Talk:Joanne Harris/Archive 1

Archive 1

Different Class link is wrong

The Different Class link in the Bibliography section actually leads to the page for the album of the same name by Pulp. There is no disambiguation link on this page. This needs fixing, although I'm too much of a newbie around here to know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.37.69 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have made the revision. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joanne Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110132717/http://www.authortrek.com/joanne_harris_interview.html to http://www.authortrek.com/joanne_harris_interview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joanne Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130205184821/http://chchwritersfest.co.nz/joanne-harris/ to http://chchwritersfest.co.nz/joanne-harris/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

Dear Ms Harris, please look at the top of this talk page. It says, issues with neutrality going back 12 years! In 2022 they are still saying it. This is Wikipedia and it is neutral, it is not your website. Please I do not think it is appropriate for you to be here changing the article. I think I will have to report you if this goes on. Also you are not using proper citations, you have to read the page about this! I have made a big effort to make your page a good wikipedia page. It is a very creditable page for you and people respect it because it is balanced. Please leave it alone

Please think about Wikipedia. I am sorry you are upset but this cannot be right and proper behaviour. Please stop. NoorStores (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You are making the assumption here and elsewhere that User:Keyserzozie is Joanne Harris, but they have since said on their user page that they are not. An IP user has claimed on this page to be Harris (they may or may not be), but the only IP edits to this page recently have been to add references. --Belbury (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversies!

I am adding the topic Controversies to this article and also very short summary of them. This author has more than one hundred verified articles in the press about controversies in the last three years and maybe a thousand bad sources!! They cannot be ignored. I am working to be neutral and balanced and also to include only articles really just about Ms Harris, not other people. Also only using tweets and tumblr references when they refer to verified source at the same time so the tweet is the evidence of the verified article. Inshallah this is the suitable way to go on. NoorStores (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest reading WP:CSECTION if you are planning to create and fill out a "Controversies" section on a biography.

Per our discussion at Talk:Kate Clanchy#Removal of content, you cannot use a WP:SELFPUBLISHed Substack blog guest post by Kate Clanchy as a source for statements about third parties, if that is the only source for those statements. You should also be careful over possible WP:SYNTHESIS of sources when writing biographies: you were explicitly characterising Pullman's resignation as a consequence of Harris tweeting and giving interviews, which the cited source does not allege.

You've changed Harris's role as Chair of the Society of Authors into the past tense, citing as a source her profile at societyofauthors.org that includes that date range. But we are in 2024 right now. Do we have a source to show that she is no longer the Chair? Belbury (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've put Harris's in the past because she has it in the past on her blog and on the Society of Author's website. New Chair announced in January it says so maybe next week.

Pullman resigned as a consequence of the statements from the Society of Authors which is one of the other citations. It does not say 'consequently to tweet, its says consequently to all the citations' Tweet is there to illustrate verified sources.

Substack: 1 it is not self-published it is curated by third party. 2 substack is there in supplement to article in the Times.

I have read the WPCSECTION thank you.

Inshallah that answers your question. NoorStores (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"LoobyLou's Newsletter" is a Substack newsletter written under a pseudonym, it is in no way a reliable source. Belbury (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That is correct Mr Belbury and it is not presented as a sole verifiable source. If you look at the text, and read the substack, you will see that it is presented as the source of the full text of the letter to the Council sent by Kate Clanchy. The letter is published inside the substack. The letter in turn is the full text of the document writen about in the Times. NoorStores (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand what it is claiming to be. Wikipedia cannot cite a Substack copy of a letter, because an anonymous Substack is not a reliable source: it may not be an accurate copy. Belbury (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have replaced the paragraph with adjustments. You will see that Sir Philip Pullman twice stated his reasons for resigning and they clearly consequential, he says 'being asked to apologise for things he hadn't done'.

Please do not remove the paragraph again. This story has at least 50 sources with Joanne Harris's name in it. It is a huge story for her. I do not want to overwhelm her page but it is not right not mention it. It is not neutral. Now I must do the JK Rowling story which is even bigger and more difficult . NoorStores (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Pullman resigning from the Society of Authors seems more relevant to the Society of Authors article than Joanne Harris's biography. From the extract quoted in the sources, his comment is about the management committee asking him to apologise, rather than Harris specifically. Belbury (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I will also place it on the Society of Authors page, thank you. NoorStores (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I am working on the other part of the Joanne Harris topic with J K Rowling. This is even bigger than Philip Pullman and also even more personal and quite scary for me. When I have got somewhere with it I will put it up and cut down the Pullman part probably. Excuse me not doing it in all the sandbox, but the cite-bot only allows so much text at one time. Mr Belbury I genuinely appreciate your edits, the text is better and fairer and I will make it shorter still when I can. I hope you can see all the work I have done on the Harris page, honestly it started up with no citations and straight from her website! NoorStores (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

As the subject of this page, I'd like to provide some clarity here. The letter sent by Kate Clanchy to the SoA Council, which was subsequently leaked and published in various newspapers, contains some serious - and provable - inaccuracies as well as some potentially defamatory allegations. The Times and the Mail were both obliged to make retractions and provide apologies to me concerning this. I would also suggest that anything factual regarding SoA business, or my role with the SoA, should be posted on the SoA page, rather than on my author page. 2A02:C7C:AEEE:8000:C1DE:8123:BD1F:4ED9 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me Ms Harris, I am honoured you have read my work here but with the greatest respect I am going to remove your changes. Unfortunately here on Wikipedia we have the policy of neutrality so people who are connected with the article do not change the article. I removed the piece about themes in the books because they did not have any citations from neutral verified sources, not for any other reason. Similar with SOA piece, everything is verified. The material you have removed does not mention the letter you cite here. The material only refers to verified sources. NoorStores (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The content was removed by User:Keyserzozie and flagged at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Joanne Harris by the same user. I can't see that Keyserzozie has explicitly declared that they are Harris, but removing disputed content and posting to BLPN is the instruction given regarding defamatory content at WP:COISELF.

This should be reviewed at BLPN rather than restored by the user who originally added it. Belbury (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mr Belbury I hoped you would help. Keyserzozie wrote

As the subject of this page, I'd like to provide some clarity here.

So I think she means she is Ms Harris?

I do not think it is defamatory if it is in the Times and Telegraph?

Is it suitable to go to confict of interest page? NoorStores (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already notified the user of COI policy. The issue seems to be that the Times posted an article, then retracted some of it, and you've been quoting those retracted parts - which as I flagged a few days ago at the same BLPN link, I wasn't able to check because it's paywalled. I guess this connects to you trying to cite a leaked Substack copy of a letter that the Times didn't publish in full at Talk:Monisha Rajesh#Racist abuse over Kate Clanchy book. Please don't restore this content again until this has been looked at. Belbury (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This is untrue.

As you can see, the Times article is amended. I have only ever cited the amended article.

Please stop bullying me Mr Belbury. It is very distressing. NoorStores (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the article in full. In my opinion Mr Belbury you should not make judgements on people when you cannot read the source. I read the Times in the library.

(Redacted)

NoorStores (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The Times piece repeats various claims taken from a leaked document written by Kate Clanchy to the Society of Authors Council. This document contains unproven speculation on what happened in Society of Authors meetings, unproven speculation on the background to Philip Pullman's resignation, as well as some untrue (and I believe, libellous) allegations against me, all of which were presented by Clanchy in her document and elsewhere as facts. As the target of these accusations, I have every right to comment. Wikipedia is not the place to air personal grievances, however deeply felt. 2A02:C7C:AEEE:8000:35AE:4D2D:E5DF:B990 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Ms Harris, I am sorry you are upset and writing late at night. But please I do not understand what is happening here.

First of all, I believe you really are Joanne Harris, and I would like to say, I am honoured to talk to you, you are a very distinguished lady and in making your page neutral I am not disrespecting you. I hope you also noticed that I removed disrespectful statements about your son and also disrespectful tweets.

Libel

We are talking about this article from the Times, above. This article was published in September 2022, then (I believe) you sued the Times. This must have been very difficult and expensive for you. Then the Times changed bits of the article, in 2023, because they agreed with your points.So now we have an amended article and all the bits of it are checked by your lawyers. But, this amended article is the article I used for a verification. But now you are saying this amended article is still a libel? Is this correct? If so please say where this libel is in the article and why we cannot use this on Wikipedia. Please, this reason should have a verified source, it can't just be your opinion.

Personal

Please, in the message above you are making implications and trying to make me verify my identity it seems to me. But please I am a young Muslim woman trying to find my career in publishing. As well I do not have all the politically correct views. I cannot put my full identity on here. Please do not pressure me any more Ms Harris, it is not fair.

I must go to work now. I will pray for you today. Noor. NoorStores (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't removed any changes, NoorStores. The content was brought to my attention by someone else, which is why I'm commenting here, and declaring my interest. From your own comments on this thread and your response to Belbury, I feel that you may not be an impartial editor when it comes to the subject of Kate Clanchy. I also notice that the Wikipedia pages for Sunny Singh, Monisha Rajesh and Chimene Suleiman - all women with whom Kate Clanchy has had issue - have also been amended by you, removing positive details and adding lengthy portions of text reiterating Kate Clanchy's complaints. This feels personal, and therefore - in my opinion - quite inappropriate. 2A02:C7C:AEEE:8000:35AE:4D2D:E5DF:B990 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You do not have a Wikipedia identity or record and have no examples of what you describe so excuse me but I will ignore your comments.

We are on Wikipedia. We are trying to be neutral. Mr Belbury, we have a problem with the verifiablity of an article in the Times. You do not have access to the Times. But instead of waiting for someone who did have access to look at the article, you took it on yourself to to place accusations on this page of bad faith on my part. That is not right in the spirit of Wikipedia because on Wikipedia we read the sources!. It is very distressing and unfair to me and makes a bad record. I have done nothing wrong. NoorStores (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If this IP user is Harris then they are correctly following the WP:COISELF guideline in raising their concern on the article talk page. They are not required to have a named Wikipedia account. Belbury (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Mr Belbury. Ms Harris in her latest contribution states that she made the citations in question, so I think she and Keyerzozie are the same person. I will sort out the citations so the URLs are correct. NoorStores (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I was careful when I edited your page and my motivation was to make it a Wikipedia page not a website page. This is why I have been very carful with sources. The sources for information about the Society of Authors are very carefully checked. They are not from the Daily Mail! For the Times source, it refers only to information published after you made your complaint, so it is not libel it is double checked for not-libel, anything libel out. I am sorry if you do not want this information on your page, but there are more than 100 verified newspaper reports about these stories. They are the biggest stories about you in the last 10 years. NoorStores (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

unfortunately we cannot have facts without citations. So you have inserted

She has judged a number of literary prizes, including the Orange (Women's) Prize, the Whitbread Prize, the Desmond Elliott Prize, the Primadonna Prize and the Winton Prize for Science

I am sure this is true but we need the citation. I hope someone will supply this. It needs to be from a neutral verified source. If this does not happen we will have to take it down, I'm sorry Ms Harris NoorStores (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding citations. Unfortunately you have not done so correctly, and the citations have bare URLS. If you look at the Wikipedia how to edit pages, you can learn to cite properly. I had trouble with this at first, but it is worth doing. NoorStores (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've put Harris's in the past because she has it in the past on her blog and on the Society of Author's website. - where are you seeing this on her blog? I can't see anything about it.

The Society of Authors website has a heading of Chair of the Management Committee (2022-24) and also says She succeeded David Donachie as Chair of the SoA’s Management Committee in January 2020. Unless one of those dates is wrong, it sounds like she's been chair since 2020, and is the chair during the current (2022-2024) period. Belbury (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mr Belbury, on Joanne Harris's Website, under 'about',https://www.joanne-harris.co.uk/about/ it says

She is a passionate advocate for authors’ rights, and was the Chair of the Society of Authors (SOA) for four years.

I was puzzled by this, but it seems the Society of Authors Chair changes in January

https://societyofauthors.org/News/News/2022/February/Joanne-Harris-re-elected-unanimously-as-chair-of-S

So I assume she is waiting for the new chair.

As it is very important to you, I will change to the present tense. I have no bad intention in writing the past tense. NoorStores (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian piece is based on statements by Harris who is quoted in the article. NoorStores (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

As I have just posted on the COI Noticeboard and on the BLP noticeboard, I would strongly suggest that you consider yourself conflicted on this topic and avoid making any further edits to Joanne Harris, Kate Clanchy, Sunny Singh, Monisha Rajesh, Chimene Suleiman, Philip Pullman and related article.

If there are things you think are inaccurate or need clarification, then put them together into a single, clear summary for each article and post them to the Talk: pages as a proposal to seek consensus for another un-conflicted editor to make the changes, as we would expect of any other conflicted editor. And remember, we are here to build an encyclopædia, not to right great wrongs. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

That's quite right. And that's why I have tried so hard to build a neutral page here. NoorStores (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm not arguing that Harris isn't notable. She clearly is. But this article reads like a glowing group hug written by an overzealous fan at times. I had to remove two sections that just quoted her verbatim from twitter and various other places. The article as a whole needs a lot of work to be neutral and encyclopedic rather than reading like a fan page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with comment above. The early life section also seems written by the subject herself. Where is the information sourced from otherwise? JosefKrasna (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

all the sources seem to be the author's own website. There are very few citations and those there are do not check out. I'm doing some work but the whole article seems flawed. NoorStores (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

For example, none of the publications have references. NoorStores (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the style quite a lot as of January 2024, but there is still a way to go on the citations.Lots of the books have their own articles already so I feel it is better to keep the main article short and direct readers to these. Also, the article links to the author's website, so anyone who wants nice information for introductions can go there. Wikipedia must be neutral and balanced! Working on this article has taught me this!!! NoorStores (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That was all very interesting. @Tokyogirl79ReaderofthePack you might like to know that you were correct in 2012. This page and also most of the book pages linked to it were written by a very zealous fan of Joanne Harris, so zealous she works on her behalf for free and has done for 22 years!! She is called @Keyserzozie and she has never acknowledged in all this time she was working for Harris. So I'm saying it now. NoorStores (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Eyes on this page?

As the subject of this web page, I'm aware that I need to declare an interest. However, it was brought to my attention yesterday that the account, Noorstores, has attempted a large number of changes and deletions to my page over the past few weeks. Given that it is inappropriate for me to offer edits, and that I now believe Noorstores to have a personal agenda, could someone else please advise? I have the following concerns.

Personal life: I see no possible benefit in deadnaming my son, or quoting the Twitter storm that followed the discovery that he was trans.

The original description of my shed was simply: "she works from a shed in her garden." The new, expanded description ("5-acre woodland garden"), alongside the location of the very small village in which I live, now makes it all too easy to find my house.

Work: Noorstores has deleted keyserzozie's mention of a musical I co-wrote with Howard Goodall on the basis that his personal website gave insufficient proof: here's a link from BroadwayWorld instead: I hope that will be enough to help reinstate the information. https://www.broadwayworld.com/westend/article/Musical-Theatre-Network-Appoints-New-Patron-and-Board-Members-20230327

Noorstores objected when, following her claim that a list of prizes I have judged and chaired were unverified, I tried to add some clarifying links. I'd be very grateful therefore if someone else added them for me before this too, is deleted.

I do absolutely understand the need for clarity and impartiality on Wiki, and would love to see a broader range of contributors to the page. 2A02:C7C:AEEE:8000:F065:E590:4EBC:9F4A (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Ms Harris, I'm sure we are all honoured to have you here. I know I am.

Please, I did not deadname your son! On the contrary, I removed a disrespectful insertion that you had two children. I made a topic on the talk page entitled Children asking for respect and care, but you have removed it.

I believe you are also Keyserzozie? Keyzozie introduced herself as 'the subject of the page' and also, Keyerzozie inserted the list of prizes you are speaking of and also the opera. I did not object to them, but I did say that the citations werent' correct. That is because they are bare URLs. I will now sort them out for you.

I have no personal agenda Ms Harris. This must be hard for you! NoorStores (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Nor did I add the information about your garden. NoorStores (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

NoorStores, you have been told repeatedly that Joanne Harris is not editing under the username Keyserzozie. I am starting to think that you are not listening. Please read what others have read and stop making false accusations. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Just so you know, Primefac, Keyserzozie has clarified on her talk page that she works for Joanne Harris and started the Joanne Harris page 22 years ago and only works on that page. User talk:Keyserzozie NoorStores (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know, which is why your insistence that they are the same person baffles me. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Keyserzozie has only said on their talk page that they've been editing Harris's article "on her behalf". They haven't said whether that's in a professional capacity. Belbury (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this close connection and the fact they operate at the same time and have the same interests for instance with the citations, I believe any one would be confused. NoorStores (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, Keyserzozie is the name of Joanne Harris's myspace page, and Keyserzozie took the photos of Joanne Harris on Wikicommons so they are very close it seems. NoorStores (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone, this is Joanne Harris. Keyserzozie was a name under which several of my social media profiles were created - by the same person, who happened to be helping me at the time, a fact that has already been acknowledged. Noorstores, I'm struggling to understand why this is relevant to your activity on my page, or why you're referencing a MySpace that hasn't been active for well over a decade. 2A02:C7C:AEEE:8000:B9DD:D916:F26D:3411 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me Ms Harris but I do not in good faith believe you are struggling to understand in reality. We are discussing neutrality and fairness here. You have made a complaint that I am in bad faith and have a personal agenda so I think it is fair for me to defend myself. I have put the details about keyserzozie and myspace becasue it shows how close you have been for a long time. I don't think it matters if this a very close friend or your personal assistant or you yourself here on Wiikpedia. You've said keyserzozie is working 'on your behalf' but keyserzozie did not declare this on any of your pages in wikipedia. Keyserzozie started your article in wikipedia and wrote most of it. Keyerzozie started and mostly wrote the articles for your books Peaches for Monsieur Le Cure , Runelight. and made big big contributions to the articles about your books Runemarks, Gentleman and Players and Lollipop Shoes. So your article in Wikipedia before I edited it was mostly written by someone who worked for you and was linked to six more articles written by the same person. You are objecting to me adding 200 words about your work with the Society of Authors, 200 words I had backed up with 12 verified sources liek the BBC and Times and Guardian. You cut it out and replaced it with a paragraph about 'recurrent themes' written by keyserzozie, who works on your behalf, which had no citations at all. But I am being accused of conflict of interest?

Also, I looked up Keyserzozie the word and maybe is Keyser Söze who is a character in the Usual Suspects, which you say is your favourite film.

Also, maybe we should hear from Keyersozie? NoorStores (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've already answered you, @NoorStores, on my page. Not only you are not listening, you are also being aggressive. I haven't been a regular editor on here for years, and I don't have time to check or answer all your messages. This isn't your space, or mine. I won't answer you again. Keyserzozie (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Accuracy matters: @NoorStores, you say Keyserzozie has clarified on her talk page that she works for Joanne Harris. No, Keyserzozie has not said that they "work for" JH. Before you posted that, they had said I am not Joanne Harris, but I did set up the original page, and I do add to it from time to time on her behalf.. Not the same - plenty of people might set up a page, and edit it, on behalf of a friend or family member who is busier or less technically minded, not understanding Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest rules. "Work for" implies working for pay, which is hedged around with much more stringent Wikipedia rules. Today, later, KS has clarified I'm not an employee, or anything like that. PamD 16:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Pam, of course you are quite correct as always. I will take care to say 'act on behalf of Joanne Harris' in future as those are the words @Keyserzozie has chosen for themselves.

Today I looked up the editing @Keyserzozie has undertaken on behalf of Joanne Harris. It ammounts to more than 20,00) words over 22 years. In addition to setting up, writing and editing the Joanne Harris itself, @Keyserzozie has added very substantially to the Joanne Harris book pages for Runelight, Chocolat, Blackberry Wine, Runemarks and Runlight, and started and mostly created the pages for Peaches for Monsieur le Cure, Lollipop Shoes and Gentleman and Players and I feel KS should have noticed the conflict of interest rules in all that time. Also I noticed that in 2012 KS was challenged on her edits by @ReaderofthePack 09:39, 2 November 2012‎ ReaderofthePack talk contribs‎  16,685 bytes +9‎  needs cleanup to remove promotional language, reads too much like a glowing fan page. But KS just ignored her and put most of the content back and this does not seem right to me.

So I am not quite sure what to do. What would you advise for the best? NoorStores (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

20,000 words! Typo NoorStores (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Also last edit by @Keyserzoziewas October 2023, not long ago.

Also I think if they were acting together when they accused me of libel and conflict of interest they should have said so. NoorStores (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question (what to do), there is nothing to do other than making sure future edits to the article are properly sourced and neutrally-written. Keyserzozie has declared their COI and everyone is in agreement that they are not Harris herself, which is all that is required. I suggest moving on and concentrating on improving the article itself if it still requires it. Primefac (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The history has been oversighted now, but it's also incorrect for NoorStores to say that Harris/Keyserzozie has removed any content from this talk page. The short talk page section where NoorStores gave the deadname of Harris's son and asked for "respect and care" around it was removed as inappropriate by User:Antiqueight earlier today. Belbury (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I am simply going on what I have been told. Ms Harris says she I put up the notice Children after I removed some distressing content from a user which was intent on proving that Ms Harris had two children! It was wrong and I said so.

I have sorted out the citations now and they are all correct. NoorStores (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Honours and Awards

I'm trying to verify what I thought was something quite simple, and it's turning out harder than I'd expected. "Harris's books are published in over fifty countries and have won a number of UK and international awards." I've managed to get a Guardian piece that mentions the 50 countries, but there's already a list of honours and prizes, all with their own links, further down the page. Does the second part of the phrase still need a link? And if so, is this enough, please? I don't want to fall out with the bot! https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2014/02/article_0005.html Keyserzozie (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Calling another user a "bot" is rather insulting. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The reference refers to " Chocolat" only not "books" and we don't need to say she has won numerous awards because they are indeed listed below. Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Keyserzozie given your conflict of interest, it would be better if you used the request edit template {{edit COI}} to suggest changes. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it was another user. Apologies for not making that clear. I was talking about the bot that alerts you to URL errors. And regarding the COI, Wiki seems to have changed a lot since I was last active on here. I'm sadly out of touch. But I'm not planning to edit on here any more. Keyserzozie (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

COI tag (January 2024)

SPA User:Keyserzozie has edited for 22 years but STILL not made the correct declaration on their user page Theroadislong (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The user has made 320 edits in 22 years, and was only notified about Wikipedia's COI policy for the first time a few days ago. Nobody has asked them to make a declaration on their user page.

And a user page declaration is optional, as I understand it? That's on me if I'm wrong, I was advising the user on their talk page about the importance of following COI, but asking them to make a user page declaration didn't occur to me. WP:COI seems to frame it as an "if you want" with only paid editors being asked to add mandatory user page declarations. Belbury (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I see, it's either a user page template, edit summaries or a talk page template under WP:DISCLOSE. So the template on this talk page already covers it, for their edits to this page. I'll advise them about editing other articles. Belbury (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. Sorry, I've never had a userpage. I wasn't aware at the time that I needed one. Keyserzozie (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't. As Belbury says, there are many ways to disclose a COI, and the tag at the top of the page does this. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Notable Topics

If you look up Joanne Harris on google, you get overwhelmingly stories about her social media activities and views. I'm not turning this into controversies but I think it's fair to mention them, so I have put a sentence back NoorStores (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

On that topic, and while we have the eyes of Theroadislong on this page, I'm going to put up the section about Harris's time as Chair of the Society of Authors. I don't think anyone could argue that it's not notable. No other Chair of the Society of Authors had the President resign, or had a motions against them at the AGM, or had a leader in the Times telling them to resign. I've got 17 verifiable sources on this 220 words, but I could have chspnk Wikipedia not having the story she is notable for but having stuff about perfume journalism is not really a neutral point of view.

Anyway, if I have it wrong Theroadislong will tell me. NoorStores (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@NoorStores Your editing continues to give the impression that you are eager for JH's article to include whatever negative aspects you can source, while also happy to minimise coverage of any awards. I suggest that we WP:AGF that if her personal website says she won or was shortlisted for XYZ Award, then, barring the odd typo (eg two Ts in Whitaker), this is true. I think a personal website is considered an acceptable source for stuff like this, especially older facts less likely to be easily findable online but undoubtedly verifiable in a newspaper archive or back numbers of The Bookseller. Or do you suggest she is a liar? PamD 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

In 16 or so years of editing here, I have never before heard that a subject's own website would be a suitable source for an award, this is exactly the sort of content that requires reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

So the Society of Authors section has been removed by an IP address. NoorStores (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, Pam, I think JH hasn't been totally truthful, has she? When it comes to self-promotion I mean. She had keyserzozie on here on her behalf for 22 years. She is Chair of the Society of Authors, so she knows the rules, or she should.

I'm trying to be neutral though. As you see, I've carefully cited and put in the W H Smith Award, and I've also made the profile of her books clearer and I think more of that could be done. But it's also clear that some awards are notable and some aren't, which is why Theroadislong recommended the Creative Freedom Award had to go and I took it down.

But it's also true that I'm angry with JH. That's because she made me suffer by coming on here and making a complaint against me. I had comments coming at me in four directions and false allegations and just straight abuse. I was really distressed.

So Pam I will say you are right as usual in the bigger picture and I will go off now and apply for another job. NoorStores (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleting potentially libellous material

I am Joanne Harris. As the subject of this page, I have deleted a section of text inserted by Noorstores on the basis that it is poorly sourced, contentious and potentially libellous. Noorstores has argued that she has no personal bias, and yet her activity on this page (and elsewhere) would suggest otherwise. I would urge her to refrain from reposting this material. (Note: I'm not engaging in any further discussion about this on here. Please don't message me.) 2A00:23C4:7981:4701:BDE3:CC06:F8BF:BE7B (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

you have to stop this now Ms Harris, please. It isn't appropriate. NoorStores (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

See the page at Wikipedia:Libel for how best to raise concerns of this nature. An email from an author or their representative will carry more weight than an anonymous IP comment which may not even be genuinely from Harris. Belbury (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

citations in strange order

Something very bad has happened to the citation with all the switching. They are doubled up all the way through. I'm going to take the page back to before the Society of Authors section went in, then put it back in the hope of sorting it out NoorStores (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any problems from my end? Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

no I think I just sorted them. NoorStores (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, though haven't checked closely. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's okay I did some copying and recopying and we are nearly there. NoorStores (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Phew. all sorted. As you were! I am sure that was all my fault. I make mistakes unless I do big shifts on wikitext not visual editor. NoorStores (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

NoorStores Ref number 27 has no details? Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

it does now NoorStores (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Needs a page number. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I've found the book and her name on the cover but google books won't yield a page number NoorStores (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not clear how that supports the content "has travelled to Togo and to the Congo to report on their work"? Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If you mean Writing on the Edge, check it out at the Internet Archive library. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Using the search function 'Togo" doesn't appear? Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I cut it and put in the name of the chapter. I've got to work now, excuse me. Noor NoorStores (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

request to add text

I don't believe I have a conflict of interest, but my case is still open. @Keyserzozie who acts on behalf of Joanne Harris, removed this text and references from the Joanne Harris page. I believe the events described are notable, neutrally described and well referenced. I think the page would be more neutral if they were included.

• Specific text to be added or removed: Sir Philip Pullman was president of the society when Harris became chair, but resigned in 2022, stating that he 'would not be free to state his opinion' if he remained in position and later criticising Harris for her 'facetious and flippant public comments'. In August 2022, shortly after the knife attack on author Salman Rushdie, Harris placed a poll about death threats on Twitter/X for fellow authors which some found inappropriate . Harris changed the wording of the poll and, following criticism to the contrary, stated that it had 'nothing to do with JK Rowling'. Rowling then stated that Harris was more widely failing to defend authors, citing the cases of 'cancelled' writers Gillian Phillip/Erin Hunter and Rachel Rooney. In response, Harris stated that this was a 'fabricated' row based on animus about her views. Following continued discussion including comments from former Chair Antony Beevor, and author Kate Clanchy, and criticism of Harris for failing to support free speech, a motion was created for the Annual General Meeting of November 2022 asking Harris to resign. This motion was defeated.

"News | The Society of Authors". societyofauthors.org. Retrieved 7 January 2024.

Shaffi, Sarah (25 March 2022). "'I would not be free to express my opinion': Philip Pullman steps down as Society of Authors president". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 November 2023.

"Ex-Society of Authors president Pullman calls for external review of organisation". The Bookseller. Retrieved 7 January 2024.

Urwin, Rosamund (8 January 2024). "Rival writers' camps in free speech showdown". Retrieved 8 January 2024.

Sanderson, David (7 January 2024). "War of words between authors Joanne Harris and Kate Clanchy is investigated". Retrieved 7 January 2024.

Johnston, Neil (8 January 2024). "Police investigate JK Rowling threat as writers fear for freedom after attack on Salman Rushdie". Retrieved 8 January 2024.

"Society of Authors and Harris defend stance on threats and free speech after author criticism". The Bookseller. Retrieved 8 January 2024.

"JK Rowling in 'betrayal' row with authors' society chair Joanne Harris". BBC News. 16 August 2022. Retrieved 8 January 2024.

Wade, Mike (7 January 2024). "JK Rowling attacks Chocolat author over 'betrayal' in gender row".

Walsh, Joani (8 January 2024). "Rachel Rooney's children's book, My Body is Me, labelled 'anti‑trans extremism'". Retrieved 8 January 2024.

Wade, Mike (8 January 2024). "JK Rowling's gender row part of fabricated culture war, says Chocolat author Joanne Harris". Retrieved 8 January 2024.

Kerridge, Jake (27 September 2022). "How the Society of Authors succumbed to groupthink". The Telegraph. Retrieved 8 January 2024.

Urwin, Rosamund (8 January 2024). "Rival writers' camps in free speech showdown". Retrieved 8 January 2024.

Bindel, Julie (2022-11-23). "It's time to replace the Society of Authors". The Spectator. Retrieved 2024-01-15.

Iqbal, Jawad (2024-01-15). "Society of Authors needs leader free of 'double speak'". ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2024-01-15.

Sanderson, David (2024-01-15). "Writers urge Joanne Harris to quit as Society of Authors chief". ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2024-01-15.

Sherwood, Harriet; Taylor, Harry; Arts, Harriet Sherwood; correspondent, culture (17 November 2022). "Joanne Harris sees off vote to oust her from Society of Authors role". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 January 2024.

• Reason for the change: ADD TEXT HERE
• References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST

NoorStores (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

For context to this edit request, NoorStores has since said elsewhere on this talk page "My COi discussion has been closed so I'm free to continue here." (it has not been closed) and has applied the edit themselves.

That Harris's time as Society of Authors chair included a failed attempt to remove her from the position is worth mentioning, but it's WP:UNDUE to give this much blow-by-blow detail to it. Ending with "The motion was defeated" also seems a very mild way of phrasing what the source describes as 81% opposing it - as well as two open letters both supporting and opposing Harris's position, each signed by "scores" of writers; this paragraph does not mention or even really imply any support. Belbury (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's best to seek Arbitration Belbury and I will try to do that. NoorStores (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Society of Authors paragraph says:

"Sir Philip Pullman, who was president of the society when Harris became chair, resigned in 2022, because his personal opinions were being mistaken for positions of the society and he felt he could not speak freely as a result."

But as far as I can see, the first source doesn't mention Harris, and the second only quotes her at having said she was sorry he was leaving and praised his work. The resignation letter (linked in the first piece) doesn't mention her either. Shouldn't Pullman's reasons for leaving the Society be on Pullman's page, rather than this one? LittleFranzl (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Keyserzozie, see investigation)

That's because the actual connection with Harris has been eliminated because editors don't want Kate Clanchy mentioned. In fact there are a wealth of articles demonstrating the connection between Harris and Pullman's resignation and it was also there in earlier drafts. NoorStores (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about Arbitration

Please don't; you need to be able to show that DRN, BLPN, and/or COIN have been unable to solve whatever issues you think are occurring, and that has not happened. If you file a case request at this point in time it will only be declined. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC) What is your interest in the matter? NoorStores (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC) I am an Arbitrator. My interest is to save you wasting both your and my time with a premature case request. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) I see. So you know that you will be in charge of any complaint I make and you know that it will be a waste of time? That sounds like a threat to me. Is that your intention? NoorStores (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC) No, it's the truth. If you filed a case request about this article, I would vote to decline the case request because the other dispute resolution mechanisms have not been utilised. I doubt I would be the only Arb to do so. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC) It would not be about this article alone but several matters . Your language was threatening and your attitude presumptive and patrons. Between this and your other comment I suggest that you very carefully examine your unconscious bias towards brown women. I also suggest you do not interact wuth me again. I will report your remarks with my arbitration case. NoorStores (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Until just now when you said you were a brown woman I did not know this fact, which means I have no unconscious bias? Primefac (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Please read and assume WP:GOODFAITH, NoorStores. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Whit(t)aker award? and Creative Freedom Award?

What is the "Whittaker Gold Award" (and the platinum) mentioned for Chocolat and for Blackberry Wine? I can find nothing online apart from mentions of Harris getting it: GoodReads has an entry for the award ... with just the one book. I imagine this is a garbled version of something else, or a long-defunct award, but I can't find anything! Note that it's listed in the article with both one and two "t"s, but on Harris's own website with the one "t". @Keyserzozie: can you perhaps help, even ask JH? PamD 13:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe it has become the Nielsen Golden (Silver/Platinum) Book Award, as the Orange Prize became the Women's Prize. (link here: [1]https://nielsenbestsellerawards.com/#:~:text=Books%20selling%20over%20250%2C000%20copies,books%20are%20awarded%20Platinum%20status.) Keyserzozie (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's a piece in the Bookseller about the Whitaker and JK Rowling, which also mentions Joanne Harris. They received them the same year. Do you think that's a suitable source? [2] And here's something that clarifies the relationship between the Whittaker and the Nielsen Awards. https://nielsenbook.co.uk/about/ Keyserzozie (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Keyserzozie Yes, I've found a few sources and Nielsen Bestseller Awards or some such will be turning blue soon, with incoming redirects from earlier title! I think it's notable: the 140 titles in the "Platinum Hall of Fame" might even be worth listing, it'll be interesting to see how many of the authors are in Wikipedia. I suspect a lot won't be as they'll not be "literary" enough, but it might be interesting to work on! But not now, I'm off to read the latest Richard Osman, picked up as a reservation at the library just now, while sitting with a coffee in the other bar while my husband goes to a committee meeting at local pub which he's not really well enough to be going to so I'm driving him there and back. PamD 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Enjoy! Keyserzozie (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

And the same applies to the Creative Freedom Award: unlikely to be any of the ones I can find on Googling, and again a single-book entry in GoodReads. Any ideas? PamD 13:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pam, I think the award only lasted a few years. JH lists it on her website, and I can find references to it elsewhere, but it doesn't exist any more. Keyserzozie (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think therefore they should be removed, it doesn't serve Wikipedia or Harris to include defunct non notable awards, it detracts from the better stuff. Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There are, however, photos of the 2000 awards ceremony at Alamy and Getty Images. Maybe the name has changed - lots of awards seem to do that.[3]https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/creative-freedom-awards-at-planit-2000-in-london.html?sortBy=relevant Keyserzozie (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Photographs cannot be used as sources, nobody is doubting that the awards were given, but that they are not notable enough in Wikipedia terms to mention. Theroadislong (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the Creative Freedom Award. Great work on the Whitaker Award Pam!

My COi discussion has been closed so I'm free to continue here. NoorStores (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Pam I have another project for you! The W H Smith Award doesn't have a page but it was quite a big one for some years.

I can't find any verifiable listings for Harris's book on the shortlist for 2002, or the shortlist for the RNA awards though that award does have a page. Perhaps Keyserzozie could ask Joanne. NoorStores (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The Festival Du Livre Gourmand has this wiki page but no web page I can find. No mention of any connection with Harris - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festival_du_livre_gourmand NoorStores (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The list of all winners of the Edgar Awards is here. https://edgarawards.com/all-winners/?listpage=3&instance=1 Joanne Harris is not on it so I will remove that prize from the list NoorStores (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I see it is a shortlisting but I can't verify that anywhere or find out what catergory of award it is. I don't think that is notable NoorStores (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I've looked very hard for The Prix du Livre Gourmand including on French sites. A similar prize exists but there is no record of Harris on it. So I've deleted it for now

Not to say she didn't win it, and it Keyserzozie can come up with a source I'd be happy to put it back. NoorStores (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it, but Keyserzozie has said in the COIN section about your edits they have left the project as a result of the "drama" that they have seen around here. Belbury (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Or if anyone else can find a reference? NoorStores (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The Edgar Award shortlist was cited to the Debretts source that you removed from the article. The Edgars website says the Harris's book was shortlisted for Best Novel in 2007.

The Salon du Livre Gourmand awards can also be sourced from Debretts. Belbury (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequately independent as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage. From WPRS. Theroadislong (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed the Debrett's reference for that reason. Queries are automatically raised if you cite it. It's good that the Edgars one is there. I'll remove the Salon du Livre Gourmand one for now, on the principle that readers won't be able to check it for themselves. The Edgars are a notable award, but it's hard to say the other one is.

Still looking for a verification of the W H Smith shortlisting. NoorStores (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a Guardian article on the WH Smith Award of 2002. Ian McEwan won that year. But Harris is not mentioned on the shortlist. I'll keep looking.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/apr/10/books.booksnews NoorStores (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I've found a BBC article on 2002. It has a bug on it so won't put it up, but it as the full shortlist for WH Smith Award 2002 and Harris is not on it. I've checked 2001 and not there either. NoorStores (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jan/21/books.booksnews includes the 2002 shortlist, which lists Harris. Belbury (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll put the citation in. I think the glitch is that this a fiction shortlist and the award is cross-genre. NoorStores (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I've had a little search, and it looks like the Salon du Livre Gourmand is now known as the Gourmand Awards. Harris is there under Wine Books 1995-2014. Click the drop down menu category Drinks Literature and Harris's name is there, and the publisher (Doubleday). It's really well hidden! Also, it's a bit weird because this is mostly a cookbook award, but there's a literary section. https://www.cookbookfair.com/index.php/gourmand-awards/past-winners/winners-1995-2014-gg

Actually I'm a bit surprised that the Gourmand Awards doesn't have a wiki page - it looks pretty notable. LittleFranzl (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Keyserzozie, see investigation)

Great. Thank you for all that research. I'll put in the citation. NoorStores (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. But you have put in (France), and the link makes it clear it's an international award. LittleFranzl (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Keyserzozie, see investigation)

sorry, France was in the original citation so I repeated . I'm a bit confused with the new citation though. Was the winner of the International Prize in the Drinks Category? NoorStores (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It says: Gourmand Awards, Wine Books, 2000. It's an archive, so the reference isn't easy to find. LittleFranzl (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Keyserzozie, see investigation)

Well it's a book about wine, so I suppose it's reasonable to say it's in the drinks category. French websites seem to be a bit old-fashioned! NoorStores (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It has not been closed. It is still ongoing. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeking arbitration over this. NoorStores (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Newspaper choices Society of Authors

When we are citing for Wikipedia it is important to remember to be neutral. You might have a subscription to the Bookseller and not one to the Times, but that does not mean the Bookseller is a better choice. They are both paywalled. If you just quote the Guardian because it isn't paywalled you can get a biased point of view. So I have put back a Times source here. A leader in the Times is still quite an important event. Personally I read the Times in the library. A lot of Wikireaders will do the same. NoorStores (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Antiqueight's edit changed the point of view any of the statements being made, it just drew the same quotations from different news reports of the same events.

NoorStores has added a paywalled Times reference for Jawad Iqbal having "accused Harris of 'double speak'", as a final word on the author criticism. Can someone who can see past the paywall confirm that it's a direct quote made in the piece, and perhaps put it into more context? And is the article a "leader" or an opinion piece from a columnist? (I'm not a Times reader so don't know what the "Thunderer" icon suggests.) Belbury (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) NoorStores (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

YEs, it is the leader from Tuesday the 16th of August 2022 NoorStores (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) NoorStores (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If you could not read the Times articles you are not in a position to judge the neutrality, or the change are you? NoorStores (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The Thunderer icon means a leader. It's written by Jawad Iqbal. NoorStores (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

NoorStores, when you are quoting someone, please either add quotation marks or use {{tq}} - trying to parse out what is your writing and what is a quote is getting difficult. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

above the first part is a quote from the article as requested by Belbury. Then a message from me, then more quotation. NoorStores (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I want you to add the quotes. I do not know where your text starts and ends, and you do. Please do not make me ask again. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Your tone is aggressive and sarcastic. It’s completely inappropriate especially when you know you are speaking to a brown woman. NoorStores (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Until just now I did not know those things about you. I will, however, ask again: please indicate in your comments above what is a quote and what is your own words. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If you do not know that I am a young brown woman then you have not researched sufficiently to comment on my case. You don’t know what you are talking about. But I will refer your remarks none the less. And no I’m not going to follow your orders because your intentions are to score points and humiliate, not to clarify anything. NoorStores (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not judging any neutrality or changing what you've written, I'm asking on the talk page for other editors to check that the source actually uses the quote that's being attributed to it, and whether or not it's a Times "leader". From what you've quoted here it sounds like the public-facing aspects of the Society are being accused of "double speak" more than Harris is. There may be a better way to phrase Iqbal's opinion of Harris, if it needs to be quoted at all. Belbury (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No it is about Harris. But you should wait for other editors able to read the article. The quote comes from the headline 'Society of Authors needs leader (NB Not 'leadership' free of doublespeak'. NoorStores (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Also from article

(Redacted)n.

" NoorStores (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Please assume good faith NoorStores, once again it is not clear which words above are from a quote and which are yours? Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also concur that it's not clear from the above which are your own words and which are quotations. However, we would need your permission to refactor your comments to add the required quotation marks or quotation templates. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I can’t put in the quotation marks because I am at work in restaurant on my phone. You can look up the article though.

as for good faith. Who here assumes good faith of me? NoorStores (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a Bookseller login - it's simply that the first few articles are free which allows someone without either subscription to get to read at least one of the citations. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 22:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That's also true of the Times. And the Times is in libraries free and is an investigative paper of record with an international reputation. In my local library they have the Times but not the Bookseller. The Bookseller repeats other stories because its a small publishing magazine. So the Times is a better record than the Bookseller. Or you could have both. You have replaced Times pieces with Bookseller pieces. I think that's less neutral. NoorStores (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

you need to think of this as a record of events read internationally for a long time. It can't be about what is easier for you. I have to walk to the library to get the Times too. NoorStores (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see - The difference is that you have to have an account, free or otherwise, to see the Times articles. You can see the free Bookseller articles without being logged in. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 01:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't ask for quotes from articles you can't see. Putting up quotes from them leads to copyright violations and gets me into trouble. Assume good faith, leave it to another editor, or walk to the library like I have to do. NoorStores (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You are not being asked to produce more quotes, simply to add quotation marks or {{tq|etc etc}} templates to the quotations that you have already provided above. Or, if you don't want to do that, then please give permission for others to do that. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Three observations:

1. Several of the references in the "Society of Authors" section are poorly formatted and don't even mention "The Times" or any other newspaper title. I haven't checked who added them, but they need to be fixed.
2. Many UK public libraries offer access to Newsbank for their members, from home, and this includes full text of The Times and The Sunday Times. If your local library doesn't, Lancashire Libraries offers membership to anyone resident in the UK. I've just got on my screen the full text of Urwin's 30 October 2022 article. (But I haven't the energy to participate in this content debate, so I'm just adding useful information about access to sources)
3. In discussions, editors need to know what is quotation and what is interpretation. In the past it has been asserted, in talk posts, that Keyserzozie works for JH. That was a misinterpretation of what had been stated.

PamD 08:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Pam. The Times is also widely available in international libraries as I happen to have experienced.. The citations have been taken up and down a lot and I will fix them.

I have taken the quotations down as I believe I quoted too much of the article and it was a copyright violation. NoorStores (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Times Leader August  16^th 2022

This is a short article because it is a leader, so I can’t quote too much. The headine

“”Society of Authors needs leader free of ‘double speak’” The leader implied is Harris.

The article sets out the policy of the Society of Authors towards free speech. It reminds reader about the attack on Salman Rushdie and subsequent threats to JK Rowling. Then it states:

‘”” Instead of offering clear and public support, Joanne Harris, head of the society and a bestselling novelist, first appeared to mock Rowling by publishing a poll on the social media site asking: “Fellow authors . . . have you ever received a death threat (credible or otherwise)?” She now claims this was simply to gather information. Really?’””

This article goes to say about Harris:

“”Harris instead paints herself as a victim, claiming she is routinely subject to harassment: “I am wholly against threats of any kind, to anyone . . . That includes JK Rowling, or anyone whose opinions I might disagree with.” The problem is that too many authors would beg to differ.””

Then article gives examples of these authors.  Then the article concludes

“”The Society of Authors needs a new leader who has the trust of writers…….The time for cynical double-speak is over.””

I think that the article is about Harris because she is the subject of the headline, introduction, body of text and conclusion. She is being contrasted with the values of the Society of Authors. The article says she should leave.

I hope this is clear enough. NoorStores (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the context on a source I couldn't access. Wikipedia shouldn't lift a direct accusation about the Society having been through a "time [of] cynical double-speak" and instead attach that characterisation solely to a specific person instead, to report that Iqbal had used these words that directly when he hadn't. I've reframed the sentence to match the source. Belbury (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That's cherry picking words from the article to make it mean something it plainly doesn't. I will revert. NoorStores (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

IF you are not able to read the article don't ask other editors to commit Copyright violations by posting it. Accept that you are not able to act as an editor at that moment and go to the library where you can read it, then edit. NoorStores (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The Times article's title is "Society of Authors needs leader free of 'double speak'." this would seem to refer to Harris and not about the society in general? Theroadislong (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The theme of the article is the contrast between the Society's avowed values and Harris's behaviour. Then it says she should leave. It's very clear. NoorStores (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

We know who wrote the content, but don't know who wrote the headline (could have been a sub-editor), so it's safer to rely on the content:

The Society of Authors needs a new leader who has the trust of writers. It cannot keep hiding behind lofty public statements on the sanctity of freedom of expression while demonstrating all too clearly that this counts for little when it comes to discussions about gender identity or race. The time for cynical double-speak is over.

This seems to be talking about the society's double-speak while under Harris. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's certainly correct in the context of the article. The 'leader' in question in sentence 1 of the paragraph you quote is clearly Harris. Sentences 2 and 3 are summaries of the main body of the article which contrast the Society's aims with Harris's behaviour. The last sentence is the conclusion. NoorStores (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It is therefore incorrect to revert to accused Harris of "cynical double speak". That is not what the conclusion means, at least not to me. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That in fact wasn't my original wording. Why don't you change it to what you feel is suitable? NoorStores (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone over the Times article in detail.

The final paragraph says:

"Even the society’s own leaders are not immune from the consequences of “wrong-think”: The author Sir Philip Pullman apologised and then stepped down as president after making supportive comments about the Kate Clanchy memoir, which some had criticised for “racist and ableist stereotyping”. He explained that he would not be “free to express [his] personal opinion” as long as he remained in the role.

The Society of Authors needs a new leader who has the trust of writers. It cannot keep hiding behind lofty public statements on the sanctity of freedom of expression while demonstrating all too clearly that this counts for little when it comes to discussions about gender identity or race. The time for cynical double-speak is over."

My feeling is that this is very much an opinion piece, based largely on comments made on Twitter and implying a refusal on Harris' part to support gender critical writers or writers considered politically incorrect. It's not clear from the article exactly what "support" Harris could have offered. And the use of "leaders" in the plural suggests that the Society of Authors has more than one. Given that Harris is Chair of the Society's Board of Directors, I would say therefore that the perceived "double-speak" refers to more than one person. I'm taking the quote out for now as it doesn't seem to refer just to Harris, but to the Society as a whole, and thus doesn't seem relevant here. LittleFranzl (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Keyserzozie, see investigation)

The article is a leader in the Times. That's not a debating point, tit's just a fact, you can tell by the icon on the page and also if you read it online. And it's about Harris, because that's what the headline says and what the article says and also because it was written at the time when people were debating her leadership. . The article says, the Society of Authors is supposed to protect free speech but Joanne Harris doesn't so the Times Newspaper says she should resign. That's what a leader is, it's signed by the journalist but it means, the paper thinks this, that's why its heavy bit of news. But I think you are a conflicted editor and I am going to wait till we get some sense on this. NoorStores (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the headline, I suspect that was "spiced-up" to grab more attention, and the content (around "cynical double-speak") is more nuanced, and we should fairly represent what it concludes there. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Esowteric, I thought I would go through the Times Article in detail. I understand that you can't see it because it's behind a paywall. As I've said, I read The Times in my local library, and I believe I could also get a library subscription to read it at home. It's also available abroad, and it's also the biggest selling broadsheet in Britain and one of the oldest papers in the whole world. It's definitely verifiable source, I don't think you an argue with that.

So here is the article

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/society-of-authors-needs-leader-free-of-double-speak-jwv5mbf67

And even if you can't read all of it you can verify it is a leader, so it is saying the position of the whole Times newspaper not just the writer. It's not just the writers' opinion, its the Times saying 'this is a big issue right now, and this is what we think'

So the big issue right then, 16 August 2022, is the leader of the Society of Authors. We can tell that from the headline which I think you can see also. It says Society of Authors needs leader free of ‘double speak’.

So that's notable in itself IMO because why is the Times having a view on the Society of Authors?? But if we look at the context of the time, like in this not-paywall article, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/21/poison-pens-leading-writers-call-for-overhaul-of-uks-society-of-authors

we can see that the SOA and Joanne Harris wer very much in the news right than. So we can all agree this is a big notable article about that.

So your question is, ( it think!???) is this article about Joanne Harris? Or is the headline misleading because like you say headlines often are. But I don't think so. So the headline is about ' a leader' not 'leadership'. So we want to know, who is the 'leader'. And the answer is Joanne Harris, it can't be anyone else in this case. One simple way of telling this is that the only other leader mentioned is Sir Philip Pullman and he is mentioned as having had to resign, so it really wouldn't make sense for him the 'leader' in the headline. The other way of telling that the headline means Harris is these paragraphs which I can quote without making a CV

""Joanne Harris, head of the society and a bestselling novelist, first appeared to mock Rowling by publishing a poll on the social media site asking: “Fellow authors . . . have you ever received a death threat (credible or otherwise)?” She now claims this was simply to gather information. Really?

Harris instead paints herself as a victim, claiming she is routinely subject to harassment: ""

This shows Harris doing the 'double speak' in the title. You can tell by the sarcastic question 'really?' and the words 'paints herself' in the following sentence which suggests she is covering herself up by painting over something.

Then in the last paragraph it says

The Society of Authors needs a new leader who has the trust of writers.... The time for cynical double-speak is over.

The 'new leader' can only mean someone to replace Joanne Harris because article is about Joanne Harris and how writers don't trust her. And the double speak goes back the other things said in the middle that I've just gone over. Like I said this is a really short article because it's a leader so if I quote more it's CV but I honestly truly do not see how anyone could read it and not think it was about Joanne Harris and telling her to step down. NoorStores (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't at all mind The Times piece being referenced, though I do have reservations about WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:SYNTHESIS. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better if I used the Guardian article as well? Or maybe instead? I don't want to be unbalanced but I also don't want to go on a lot because in a way that's unbalanced too because it makes it the biggest event on the page, and that's not fair either. NoorStores (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to offer many suggestions, but I would also note that looking for sources to backup what we want to say is back to front. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a great insight. I've put it on a post-it and stuck to my screen. I'm going to go for a walk with my sister now. When I come back, I will read all the material and start again. I genuinely studied all this stuff, but the last few days have made me a bit crazy. I'm sorry if I come over that way, but this is honestly some of the weirdest stuff that has ever every happened to me. NoorStores (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to be helpful. You asked for people who had read the article to comment. I've read the article, and I don't think you have any right to accuse me of having a conflict here. LittleFranzl (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Keyserzozie, see investigation)

Leader vs Leader

Hello! I'm an uninvolved editor with no opinions on any of this (I did read the article from The Times), but I just wanted to suggest rephrasing the line:

while a leader in The Times stated that under Harris, the Society of Authors had fallen into "cynical double speak"

if it goes back in. Or you could wiki-link the word 'leader' to go to the page on editorials.

It was fairly confusing as someone not from the UK, especially since the title of the reference is "Society of Authors needs leader free of ‘double speak’" (emphasis added).

Obviously the article should stay in British-English, it's just not super clear when the word 'leader' is being used to describe a type of article vs when it's being used to describe a person, especially for people unfamiliar with the former definition.

I was about to change it yesterday, but then I noticed that there's a lot going on here at the moment that I don't feel qualified to get involved with, so instead I'm just going to leave this note here. Do with that what you will (＾-＾)ｂ CambrianCrab (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks, that's super helpful to me. I'm taking a walk as it has all got a bit intense!!! but when I get back to this I am going to use that info! NoorStores (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be in the article at all now, but could be changed to "leading article instead? Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSEDITORIAL suggests that such statements be attributed to the writer rather than the publication (attribute the opinion to the author in the text). I don't know whether Jawad Iqbal's viewpoint on the Society would be considered a significant one. Belbury (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)