User talk:Giant Green Olive

Typo on Marina Picasso

Hello,

I undid your changes because there was a [[1]]. You make good points, so if you'd fix "latery" I won't change it. Thanks!

-K

Just fixed it, thanks! probably would have been more efficient for you to just delete the extra y, but I'm rather new here, is that just not how it's done? Giant Green Olive (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lolita, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sundayclose! Thank you for your comment. I am sorry, but I believe that the edit I made was correct, as the information I added was already contained in the source linked at the end of the sentence by a previous editor:

"Lolita". Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved 31 August 2020. “In Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel, Lolita, the character Lolita is a child who is sexually victimized by the book’s narrator. The word Lolita has, however, strayed from its original referent, and has settled into the language as a term we define as 'a precociously seductive girl.'...The definition of Lolita reflects the fact that the word is used in contemporary writing without connotations of victimization.”

This extract was cited by the previous editor and is visible on the edited page.

I believe that my edit, precising that the sexualisation of Lolita was not the intention of the author, is not only correct but also relevant, as the novel has an unreliable narrator who is a paedophile, and the author is in various ways making clear how this is a novel about abuse, and not a love story, as it has transpired in popular culture.

Since you ask for more reference, I can provide multiple other that are already linked on the page, including this interview with the author, Vladimir Nabokov, in which he plainly states that Lolita is a child, that she could not be consenting, enticing, or seducing Humbert, because she was 12, and Humbert was an adult:

Humbert was fond of “little girls”—not simply “young girls.” Nymphets are girl-children, not starlets and “sex kittens.” Lolita was twelve, not eighteen, when Humbert met her. You may remember that by the time she is fourteen, he refers to her as his “aging mistress.”

Gold, Herbert (Summer–Fall 1967). "Vladimir Nabokov, The Art of Fiction No. 40". The Paris Review. No. 41. Archived from the original on 19 January 2016. Retrieved 31 January 2016.

I will relink both these references on the page, and I hope this is enough justification for my point! Giant Green Olive (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with your edit was not whether it is "correct". The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. When you made the edit without a citation, that amounts to personal opinion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I moved the edit out of the lead to a later place in the article, per WP:LEAD. Sundayclose (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sundayclose, I know the principles of Wikipedia, which is why I provided proof that there was already a verifiable source at the end of the edit. I also provided an extra verifiable source subsequently. It was never my personal opinion. Giant Green Olive (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be harsh, but if you "know the principles of Wikipedia", why did you blatantly violate WP:V? We wouldn't even be talking about this if you hadn't. Sundayclose (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]