a pretty good picture now. --] (]) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
	:Do you forsee this dispute ending anytime soon? It seems clear that it is going to drag on forever in this state, or until one party or the other quits in disgust. Mediation would be much preferred for both sides than ending the dispute by the quitting of one side. As for the inordinant amount of time it would require, mediation would take less time than the constant editing and reverting this page sees daily. Writing a few paragraphs supporting your position is much less work than making 30 or 40 edits a day, or reverting a section several times a day. If you have a problem with ], please address it at the talk page there. It is not material to this discussion. ] 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			== anti-Afrikaner racism ==
	::I didn't start this dispute. I'm not continuing this dispute. One user, who states she is a lawyer, insists on wasting our time until she can censor content that offends her sensibilities. I want to give people enough information to make their own decisions on a vital matter. There's nothing to mediate. Your comments on the other article are a wee bit off; ] is material to this issue, because it shows that Misplaced Pages is not necessarily a bastion of "sensitivity." ] 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			The article misses out on her Anti-Afrikaner racism i.e. equating Afrikaner women to plants. http://www.oulitnet.co.za/gras/nad.asp --] (]) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
	::: The edit history shows that Yakuman has contributed to this dispute by repeatedly reverting and re-inserting the paragraph in dispute; by removing the NPOV-dispute tag repeatedly. --] 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
			* The citation appears to be an "open letter" to Gordimer, in at least a somewhat satirical vein; we should take the comment from User:41.151.70.149 in a similar vein, I suspect. --] (]) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
			:: I suspect that the quotation given in the later is indeed from Nadine Gordimers book "The Conservationist":

			:: “The child will sink, she will drown if she lets go of her mother, yet her clinging is flirtatious, she tries to make him look at her so that she may at once hide her head against the mother’s thigh. She’s a beautiful child as their children often are — where do they get them from? — and she’ll grow up — what do they do to them? — the same sort of vacant turnip as the mother ... To go into those women must be like using the fleshy succulent plants men in the Foreign Legion have to resort to.”
	Responding to Yakuman, "I want to give people enough information to make their own decisions on a vital matter." That's ridiculous - this is not a "vital matter." The attack was random. What can't you understand about that? There's no evidence she was attacked because she was Nadine Gordimer (it's unlikely the attackers knew she was Nadine Gordimer), and there's no evidence that the attackers cared about their victim's skin color. She was attacked because she had stuff. A fancy house which promises, to the desperate, that there are things inside worth stealing (and which, if I recall the accounts right, was targeted because she didn't have high-tech security like many of her neighbors). If there is an issue, it would probably be poverty. One lousy comment from some hack for one newspaper, calling a sad but completely non-notable attack on an old woman "ironic," and a bunch of racist zealots are determined to hang on for months, if not years, to make sure people reading the wikipedia article on Nadine Gordimer will know that she was once robbed and beaten by black people. Crocodile tears over "censorship." Damn they are lucky the perps were black! And this is "ironic" because she was an anti-apartheid activist. Right-o. She shouldn't have bothered with all that activism stuff I guess -look where it got her. Life is so darn ironic - blacks will attack even whites who have advocated for their rights!! Andy and LQuilter et al., I can tell you this can conceivably go on for years. They will wait you out. This sort of thing, IMO, is what wikipedia is for.] 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
			:: http://books.google.co.za/books?id=9YxWEDt7ca0C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Nadine+Gordimer++%22succulent+plants%22&source=bl&ots=zVVvhOeTIE&sig=P8_pP7IpcbuURLUke8RUvRuS9QI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wAFcUrl-45DUBanVgPgH&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Nadine%20Gordimer%20%20%22succulent%20plants%22&f=false --] (]) 15:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

			== roberts unauthorized bio controversy ==
	===Sidebar:Everybody is Welcome! Except You!===
			{{reply to\|TheRedPenOfDoom}} - Editor Red Pen of Doom flagged the two paragraphs on the Roberts unauthorized biography as "undue" (), then removed the separate subsection for that material () which put it into the previous subsection, on literary reception. I agree a separate subsection is probably too much ("undue"), and further recommend we carefully edit that content down to one paragraph. However, the content doesn't fit well with the "reception" section, which is about critical response to Gordimer's works. Instead, I moved it to the section about Gordimer's activism & professional life, and modified the subsection header to reflect the change. Roberts' allegations center around the content in this section; and the dispute b/w Gordimer & Roberts seems to me to be more related to her professional conduct than about the literary reception of her work. Any other thoughts? --] (]) 12:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
			:seems reasonable approach. -- ] 12:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

			== Bibliography ==
	In Misplaced Pages, anybody can edit. Anybody! But the downside of everybody being able to edit is that they often do.

			I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in ] and ], as much as Misplaced Pages templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. ] (]) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
	While Misplaced Pages 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:

			== External links modified ==
	* 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")

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	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 Misplaced Pages 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!"

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	'''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 Misplaced Pages, 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."''' ] 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204041439/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gordimer.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gordimer.htm
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/nadine-gordimer-s-politics-7933

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	: 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. --] 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=true\|needhelp=}}
	===Current edit===
	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. ] 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
	: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. ] 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
	::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. ] 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::]. ''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. ] 10:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
	::: 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. --] 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			== External links modified (February 2018) ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	===Important Retraction===
	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. ] 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	: You can sign on at ]. --] 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.anisfield-wolf.org/newsarticle.cfm?articleID=586&PTSidebarOptID=126&returnTo=page469.cfm&returntoname=Winners&SiteID=29&pageid=272&sidepageid=469
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930211935/http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/0,9294,2-7_1013033,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/0,9294,2-7_1013033,00.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621172601/http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/humanities/exchange/quodlibet/vol1/downloads/Gordimer.pdf to http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/humanities/exchange/quodlibet/vol1/downloads/Gordimer.pdf
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506155219/http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/pickup.html to http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/pickup.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503042311/http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2001/12/06/gordimer/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2001/12/06/gordimer/index.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927214410/http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=%2Fbreaking_news%2Fbreaking_news__national%2F&articleid=303520 to http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=%2Fbreaking_news%2Fbreaking_news__national%2F&articleid=303520
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194105/http://www.litweb.net/biography/556/Nadine_Gordimer.html to http://www.litweb.net/biography/556/Nadine_Gordimer.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=true\|needhelp=}}
	==Lit crit==
	Okay, I've done a second major overhaul of the article, adding in many more references, and starting to give some short summaries and notes on her major works. There's more to do; I haven't even touched her short stories or her documentary work with her son. But at least there's something there. Still need:
	* much of the early novels
	* most of her 1990s novels
	--] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Finally, some work on this article that's not about the robbery. It looks good. I think there are too many subdivisions, especially at the end. The References, Further Reading, See Also, and External Links seems like a lot. But I'm not sure how to fix it, or really if it needs to be fixed at all. I'll play around with it and see what I can do. I'll probably wind up leaving it like it is. ] 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: I hate external links sections, since they really are almost always "further reading". The References section should be renamed "Notes" and put into short form and also made so that it just lists works once; I'll do the renaming & short form, but will have to research the reference format to get it so that it just links to each unique footnote reference once. (I did a bunch of substantive work on this article in Jan/Feb, too, btw, but sometimes all one has time for is putting out fires.) --] 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	::: Okay, I did some reorg in response to your cmts. Andyparkerson, it would be swell if you could also add more to the lit crit stuff about her novels -- that section has thus far been drafted only by me, and could probably use another perspective, as well as more summaries about the major works. --] 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	::I'd love to help on the lit crit stuff, but I've never actually read any of her works. I only got involved in this page because of the aforementioned firefighting. All I know about Gordimer is what is written here. All I can do is help rewrite, and reorganize, and restructure things here. And please, call me Andy. ] 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
	== activism ==

			== The house gun ==
	doesn't her political engagement need a mention in the lead article and categories? ] 08:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

			Why is there a link on The house gun on this article that links back to this article? If there's no article for The house gun it should not have a link I would have thought? ] (]) 08:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
	Done. ] 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
			:I've removed the link – that's a circular link. Thanks for pointing that out. —]<sup>]</sup> 08:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

			== History politics ==
	==Spring Cleaning==
	I removed a disputed fact claim and restored an important sentence which was lost in the edit wars. I also made some nonsectarian copyedits, oplus I cleared up several redundancies, POV clains, etc. HTH. ] 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Busy day on the page today. Removed references to "regime", since that sounds POV to me. Of course, the statement "Apartheid is bad." is POV, so being objective here is not all that easy. Using neutral language is more important than advancing a viewpoint in this article. We should all remember that. ] 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Fine to leave it out, but please look at ], specifically, ''The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term.'' --] 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::I understand what you're saying, and I agree that it may not necessarily be POV, by definition. However the way it is currently used in popular speech, as opposed to technical speech, makes me feel it seems rather POV. It's a connotation/denotation issue, and maybe it's not that big a deal after all. Stupid language. ] 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Hey, I left "regime" in. <smile> ] 22:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	: The "restored an important sentence which was lost in the edit wars" might be more accurately described as "put back in a disputed sentence that another editor had deliberately removed in the paragraph that people have been edit warring over". --] 15:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

			What was the nature of the resistance to the apartheid in 1950 ] (]) 13:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
	==Now, wait...==
	Joining the Communist Party has nothing to do with Communism? That's just strange. I think we have enought disputed content as it is. I didn't add it. Its cited, non-defamatory and has no direct racial connotation. This isn't one of the Hollywood Ten pleasing the fifth. There is neither secret, nor POV, nor controversy. Just leave it, ok?] 08:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
	:why is his communism notable or relevant enough to be mentioned here? i bet this guy's also right-handed, we don't mention that, do we? the reason i've removed more than one statement u've added to this article is u've not demonstrated why those statements are notable or relevant to this article. do you want me to quote all the bits of various WP policies that tell you how and why notability and relevance determines the content of articles? ] 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

			:Please read ]. —]] 14:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
	::I believe that I probably added "Communist lawyer" to the initial description of Fischer in the novel section. However, while it's not secret, defamatory, etc., it would probably be more accurate in the context of the novel to descrbe him as the "anti-apartheid lawyer", because the novel focuses more closely on that. At any rate his name links to his article where all concerned can find out more about him, including the fact that he died in prison as a result of state repression of the SACP. --] 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::i took a look at his biography and found very little to support the idea that his Communist party <s>membership</s> leadership is particularly notable about him, in this context. the "anti-apartheid lawyer" or similar formulation sounds fine to me. ] 12:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: I thought the guy was sentenced to prison under an anti-communist act, and he died in prison; so I think his communism is a pretty salient fact in his actual biography. However, in light of the politicization of this page over the last few months, I see how mentioning his politics could be touchy. Luckily I think it's not really relevant -- he's a real-life basis for the fictional father of a fictional character in one of Gordimer's works. So I think it works to just describe him as an anti-apartheid activist, since it was those real-life affiliations that were at the heart of the fictionalized character of ''Burger's Daughter''. The communist thing will just confuse readers, because they might think BD deals only with communism, and it's really more about anti-apartheid political activism; so it's better to label him appropriately here. --] 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:04, 4 October 2024

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Africa: South Africa Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	South Africa portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as High-importance).

Women writers Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lithuania Low‑importance

	Lithuania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish Women Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nadine Gordimer received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 3, 2018, October 3, 2020, October 3, 2021, October 3, 2023, and October 3, 2024.

Archives

Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 1 - 2006 archives
Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 - assault discussion part 1 (2006/11/18 - 2007/3/5)
Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 3 - assault discussion part 2 (2007/3/5 - 2007/3/22)
Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 4 - assault discussion part 3 (2007/3/22 - 2007/4/12 )
Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 5 - assault discussion part 4 (2007/5/10 - 2007/5/22 )
Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 6 - other 2007 archives

debut short story in biobox

So the bio info box lists "Face to Face" as her "debut short story"; but the article itself says her first published story was "The Quest for Seen Gold" at age of 15. When was Face to Face published, and by what criteria is it being listed as her debut short story? I'm going to shift the biobox but bringing it up here first in case there's a better explanation for Face to Face. --lquilter 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also seen "Come Again Tomorrow", published in Forum when she was 14, cited as her first work. ... Really need to go get some definitive critical biography for this. --lquilter 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is alot of confusion in regards to Nadine Gordimer's 'debut literature item'. "Come Again Tomorrow is the most likely one, though i'm no expert on the subject! I think, though, that the media should be ashamed of themselves; they still haven't published a proper article (newspaper) on Nadine Gordimer's achievements, even though she won a Nobel Prize for our country! Perhaps the newspapers should consider interviewing her, and asking her opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.95.156 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed Faux "Banned by the Apartheid Gov't" assertion

I noticed with astonishment the claim that...

"July's People was also banned under apartheid, and faced censorship under the post-apartheid government as well: In 2001, a provincial education department temporarily removed July's People from the school reading list, describing it as patronizing and offensive."

I lived in South Africa from 1981 to 1993 during the end of the apartheid government there. I read "July's People" having bought a copy at a CNA (Central News Agency), a chain of shops in South Africa selling magazines, newspapers and books, in Pretoria shortly after it was published in 1982. I don't know how it could have been banned when you could buy it at the CNA.

I also noticed...

"In 2001, a provincial education department temporarily removed July's People from the school reading list, describing it as patronizing and offensive."

which is a sentiment that I totally agreed with.

One thing that wants remembering is that all sorts of books in South Africa were "banned" for a period of a few days to a few months and subsequently achieved wide sales to the public in South Africa. The implication in biographical faux-historical screeds like this one is that the banning was permanent till the ANC took over and sometimes not even then. Nothing could be further from the truth on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaasjaapie (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You will find many purportedly anti-apartheid writers like Gordimer and Hope among many others who claim that this or that one of their books or short story collections were "banned under apartheid". More often than not these were marketing ploys by their publishers to drum up sales, not serious attempts at censorship on the part of the apartheid gov't of that era. Christopher Hope makes a similar claim for his 1981 book, "A Separate Development".

http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth50

I bought that one at the CNA in Pretoria, too, a few years after it was published. Hope had it over Gordimer at that time of being able to write a narrative that didn't ooze self-righteous pretentiousness, a fault that Gordimer has never seemed to have been able to overcome. Plaasjaapie 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The book is widely cited as "banned", so I'm reinstating the sentence (which also states that it was censored post-apartheid), along with references. If you can dig up more specifics about how long it was banned, that would be great, or if you could find a published source stating that it was available for sale during those times, that would also be great. Alas, personal anecdotes about finding the book available for sale don't really qualify. (Moreover, I would note that an item might be officially "banned" or "censored" and still be widely available. "Banning", as you note, can refer to a lot of things, and doesn't necessarily indicate how long, what level of enforcement, etc.) At any rate, I've now rewritten to clarify that only two of her works were banned for lengthy periods of time; and I plugged in several cites. --lquilter 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Good! I'll see if I can find something about how long her stuff was banned.

"Alas, personal anecdotes about finding the book available for sale don't really qualify." The personal anecdote was mentioned here in discussion, not on the article page as a challenge to an unsupported assertion that the works mentioned were actually banned.

"or if you could find a published source stating that it was available for sale during those times, that would also be great." Most things are "available for sale" barring going out of print. I'll see what I can do, though. Plaasjaapie 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any progress on this since I added a bunch of explanatory information providing further details and cites about levels of censorship, official ending, and so on. Assume this issue is resolved? --Lquilter 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

restructure "work and themes" section?

The work-by-work material in there now is clunky and amateurish,* and (a) I believe it would be more graceful and useful as a review of Gordimer as a writer if there were a section primarily looking at persistent themes in Gordimer's work, and tracing when they started arising and how they were handled over her works. (b) I'm ambivalent about the work-by-work section. I realize that some readers want to get information on each individual work, and it is a useful place to chart other chronological issues, such as awards, censorship/availability, relationship to Gordimer's biography, etc. But work-by-work alone is not adequate for a literary biography. Thoughts?

* (Yes I'm the one who mostly put in the material in a work-by-work format but I excuse myself because getting *any* useful information in the article was difficult at the time.) lquilter 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a subheading to reflect a break between generic discussion of style and work-by-work discussion. Will flesh that out more over time. --lquilter 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

flags

An editor recently put two little country flags in the Gordimer infobox. I'll say it straight out, that I really don't like flags for the most part: I find them visually intrusive, first of all. And I find them simply inappropriate for private citizens, since they imply an affiliation with a government, and at least imply that whatever that flag represents is something important about that person's identity. The visual emphasis of the flag is what creates or strengthens the implication. ... That said, I accept that many editors find them appropriate and not distracting, so I'd rather raise the issue here for discussion. --lquilter 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the old South African flag from Nadine Gordimer's birthplace per WP:FLAG (merely a proposal) which strongly suggests to not include birthplace flags in infoboxes. In fact it urges against birthplace flags in at least three different places in that proposal, which, although it hasn't been accepted, suggests that birthplace flags are particularly problematic. (I agree.) Discussion? --lquilter 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I left the new South African flag in for now because it is her current citizenship. However, as a private citizen who has no particular affiliation with the SA government, either as representative to the world or as participating in the government, I don't think it's necessary to include the flag. Discussion? --lquilter 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the way it is now, with the small South African flag listed beside her nationality, is fine. I certainly don't see it as her endorsing whatever values might be implied by the flag, or any sort of governmental role. I think it is simply a little icon listed beside the country name. It is not unusual to see this in the real world. I think it merely adds a little color to an otherwise drab black and white page. Plus, it's tiny.

Of course, I realize that these aren't reasons to leave it in, but merely reasons not to take it out. Those are two seperate issues. But for all the recent peace this page has seen, I agree with you that we should not be too hasty removing the flag. Andyparkerson 00:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The feeling on WP:FLAG is that in infoboxes it's distracting and redundant of information already present (the country). Just FYI. --lquilter 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing policy, and I'm sure that others have thought more about this than I have. I just think flags are pretty. Andyparkerson 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your "flags are pretty" with a "flags are ugly but the SA flag isn't as ugly as most". <g> --lquilter 13:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you that flags aren't as pretty as butterflies and daisies, but if we peppered the pages of wikipedia with unicorns and rainbows, we'd have a Hello Kitty version of wikipedia. Hey..... maybe that's not such a bad idea. What better way to end edit wars than with Hello Kitty? Andyparkerson 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Monday For Sure

The short story collection "Some Monday for Sure" (published in 1976 and appearing in the Heinemann African Writers series) seems to be missing from the bibliography. Can it be added?

And what (if anything) does it owe by way of inspiration to Virginia Woolf's short story collection "Monday or Tuesday"? The naming cannot be coincidental, I should think.

Mangodog (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Attacked in home

Where would it be appropriate to include the recent attack and robbery of Gordimer in her home? Her "Biography" section cuts off before the 60s.

Also, advice on whether the more factual article by the Guardian or the more detailed article by the Times that passes this off as symptomatic of South Africa, is the more appropriate reference? -Kez (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

significant discussion about this in the talk archives. please refer there if any questions. the short of it is that while it was newsworthy, it wasn't encyclopedic (i.e., a major feature of her life). --Lquilter (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

the WHAT prize?

In the infobox on the top right of the page, it is stated that that Nadine Gordimer won "the Penis Prize", 1991. Eh, right. Have replaced it with the Nobel prize, but I though I should notify you that someone apparently thought this was funny. Hope they won't try it again... Jantien (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Could we try to get a better picture--one that includes more of her than the interviewer? Thanks, Sontag12 —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

looks like a pretty good picture now. --Lquilter (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

anti-Afrikaner racism

The article misses out on her Anti-Afrikaner racism i.e. equating Afrikaner women to plants. http://www.oulitnet.co.za/gras/nad.asp --41.151.70.149 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The citation appears to be an "open letter" to Gordimer, in at least a somewhat satirical vein; we should take the comment from User:41.151.70.149 in a similar vein, I suspect. --Lquilter (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the quotation given in the later is indeed from Nadine Gordimers book "The Conservationist":

“The child will sink, she will drown if she lets go of her mother, yet her clinging is flirtatious, she tries to make him look at her so that she may at once hide her head against the mother’s thigh. She’s a beautiful child as their children often are — where do they get them from? — and she’ll grow up — what do they do to them? — the same sort of vacant turnip as the mother ... To go into those women must be like using the fleshy succulent plants men in the Foreign Legion have to resort to.”

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=9YxWEDt7ca0C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Nadine+Gordimer++%22succulent+plants%22&source=bl&ots=zVVvhOeTIE&sig=P8_pP7IpcbuURLUke8RUvRuS9QI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wAFcUrl-45DUBanVgPgH&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Nadine%20Gordimer%20%20%22succulent%20plants%22&f=false --105.236.37.38 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

roberts unauthorized bio controversy

@TheRedPenOfDoom: - Editor Red Pen of Doom flagged the two paragraphs on the Roberts unauthorized biography as "undue" (diff), then removed the separate subsection for that material (diff) which put it into the previous subsection, on literary reception. I agree a separate subsection is probably too much ("undue"), and further recommend we carefully edit that content down to one paragraph. However, the content doesn't fit well with the "reception" section, which is about critical response to Gordimer's works. Instead, I moved it to the section about Gordimer's activism & professional life, and modified the subsection header to reflect the change. Roberts' allegations center around the content in this section; and the dispute b/w Gordimer & Roberts seems to me to be more related to her professional conduct than about the literary reception of her work. Any other thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

seems reasonable approach. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Misplaced Pages templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nadine Gordimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204041439/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gordimer.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gordimer.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/nadine-gordimer-s-politics-7933

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nadine Gordimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The house gun

Why is there a link on The house gun on this article that links back to this article? If there's no article for The house gun it should not have a link I would have thought? Sterry2607 (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the link – that's a circular link. Thanks for pointing that out. —Bruce1ee 08:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

History politics

What was the nature of the resistance to the apartheid in 1950 41.246.31.78 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read do your own homework. —Bruce1ee 14:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Categories: