Interesting. His argument is that the article was only claiming that some other people thought Broyard's life was similar and he gives a link to a specific edit

Interesting. His argument is that the article was only claiming that some other people thought Broyard's life was similar and he gives a link to a specific edit on Wikipedia, claiming the state of the article when Roth encountered it was only to say that some people thought the stories were similar, not that Roth was actually inspired: > False. There was absolutely no misstatement in the article. What the article claimed at the time he wrote this open letter was that “Kakutani and other critics were struck by the parallels to the life of Anatole Broyard, a writer and the New York Times literary critic in the 1950s and 1960s who was of Louisiana Creole mixed-race descent and passed for white”. He uses this edit to claim Roth is either mentally incompetent ("aggrieved and confused ramblings") or lying ("a malicious act"). However, this claim by quominus/Oliver is a misdirection. Looking through the edit history, that cited edit clearly happened after Roth's biographer attempted to correct the article, a fact which Oliver certainly was aware. The article when Roth saw it read: > Salon.com critic Charles Taylor argues that Roth had to have been at least partly inspired by the case of Anatole Broyard, a literary critic who, like the protagonist of ''The Human Stain'', was a man identified as Creole who spent his entire professional life more-or-less as white. Roth states there is no connection, as he did not know Broyard had any black ancestry until an article published months after he had started writing his novel. This citation is very different. Here, saying "Roth had to have been at least partly inspired" clearly puts for the supposition that Roth did partly base the novel on Broyard, whereas the later edit only says that some people saw parallels.