Talk:Jeanette Winterson

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

real food[edit]

In 2003 Winterson opened a shop in East London to sell real food. This is a bit weird. Is this as opposed to all the shops in London that sell fictional foodstuffs? Possibly this is an POV description of organic food, wholegrain food, or something similar. Matthew Platts 14:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

self-importance[edit]

In the final essay of the book, A Work of My Own, Winterson reaches record levels of self-importance.

Sounds like criticism to me, probably justified in my opinion but hardly NPOV. --Air 10:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about notability[edit]

Is her recent "defense" of homeopathy [1] notable or not enough for inclusion in this article?--A (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

I heard Ms Winterson interviewed on the BBC about eight years ago, and she said that she had become a Roman Catholic. Yet this is not mentioned in the article and certainly does not come through in any of the articles and interviews referred to. Has she now abandoned Roman Catholicism? 86.43.194.49 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that she has now lost her faith and is a non-believer. Ausseagull (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe has also become a lover of oranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.101.166 (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Written on the Body[edit]

Pls stop the redirect for this page.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit stew[edit]

So she shot and ate a rabbit from the garden, tweeted about it, and got some blowback. The incident made the news cycle for a day in some of the British media. Does it belong in our article? I thought not and removed an entry sourced to the Daily Mail,[2], it was re-added and removed again by another editor [3], and it's now been re-added a third time.[4] I am still inclined to think that this incident didn't receive enough lasting coverage beyond the immediate news cycle to deserve inclusion in our article, per WP:WEIGHT, but the story did get picked up in a number of papers and did draw some responses from literary critics, so reasonable minds might differ, and I am bringing the question here for discussion. If we do decide to keep it, for heaven's sake let's at least cite it to better sources like The Guardian[5] and The Daily Telegraph [6], and let's follow WP:NPOV and acknowledge that not all the reaction was negative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support keeping it if it had inspired or featured in her work in any way. As it has not (at least not to date), I think it's frothy trivia. The fact that it's been reported by The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, however, suggests it is a generally notable incident and thus should be kept. Twitter has a lot to answer for, I guess. But that's the way news is made these days, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason this should be kept in the article as a significant event in her life. The article currently has the sentence One twitter follower said she would never buy another of her books. While humorous, there is no biographical value in that at all. This seems to be the exact kind of thing WP:RECENTISM was written for. It could arguably be included if there's coverage of it beyond the news spike, but right now it looks flimsy and insignificant.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Daily Mail article, she didn't shoot the rabbit, she trapped it. I'd say the WP article phrasing "Winterson caused public outrage when she published a picture of a rabbit she had disemboweled..." is too sensationalistic. I don't have a strong view on keeping/removing the incident completely, but if it's kept, the description should be toned down, e.g. "Winterson provoked controversy when she tweeted a picture of a rabbit she had caught and cooked after it ate parseley from her garden". 173.228.123.145 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is reasonable, and as long as someone can say it's a serious controversy. If it's something like, "Multiple worldwide news sources say the subject wore a non-flattering dress to the Oscars" then it doesn't matter much if it's verifiable it's not the kind of thing that adds value to the article. If it's treated as being an event of import, there's an argument, but not sourced to the food and wine section or tabloid celebrity sections of our sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Although even the herb garnish seems a bit much (surely chervil would have been a touch more ironic?) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's also interesting that this kind of thing was put into the article ahead of more significant personal history like her relationship with her adopted mother (no mention at all!). __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment moved from noticeboard) This seems like trivia. I don't think we should be chronicling people getting being criticised on Twitter unless there is very widespread coverage or something very noteworthy is involved. Cooking a rabbit really isn't very noteworthy. Formerip (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this rabbit stew controversy seems trivial. Unless there is some sort of longterm fallout or impact of this incident, I would support deleting it from BLP.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can include the incident, but not as a standalone, we can rephrase it as part of the description of her lifestyle as growing her own food, getting up with the sun, etc. The Telegraph article does that very well. As everyone writes above, it's not important enough as a standalone item, but could well be useful color. --GRuban (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP keeps pushing it into the article. Unless we're trying to shame the BLP subject with giving weight to "public outrage on Twitter" and the fact that a single unnamed Twitter user is going to decline purchasing Winterson's books, we should remove this until something mature is suggested or not.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IP appears to have self-reverted. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so they've self-reverted the self-revert. Revert the self-revert of the self-revert, I guess. I don't think this is an emergency, though. We're not libeling her or anything. Formerip (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbits are people too, you know! (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Politics[edit]

She voted Lib Dem in 2010 but she is now a Labour Party supporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.201.170 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So did I. Doesn't make it a notable fact, especially without a source. See WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:UNDUE. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New novel[edit]

Redrose64, Martinevans123, you two seem to have an interest in this protected article: can you please add her latest work, The Gap of Time, to the bibliography--or better yet, write it up some? Here's the NYT review. Thank you. 66.168.253.87 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015[edit]

Change relationship status to Spouse Susie Orbach June 2015 [1] Totts006 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Have adjusted infobox, but other editors may adjust. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2016[edit]

Please add a reference to Jeanette Winterson receiving the 2014 St. Louis Literary Award.

St. Louis Literary Award

Recipients of the Saint Louis Literary Award[2]

British Author Jeanette Winterson Named 2014 Saint Louis Literary Award Recipient[3]

Jeanette Winterson to receive St. Louis Literary Award[4]

LiteraryAwardFan (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-wedding-bells-chime-for-susie-orbach-and-jeanette-winterson-10307701.html
  2. ^ Saint Louis University Library Associates. "Recipients of the Saint Louis Literary Award". Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  3. ^ Saint Louis University Library Associates. "British Author Jeanette Winterson Named 2014 Saint Louis Literary Award Recipient". Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  4. ^ Jane Henderson (June 11, 2014). "Jeanette Winterson to receive St. Louis Literary Award". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. You are autoconfirmed — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement for "... conventional values"[edit]

The lead includes "... rebelling against conventional values". Some of the values (and behaviours, etc) she was rebelling against were conventional, in the sense of "the average" or "the norm" (anti-lesbian/gay), but some were fairly extreme. I am not sure what to replace "conventional values" with; here are some possibilities:

  • "a restrictive upbringing"
  • "a repressive upbringing"

with "extremely" possibly added to either. It would be good if whatever is put in had a reference. FrankSier (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemisms?[edit]

About a "... sensitive teenage girl rebelling against conventional values".

It's more specifically about a sensitive teenage lesbian girl rebelling against evangelical Pentecostal values.

Is the latter so hard to mention that generic euphemisms must be used to avoid unsettling sensitive readers, even at the cost of not being clear about the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.2.1 (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeanette_Winterson&oldid=1221552019"