Talk:Joanne Harris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Inappropriate tone

Recently added content begins to sound like a promotional magazine article, NOT an encyclopaedia “born in her grandparents' corner sweet shop”, “Her mother did not speak English when she married”, “Harris became aware from an early age that "schools are full of stories.””. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those statements seem relevant enough to her later work to be valid context, I think; that her most successful novel was about a French chocolaterie and another was about a school, and that she became a teacher later in life. Belbury (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the level of detail here is on a par with other author biographies. And the details do seem relevant to the themes of her books. LittleFranzl (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Keyserzozie, see investigation)[reply]
I disagree but there seem to be ownership issues here, with conflicted editors. Theroadislong (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleFranzl is restoring bits of text originally written by @Keyserzozie so the page reads like it did when I first got to it and tried to make it more neutral. The way people had been complaining of since 2012. @LittleFranzl is a new editor who leaves bare URLS just like @Keyserzozie. This just feels like groundhog day. Is it appropriate to ask for someone outside eyes on this? This seems to be getting crazy to me. NoorStores (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reverted any edits, or added anything that doesn't seem relevant. I've had a look at some other author web pages, and what I've added seems pretty much in the same tone as elsewhere. Yes, I'm new, and I'm still learning about URLs. I'm also a bit OCD, and I got interested in this page. Have I done something wrong? LittleFranzl (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Keyserzozie, see investigation)[reply]
You have removed text. The problem is that this page was created and maintained by an editor, Keyserzozie, who revealed after 22 years that they had had a close connection to Joanne Harris herself all that time. That meant the page wasn't neutral and one of the big things picked up on by users, and this is also going way back, was the tone wasn't neutral. So the edits you have put in are all 'nice' little details about Harris's life and if we check the references they are also things said by Harris so verified in that sense but what we need here is more things said by outside people. So this sounds promotional, I think that's true. And the other thing that strikes me as really strange is the little nice details are the exact same little nice details - grandmother's sweet shop mother speaking French - that I tweaked out ages back when I was trying to make the tone more neutral. So that makes me think you are conflicted and maybe connected to @Keyserzozie because otherwise where are you getting them? Excuse me but you don't seem experienced enough to get them out of the deleted text. If you are connected to Joanne Harris or Keyserzozie you just need to say so, that's just the rules here. NoorStores (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Tongue-in-cheek) I could actually relate to the simile "After a year as an accountant, which she later described as 'like being trapped in a Terry Gilliam film' ..." that has now been removed. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh me too. I was thinking the exact same. NoorStores (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like, maybe they will come back as a hat with legs next time. NoorStores (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the objection only tonal here, that these facts may be relevant to the biography but need to be written more formally?
We've also lost the "like being trapped in a Terry Gilliam film" quote again, which I'd agree with PamD was "chatty but relevant", giving the reader some context of Harris's career trajectory. Quotations can help to flesh out a biography without us having to write out exactly why someone didn't enjoy being an accountant (where any summary of what Harris did and didn't mean by the Gilliam reference would be original research anyway). Belbury (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me as a student reading something like this I don't want the little jokes I want the outline and maybe the refs so I can get on with my study. Also the way it is at the beginning of the piece says 'we are all pals' with JH and laughing at her jokes and to me that isn't the right way.
Finally if you've got a close relative who is an accountant then it feels a bit a rude and like wiki is laughing at you. (trying not to over react but i hope you get my meaning)
I had to look up Terry Gilliam but that was actually fine, very interesting, and reminds me of something (!)
I'm going to work so won't be able to reply from now sorry, I don't mind about this really, just saying my bit sorry for rush. NoorStores (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Belbury@NoorStores I find it sad that NS believes that "neutrality" consists of removing any "human interest" statements about Harris.
I believe that stuff like her view on her accountancy year, her grandparents' occupation, whatever the other material was, is likely to be of interest to a reader who wants to know about the author of a book they have just enjoyed reading. Possibly not so interesting to a publishing industry expert who really only wants the dirt on the SoA business: but how many of our encyclopedia readers fall into each of those categories? I do not understand why removing this sort of stuff counts as "neutrality", and it still looks rather as if NS is determined to remove anything positive she can find to remove, in her conflicted approach to this whole area. Days ago she was advised to step back from the whole Harris/Clanchy etc stuff, and she has done some good editing since then (such as creating Jason Allen-Paisant), but this is all gettting ridiculous.
It's disappointing that KeyserZozie either (a) has let us all down by deceitfully editing under a different name or (AGF) (b) didn't know Wikipedia's attitude to multiplle usernames and thought it would clear the air if they continued editing but under a new account. I don't know which. Sad either way. I'm going to go back to editing about
The Hill Garden and Pergola. Maybe I'll even be strong and take this lot off my watch list! Or perhaps not. PamD 19:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, @PamD: establishing neutrality should not degenerate into dehumanising, through the omission of positive or human interest elements. That sentiment resonated with me, too. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoorStores has also removed the line that Harris spoke only French until she started school, citing the need for a "more neutral tone". But this is a simple biographical fact, and relevant to her later writing.
The "schools are full of stories" line isn't great and we could pull or summarise a less ambiguous quote for how school life has informed Harris's writing, but the other lines that have been cut here seem neutral and relevant. Belbury (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Belbury Our ideas of neutral tone sometime vary, but I think you are correct that "schools are full of stories" line could go but Harris spoke only French until she started school could be re-instated. Theroadislong (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have reinstated the sentence about French: Her mother did not speak English when she married, and so Harris spoke only French until she started school. This is factual and does not affect the tone or neutrality. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may be using different terms for the same concerns! I certainly frowned at born in her grandparents' corner sweet shop for sounding like the kind of embellished author profile factoid that might not technically be true, but tonally it seems like a neutral statement of fact. (It's reported variously as "born" and "grew up above", and really the latter would seem more relevant to it inspiring her work.) Belbury (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sweet shop bit reminded me of Margaret Thatcher's humble origins (cue the violins or brass band). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy for all nice tone things, honestly. I didn't set out to be rude. I didn't set out to destroy anyone's reputation. What has happened here is very scary and unwanted for me, because between @OwenBlackerand Joanne Harris, this could affect every job I am applying for. I have learned I am very stubborn and maybe also very stupid.
I don't think this page is mean or nasty either. If Joanne Harris is reading this, she should think about that. Before, anyone reading her page would think it was written by, like someone said in 2012, an over-zealous fan. Now you can believe it's true, and that's a good thing for her.
I think anyone involved in this discussion should know that the record says that @keyserzozie was 'harrassed off the board'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keyserzozie
I didn't see any harrassment of them and I don't think the record should say that, so if you are involved you can put up your concerns.
I'm going to delete my account now for my own safety. I deleted my twitter account a few days agon, and this morning I took down my facebook and changed my name on my cvs. Thanks for all good hearted contributions. I've got so much respect for @PamDand @Theroadislong and @Esowteric. You really are standing up for the truth. NoorStores (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoorStores, try not to worry about the very worst things happening to you, when there's a good chance that they will not. I'm sure that I'm not the only one here (or on your social media) who would be sorry to see you go. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esowteric Except that it's perhaps relevant to her best-known book being about a woman starting a small business in confectionery retailing? PamD 12:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see: thanks, Pam. That does make it quite relevant. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering whether to reinstate this, but if the family lived there, rather than she was born there (as stated in the earlier revision), is there an unclunky way of saying that in the opening sentence/s? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: LittleFranzl has left the building. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. NoorStores (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diving straight into Clanchy territory at Sensitivity reader was a bit of a giveaway. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no really? I wish this wasn't happening. It honestly makes me upset. NoorStores (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Authors section

Does this section need cutting down as

WP:UNDUE, or a rewrite? It's currently offering a lot of quotes and allusions about criticism of Harris's work as Chair, but not much context for them - it's unclear what Pullman thought Harris was being "facetious" about, why a poll about death threats was "inappropriate" and why people would think it had anything "to do with JK Rowling", what the "previous discussion" it was part of was, what Harris was "failing to defend authors" from, the nature of the "pre-existing animus", etc. A reader not already familiar with the details of the 2022 controversy will struggle to follow this. Belbury (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree 100%.
The section makes little sense beyond giving a false impression that Joanne Harris is controversial (which, as others have noted, appears to have been the motivation for the section being added in the first place). To include the relevant context to the events described would only add further undue weight to the section.
The issues covered in the SoA section are just internal politics. While the disagreements can be properly sourced that doesn’t demonstrate that they warrant inclusion here. Wikipedia doesn’t seek to document every incident where people (however notable) have a brief disagreement in a newspaper, especially when the argument relates to matters of internal policy in relation to a membership organisation.
The idea that Harris is controversial is easily disproved by the members’ vote being so heavily in her favour. The underlying POV agenda in the SoA section is therefore just pushing a fringe opinion about issues of a rather trivial type. The user who originally added the SoA section had already been consistently asked to refrain from editing about those issues when the matter was discussed at the COI noticeboard earlier in January.
I’d be in favour of wholesale removal of the SoA section. (I have no conflict of interest, just expressing an opinion after reading the discussions at COIN and on the talk page here.) Axad12 (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps trim the section, but certainly not a wholesale removal of the SoA section. This is not just internal politics, nor a fringe opinion about issues of a rather trivial type, and though the society members supported Harris, there has been much criticism from outside the society. The issues raised should not be whitewashed. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we disagree...
Do you have any thoughts on the following 2 points:
1) Adding the relevant context (to make the current section understandable) while simultaneously trimming the section's length (to avoid undue weight) seem like incompatible goals.
2) For the user to have originally added the SoA section was contrary to community consensus at the COI noticeboard due to the user's perceived non neutral POV, and edits to the article and discussion here since it was added suggest that the material remains contentious and contrary to consensus. Axad12 (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bookseller's article on the new SoA chair last week, looking back over its years under Harris, summed up the controversy in a sentence (...in 2022 [Harris] faced a members’ vote on whether she should stand down as chair alongside demands for a review of how the organisation protects free speech. Members overwhelmingly voted to keep her in post.) which I'd say was a reasonable summary and about the level we should be aiming for here. Belbury (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a very sensible proposal. No undue weight, no need to add further context, and no further concerns about POV. I’d suggest that a re-wording along those lines could happily be included in the ‘Other Activities’ section. Axad12 (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now reduced the text to a couple of sentences, in this vein. Belbury (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been whole sale removed now. I'm sorry I can't help any more but the bullying is too bad. NoorStores (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's been reduced to a couple of sentences. Belbury (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

I have noticed that the push towards “concision” in this section has resulted in a couple of unintended inaccuracies. One, the reference to Barnsley Girls’ High School “which Harris also attended.” This is inaccurate. Harris did not attend Barnsley Girls’ High school. The linked reference makes it clear that she was often there as a small child when babysitting options failed, but was not a pupil. However an earlier version of the page refers to the early influence of this school atmosphere on Harris’ later work, which might be worth mentioning. Two, “raised above her grandparents’s shop” seems to imply that the family lived there for a longer period of time than the article suggests (they moved when Harris was three). I would suggest “spent her early years” or similar.

talk) 13:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Re. they moved when Harris was three: do you have a source for that, or is this from your intimate knowledge of the subject? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one: [1]
Replacing was raised above her grandparents' corner sweet shop with lived above her grandparents' corner sweet shop until the age of three would seem fine to me. Belbury (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have any intimate knowledge of the subject. Details are in the linked article.
talk) 13:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Books

I've noticed that during the recent push towards "concision" in this article, a lot of detail regarding Harris's books has been removed, including the middle section of her bibliography, which currently reads as if no books were written between Chocolat (1999) and its sequel, The Lollipop Shoes (2007).

I'd like to add the following text, if I may:

Chocolat was followed by stand-alone novels Blackberry Wine (2000) and Five Quarters of the Orange (2001), which explored different aspects of food as a metaphor, then Coastliners (2002), and a historical novel, Holy Fools (2003), both of which are set on the fictional French island of Le Devin. FirstInAFieldOfOne (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to request edits with the template {{edit COI}} Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how many editors watch this page, I don't think it's strictly necessary, but would advise doing so if no reply is forthcoming. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I've reworded it a bit and added some sources for the books which don't have articles on Wikipedia. Belbury (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent Themes??

I'm concerned by this very recent addition. It does not seem to have adequate citations or a source or even to have been placed by a named wikipedian. This is an odd page already with a number of interests on the board - any insights? CoalsCollective (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noorstores removed this section on 2 January 2024, with the edit summary "removed this section. None of it is verified - the citations do not lead to sources stated- and it is subjective literary criticism and so inappropriate to Wikipedia", so this is actually a re-inclusion. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned that since the kerfuffle earlier this year, edits like this are being made by London-based IPs, perhaps rather than as registered editors who may (or may not) have a professional connection with the subject. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted User:FirstInAFieldOfOne has at least now added a source to part of it. Theroadislong (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An indirect and redundant one at that, it doesn't mention Almondbury as an inspiration for anything, only that she has lived there. And the Malbry/Almondbury connection is already more clearly sourced earlier in the article.
This is a backwards way to write a "Recurrent themes" section, we shouldn't start with a fan writing a list of what they think all the recurrent themes are, and other editors flagging them as needing citations. This should start with review sources that have commented on the connections across Harris's body of work. Belbury (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to revert me, but I've removed the section that was recently re-added. As
WP:BACKWARD, so let's start again from what reliable sources actually say. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for supplying the history. Following your leads, I've read back into the page and I think I am right in saying that the section was written by @FirstInAFieldOfOnewhile they were using another name? I further understand that @FirstInAFieldOfOnehas a personal connection to Harris? In that case surely removing it is the best thing. It seemed to me to have a promotional tone.
I don't know a great deal about Harris - my connection is with the study of Victorian fairy tales - but if I have time in the next few weeks I will look up some reliable academic criticism and try to insert a 'critical reception' section. CoalsCollective (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anyone else would prefer to do so of course. Don't wish to intrude. CoalsCollective (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a welcome and useful contribution. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Don't hold your breath! I am very slow. CoalsCollective (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joanne_Harris&oldid=1219204251"