Talk:Janet Frame

message: 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)
thread_title: 'lived in' list

message: The link "Citizens Commission on Human Rights - Janet Frame : "An Angel at My Table"" is no longer valid.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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changed from New Zealand literary history to Modern Literary History 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dead or Alive?

message: 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)
thread_title: Seacliff lunatic hospital

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed! --RobbieBurns (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  off-Wiki canvassing 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  ref doesn't exist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Janet Frame 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 [] 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Accuracy and balance

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sections on Work & Modern scholarship and interpretations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  citecheck 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Zealand Medical Journal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section Headings 

message: 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)
thread_title: Page number missing in References

message: 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)
replies: text: Source provided. That's fine. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Name vs. Pen Name. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Literary estate section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  June