Talk:Janet Frame
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. |
 |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. |
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
 |
Janet Frame is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in New Zealand may be able to help! |
Contents |
[edit] 'lived in' list
I suggest an edit for the list of places she lived: "Frame lived in several different parts of New Zealand's North Island, including Auckland, Taranaki, Wanganui, the Horowhenua, Palmerston North, Waiheke, Stratford, Browns Bay and Levin." In this list, 'Browns Bay' is in Auckland thus superfluous, and Stratford in Taranaki, thus also superfluous. I would place an edit myself in the form: ..."Auckland (Browns Bay, Waiheke), Taranaki (Stratford)... but I don't know enough about if she lived in other places in these regions which should also be included. The easy answer would be to make the list:
... Auckland, Taranaki, Wanganui, the Horowhenua, Palmerston North and Levin... or ... Auckland, Wanganui, the Horowhenua, Palmerston North, Stratford and Levin... (as Auckland is both city and region, Taranaki is not. Benjamin Dickson (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] older entries
The link "Citizens Commission on Human Rights - Janet Frame : "An Angel at My Table"" is no longer valid. I did a little bit of searching on that site but could no longer turn up any references to Janet Frame. Perhaps this should be removed.
Dougher 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changed from New Zealand literary history to Modern Literary History
Her writing and the enormous success of the film about her life make her e modern literary figure not just a New Zealand literary figure.
24.8.106.182 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dead or Alive?
Is she living or dead? The article doesn't mention her death, but it also refers to her in the past tense. Snowboardpunk
She is dead - hence the date of her death! I have added details about her death to the bottom of the biography Anarchia 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seacliff lunatic hospital
Writing the article about Seacliff Lunatic Asylum, I have found some info and material about Frame that isn't covered here. If people are interested, head over and have a look, maybe it will help extend this one. MadMaxDog 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] off-Wiki canvassing
It has just come to my attention that the Janet Frame Estate website invites readers to Wiki:
QUOTE
Wikipedia Warning
Please note that the WIKIPEDIA article on Janet Frame is currently unreliable. At least one hostile editor is currently set upon sabotaging the neutrality of the Janet Frame article and imposing a negative and minority point of view. Anyone who has the time and inclination is invited to peruse the editing history and see for themselves what is meant by the Wikipedia term "editing war".
ENDQUOTE
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, this seems to be exactly what the above discussion point ("Marshaled by Frame's family/executor") is eluding to. It's so often problematic when family members are put in charge of their famous relative's estate: unwilling to let go and unfamiliar with the job. History has shown us how these things eventually work out in the long run. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the current Wikipedia article on Frame that isn't covered in King's biography (barring the brief mentions of posthumous publications and the like), so I'm not sure what the fuss is about, but I hope all of this doesn't detract from her work, which is pretty special. --SydSid (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agreed! --RobbieBurns (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Gordon has since changed the Wiki notice on the "Janet Frame Literary Trust" website she manages to read:
QUOTE
We do not recommend the Wikipedia article on Janet Frame. (Please note that Wikipedia does contain an important and oft overlooked disclaimer to the effect that no information on the do-it-yourself amateur encyclopedia can be guaranteed to be reliable.)
It has come to our attention that there is a misleading claim made on Wikipedia alleging that the Janet Frame Estate is constantly interfering with and attempting to control the tone of the Janet Frame article, and that we have canvassed editing support for a non-neutral slant. This is not true.
Our position from the 12th of January 2008 has been to avoid reading the Wikipedia article let alone trying to contribute. We had concluded it was a waste of our valuable time to try to engage with the confrontational "consensus" process when it does appear to favour those determined to circumvent the principles in order to promote their own undeclared vested interests. If anonymous contributers to Wikipedia can so easily identitfy, vilify and attempt to drive away reputable authorities on any subject, then they win only a "pyrrhic" victory, as the crediblility of the whole project is unfortunately thrown into question if known experts on a topic become disillusioned with the quality of the collaborative process.
Last time we looked the article had been subjected to vandalism and hijacked by at least one individual obviously intent on dominating the article by adding extensive new edits and by suppressing alternative viewpoints. Important and reputable scholarly references have been deleted under the pretext of "grammar" corrections. The article is riddled with factual and bibliographic errors and overemphasises fringe and minority theories about Frame, using untrustworthy and unrepresentative blog and newspaper commentary as key sources.
ENDQUOTE --122.57.244.97 (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gordon's latest comments are wrought with contradiction, faulty logic and (perhaps worst of all for a literary executor) grammatical errors. In addition, glancing through the page history, it appears that she has not refrained from editing this entry, despite the fact that it is primarily derived from King's comprehensive biography, which was done in consultation with Frame herself. --RobbieBurns (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I concur, Robbie. Curiously, Gordon elsewhere defers to King as the definitive expert on Frame. Furthermore, if readers are interested in Gordon's own biographical sketch, it is readily available both on the website she manages (http://janetframe.org.nz/default.htm) as well as in the recent New Zealand reissues of the novels. --SydSid (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- A review of the editing history reveals that, in contrast to the claims she makes above, Gordon repeatedly deletes extensively referenced materials on this entry and has likewise responded to contributors in a confrontational and, particularly for someone in her position, unprofessional manner. --Cantkant (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
-
Another rant from Gordon recently posted on the Janet Frame Literary Trust website she manages. Here, she attacks the Frame article as well as the entire Wikipedia project in general.
QUOTE
Wikipedia Stalker Strikes Again
It has been brought to our attention that the self-appointed "expert" on what he calls Janet Frame's "unsavory" life history, has struck again recently on the Janet Frame article on Wikipedia. The person apparently uses several different identities clearly identifiable as originating from the same source. (Such fraudulent multiple identities are referred to as "sock puppets"). A check on the editing history of several identities editing the Janet Frame article shows that most of them have been solely created for the purposes of pushing their fringe theories about the author's life (they largely ignore her actual work which is of course the reason Frame merits a biography). They don't edit any other article, and they respond particularly virulently to any attempts to restore a neutral stance to the Frame article. The sock puppets have also made several ludicrous accusations (on the "discussion" page) that members of the Frame Estate are manipulating the Wikipedia article. This is untrue. We wouldn't touch the thing with a barge pole. It's not a reputable source of information and it's not worth the effort to try to restore any balanced view of Frame there, because we have observed that any of our well-meaning efforts to correct the flaws in the article have merely been summarily deleted with no explanation.
Because of similar bullying behaviour apparently rife across any "controversial" Wikipedia articles, the "democracy" of the Wiki project as a whole is losing its credibility daily because it harbours dictators like this one who has taken up residence on the Frame site and lashes out at anyone else who ventures there (even the actual experts on her life). Analysis of the IP numbers also shows that this person pretends to be a representative of the Frame Estate, makes some trivial change, then claims it was us that did it! So one can watch a sock puppet hitting a straw woman. It's dishonest, and cowardly.
The claims made on the "discussion" page that "Frame's niece and posthumously-appointed executor" is editing the article are false and defamatory. The clearly personally hostile stalker successfully drove away representatives of the Frame estate months ago. It's obvious on close analysis that this vandal has largely had the sandpit to himself since then, allowing him to obsessively tinker with the site and create a misleading slant overemphasising Frame's supposed abnormalities. He does appear to be pushing original and untested research theories, an activity that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. He has repeatedly removed any references to, for instance, academic opposition to the autism "diagnosis". He has slandered Frame's family. He uses blogs and unreliable newspaper reports as "evidence". He also shows, despite claiming a familiarity with the King biography, an ignorance of the minutiae of Frame's life, including repeatedly asserting that Philip Roth was a close friend of hers. As King shows, Frame and Roth had a brief friendly bantering acquaintance but they were far from ever being intimate friends in the long term. There are also serious bibliographic errors, for instance a naive conflation of a boxed set of two volumes as being only one title.
These are mostly, of course, quite minor flaws, but when a representative of the Frame Estate tried to correct these and others in mid-January the response from this stalker was one of hysterical outrage and personal abuse. The over-reaction and paranoid accusations have apparently continued unabated since then, although we only look in every now and then when someone calls our attention to it.
Janet Frame of course suffered and survived far worse than this in her lifetime, and her reputation will endure such petty attacks. She was occasionally plagued with the odd "celebrity stalker" during her lifetime and it is with some perplexity that the Frame Estate has found itself to have inherited at least one of them.
9th April 2008
ENDQUOTE
I'm not sure what I object to most: being referred to as a "sock puppet" or a male! (jk) Still, as noted elsewhere, Gordon's controlling manner and defensive attitude is unfortunately not uncommon among people in her position. --SydSid (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
