NominalActor

Your Edits on Elizabeth Wurtzel

I find your repeated edits to the controversy section highly questionable. If you have an issue with the way an issue is being portrayed, please talk about it on the discussion page. It's very important we not make stretched assertions (or unlikely extrapolations from citations of Derrida), or add in only one side of the story to imply wrongdoing. Wiki is very explicit on this:

Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

We just want to be fair, and not take sides. Sometimes this is hard (I know it is for me!), but it's how we make Wiki work as a whole. I know I'd like pages important to me to receive similar treatment, so I try to uphold that standard even on little articles that aren't. -YCubed (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quoting a person accurately is never libellous. Watering down statements is not encyclopedic. Neither is mixing up the chronology. - NominalActor (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a point with part of your edit - perhaps the longer quote softens her claim unfairly. Obviously, though, it is more descriptive and lets her speak for herself, which is why it's far more preferred by a controversial statement than elaboration on a smaller quote by us.

But the "Jewish Supremacy" extrapolation from a Derrida citation?! That's clearly questionable and likely libel. We can quibble about which quote to use, but let's not accuse people of racism without an actual explicit statement on their part. That's exactly what the wiki guideline is saying. Also, how is the chronology mixed up? You used the exact same date (Jan. 2009) in your edit as all the previous editors. I think I'm missing something there. -YCubed (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To pick and choose between quotes within her article would obviously be unfair, and biased. Instead, I quote the subtitle, which gives a broad overview of her overall theme. Regarding supremacism, or racism... to say that you "know everyone around you is gifted" when around people of your own group is a very clear statement of supremacism, or racism. How could it not be? Replace 'Jews' with any other religion or ethnicity and it would be equally bigoted, and repugnant. - NominalActor (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"to say that you "know everyone around you is gifted" when around people of your own group is a very clear statement of supremacism" - There's just one problem: Wurtzel never said that - she cited Derrida, while in no affirming the part you decry in the piece. She was simply recounting his famous impression of anti-semitism. That's not a basis for deeming someone a racist (though you're welcome to go to work on the Derrida page, and talk to their editors!). With your insistence on returning this assertion in Wertzel's name to the page, without any discussion of the extreme - and disputed - matter on the talk page, you are pushing me towards thinking you have something against Wurtzel. If you persist, I will be forced to report this ostensible case of libel to the living persons biography board, where any cursory reading of Wurtzel's article will reflect poorly on your actions. Offer an alternate version on the discussion page, however, and let all the article's editors have a say, and I'd bet you'll end up with a result more to your liking.

As an aside, even if Wurtzel had actually said what she didn't, your interpretation of "every Jew around me is gifted" as supremacism strikes me as quite odd. If someone complains that (as Derrida, not Wurtzel, did) "antisemitism shuts a whole group of incredibly talented people out of society", it does not follow that that person is denying the presence of tremendously gifted people outside their group. Neither Derrida, nor Wurtzel seems to be saying what you are. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your meaning.

Regarding using the subtitle instead of the longer block quote - as I said earlier, it's definitely debatable, which is why such discussion should take place on the page's discussion board. Not in a unilateral edit that ignores wiki protocol. Also, editorial subtitles (and titles, for that matter) are rarely written by the author in major new publications like the Guardian. Feel free to ask any journalist you know. So quoting such a line may not actually be reflective of her sentiments, but of an editor's, and their desire for an eye-catching sensationalist headline. Ever see an editorial whose title bore little connection to its content? This is why.

Anyhow, I really hope we can work this out on the discussion page. It's what they're for. -YCubed (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I realize my sentiments above may be overly harsh. I have been wrong before about potential bias, and hope I am now. Apologies if you feel I have overstepped my bounds in anything I've said to this point. I realize sometime we just try to get the newest information into wiki, and make unintentional mistakes. I have done it myself. I just prefer we talk this out on the article's discussion page, with more outside input, than do it somewhat foolishly with back and forth edits. I'm sure we can get this section right. -YCubed (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Thompson

Your comments on Talk:Mark Thompson are completely inappropriate. Making those kind of attacks on a living person is not acceptable, per our talk page guidelines and especially per our biographies of living people policy. Please desist from that kind of comment, or you will find yourself blocked from editing. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

and you are still trying to add false information - his wife is an Israeli - false, his wife with him to the middle east - not mentioned in the source. You cannot just make-up things and add them to BLP articles. If you persist, I will move to have you blocked from editing that page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)