This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lquilter (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 1 December 2006 (→Attacked: no thank YOU). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:10, 1 December 2006 by Lquilter (talk | contribs) (→Attacked: no thank YOU)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
dead links
can someone get the links in the fiction section working and the pages to atualy be made. fwed66 17:33(GMT) 5 june 2006
Nadine Gordimer's Ancestry
The current wording is intended to imply that Gordimer's mother was not Jewish, which is untrue. It is furthermore untrue that she was "raised a Christian," as the article currently states. On page 33 of "No Cold Kitchen: A Biography of Nadine Gordimer," Ronald Suresh Roberts writes "Gordimer's mother was named Nan (her real name was Hannah, née Myers). Her father went by Isidore Gordimer... Isidore and Nan were both products of the large Jewish migration to South Africa in the last decades of the nineteenth century (he from the Eastern European Pale, she from London)." Much of the chapter entitled "Wellsprings: Ancestry" deals with the Jewish backgrounds of both sides of Nadine Gordimer's family. She and her sister did attend a Catholic parochial school, where "Nadine and Betty were the only Jews" (Roberts, page 47), but she is not a Christian. In an article on Gordimer in "Jewish Writers of the Twentieth Century," Marcia Leveson quotes Gordimer as saying "I have never denied that I'm Jewish and have no desire to deny it. For me, being Jewish is like being black: you simply are. To want to deny it is simply disgusting." Jinfo 06:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Attacked
"She was robbed on 26 October 2006 by three men in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, and was assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring. She has been adamant in stating however that this attack will not alter her previously expressed beliefs about the ills of apartheid." What the . . . Why would it alter her beliefs about apartheid? This doesn't belong in this article, any way, shape, or form. I'm taking the whole thing out. It's horrible to hear that she was attacked, but this is not encyclopedia information. Whatever is being implied in the back and forth, putting in the word "black" men and taking it back out and then, apparently, someone thought they could justify the inclusion of this information with relevance to her political views!! -It's preposterous and offensive.DianaW 04:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm the person who removed this material both on the 18th and again last night. I didn't mean to do it anonymously, I guess I forgot to log in. The person who added this material yesterday did so without discussion. It had already been disputed here. I felt that since I was the last person to comment on this issue and no one had disputed my take on this, my sense that it should not be included here should stand until or unless someone comes along who'd actually care to discuss it. Examining the other wikipedia contributions of the person who inserted this material yesterday gave me a very clear impression of a POV pusher, and the POV we're talking about is ugly. If someone wants to make a case for the inclusion of reports of this attack in this article - and has a suggestion for how such reports can be made to read neutrally without extremely ugly racial overtones, please feel free.DianaW 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear anonymous editor, I would like to hear your views on why this material needs to be included here. The way wikipedia works, you need to discuss controversial changes with other editors; not just repeatedly and without discussion insert things that have been previously removed. Please either discuss your changes or expect to see me remove them again. There needs to be a justification for including something that, as phrased, has very unsavory implications. Could you, for instance, state why you believe this incident, along with irrelevant comments about the race of certain individuals, needs to be included in an encyclopedia article on Nadine Gordimer?DianaW 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Lquilter. You must have done that just moments ago. I'm relieved not to be the only one watching this page who sees it this way.DianaW 23:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, you're absolutely right -- this material is not particularly notable, and is written in an obvious POV manner to try to make a subtle racist claim. --LQ 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)