Talk:Janet Frame

'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)

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The link "Citizens Commission on Human Rights - Janet Frame : "An Angel at My Table"" is no longer valid.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)

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)

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)

She is dead. She died at the age of 79 in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.123.194 (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Image copyright problem with File:Angel at my table movie poster.jpg

The image File:Angel at my table movie poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ref doesn't exist

In some of the footnotes (e.g. 20, 24) reference is made to Frame 1991. This ref doesn't exist, and I can't see which ref is meant. Who can help? Dick Bos (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Frame 1991 is the Braziller (U.S.) edition of the collected autobios and has been added to the footnotes. Sorry for any confusion!--Doclit (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Janet Frame

Please desist from removing the full reference to Abrahamson & the New Zealand Medical Journal in this article. RobbieBurns (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The above material was placed on my talk page. I have placed it on this page, which is where it properly belongs. My substantive reply:

Please stop your obsessive edit warring WP:EW in this article. If you persist in claiming that a living relative of Janet Frame disputes "vehemently" then find a reliable source to support it. Otherwise it goes. Please note this extract from WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The reference to the NZ Medical Journal is given in full when the link is followed. Standard scholarly practice is that further elaboration of a rather subsidiary article is not needed.

A recent editor asks, "Has no Frame expert noticed how emotive and biased this article is?" Although I am no Frame expert I have noticed just that and that is what my edits were intending to mitigate. But there is no need to swing to the other direction. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

Looks like glove puppet or meat puppet campaign here. The Robbieburns edits are hostile to Frame and appear obsessed with attacking the Frame biographer Michael King - this material should be debated on his article not Frame's. Any attempt to restore a neutral point of view is reverted by robbieburns. References to viewpoints favourable to Frame have been systematically deleted and only negative ones. Needs a balance. If this author is so over rated why do these hostile editors spend so much time obsessing over her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.41.122 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I welcome and encourage collaboration on these and other local NZ topics I have posted. Cheers! --RobbieBurns (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy and balance

I alert Wikipedians that there may be problems of accuracy and balance in this article. I have found two clear errors of fact relating to references. The first is that reference 43 claimed to be an "editorial", when it is not. The second is the claim that "one critic likening King's role to that of a ventriloquist's dummy, [55]". This complex and nuanced reference says no such thing. There are also many references to the NZ press that cannot be verified over the web. I think it is desirable that every reference in the article be checked for accuracy and that a rewrite be started to ensure balance. I leave that to NZ scholars. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC).

I understand the need to verify sources online, but clearly this system is equally problematic. In the case of the comparison of "King's role to that of a ventriloquist's dummy, [55]", although Xxanthippe argues that this "complex and nuanced reference says no such thing", there is nothing ambiguous about Evans's comments: "[T]he question which is most inevitably going to be asked [...] is whether King has, in effect, been reduced at times to sitting on Frame's knee [...]". King took personal offense to Evans's accusation and responded directly in the journal New Zealand Books (Vol.II, No.5, Issue 51: page 2), although, unfortunately, this reference is also unavailable online. Finally, just for the record, I am a NZ scholar and try to do my best to ensure all my edits references are accurate, but always welcome and encourage collaboration with other Wikipedians. --RobbieBurns --RobbieBurns (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)(talk) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have only just come across the entry above which was substantially modified in the last few days by RobbieBurns without being signed or dated. Once again RobbieBurns distorts his sources. Readers can examine the text here [[1]] and judge for themselves. Despite this, the article is much improved since I was last involved in it mostly due to the contributions of Doclit. At any rate the anons have stopped complaining. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Just completed a first attempt at a rewrite, but as far as I can tell the vast majority of this article is accurate. Good luck! --Doclit (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see the few minor edits I made improved the overall quality of this entry. Regarding the debate over Evans' criticism of King, sorry to say Xxanthippe, but RobbieBurns is correct in his reading. As RobbieBurns further substantiates in his reply here, King confirms Evans' "puppet" accusations in a reply to the critic published in the above cited issue of New Zealand Books. Having said that, I will leave it to others to decide if this reference should be reincorporated into the article. Good luck! --Doclit (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sections on Work & Modern scholarship and interpretations

A good addition to this entry might be sections that focus on Frame's work & some of the scholarship and interpretations. If agreed, I can take a stab at a first go when I have some free time.--Doclit (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

citecheck

Recently a 'citecheck" banner is placed on this article. I don't agree with that. Apart from some small mistakes (please feel free to change them), most of the references are quite clear. Could the editor who used this banner please inform us about the arguments? Or better: first have some talks on this talk-page before using a cannon to hit a mosquito; or even better: remove this banner!
By the way: might it be a good idea to get rid of the "coi" banner on this talk-page as well? I believe we finished that story long long time ago....
Please, let's try to have a positive view on this article. It is really worthwile reading. It has a lot of good and in-depth information. I think it's the best encyclopedic source on Frame on the internet. And there will always be someone who will read a certain sentence as an offence. And there will always be someone who finds something that's not completely neutralized. and there will always be someone with a different view. But that doesn't change a thing on the fact that this is a good article. Dick Bos (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that both the 'citecheck' banner and 'coi' should be deleted and that it would be preferable if contributors to this article used the discussion page to air-out issues or pinpoint perceived biases (which, as you rightly noted, Dick Bos, we can safely assume there will always be). Some years ago, I submitted an MA thesis that was partly on Janet Frame and from my years of research I can vouch that the information in this article is accurate and hope that these types of trivial complaints don't derail this entry. --Doclit (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As you will have deduced from the history it was I who inserted the 'citecheck' banner and I gave well-founded reasons for doing so. I was not the only person to raise concerns. The accuracy and balance of the article have been improved since then. The involvement of a trained scholar like yourself in this article is welcome. If you can vouch for the accuracy of the remaining cites then of course you are entitled to remove the banner. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Just completed another edit (grammar, spelling, pov) and removed the 'citecheck' and 'coi' banners as discussed here.--Doclit (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to verify/clarify your statement, Dick Bos, "I believe we finished that story long long time ago" and ensure I didn't edit out of turn. --Doclit (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Medical Journal

Please note that the full reference to The New Zealand Medical Journal has been added to this article. This information is important both to distinguish the essay from literary/theoretical publications as well as to maintain the neutral pov in the entry. --Doclit (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Section Headings

Recently added section headings to this article to improve readability but am open to changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doclit (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Page number missing in References

Reference number 58 has no page number - anyone know which part of King's book the info came from? --122.59.21.230 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Full Name vs. Pen Name.

Janet Frame is a pen name and her full name is listed in the Honours Lists published in the London Gazette (for her CBE) and the New Zealand Gazette (for the ONZ appointment). The London Gazette lists Miss Nene Janet Paterson CLUTHA (Janet Frame). For services to literature and the New Zealand Gazette for 1990 is not available on-line. The library at any major New Zealand city will have archives and you need the article entitled "Honours and Awards" published 15 February 1990 in issue 23 and go to page 446. oh! found an on-line source at The Honours Unit of The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet of New Zealand list members of the Order of New Zealand. Please check Ms Frames name here.

I have reverted the good faith revision 569139813 by Xxanthippe (talk)

---

Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 08:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Source provided. That's fine. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

Literary estate section

Added a new header at the end of this article and a recent scholarly reference. Still need to update the posthumous publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doclit (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates for books and articles, as well as tables for organising short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

June

Are we really mentioning John Money a few times with zero mention of June? If June hadn't submitted Janet's stories for the award the lobotomy would have happened. Does someone else want to make an entry about June? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickmind (talk • contribs) 15:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)