Talk:Anne Rice

Very much a WIP

I'm creating this because Anne Rice is the greatest feminist I know, and she has convinced me to stop being so anti-feminist. She really set me straight on a lot of the things I was ignorant about. I want to create this page because she is a powerful anti-athoritarian figure who holds within her all the qualities this Wiki claims to value. Parogar (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good job thus far. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally believe in sharing anything from private email conversations, but I do know anything that Anne has written on her Facebook page :::(publicly) she allows people to quote freely. So later I'm going to go through there and add more to the article. Parogar (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I recommend:

(1) Adding a "see also" section with links to other articles

(2) Adding external links and references to her works

(3) Adding any attack(s) made against her or her ideas, if any, and her response(s), if any

Good luck. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

When I come back to it later I'll try my best to make it not suck. Parogar (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And yeah I probably will stick exclusively to the numerous publicly available sources. Because I'm only first realizing now that "because she told me so" is probably not going to cut it. By that I mean I didn't think of that until now. Parogar (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, Fuzzy, can I include stuff about how she stands up to bullies and trolls? I am pretty sure if I Google around I can find plenty of examples. The thing is I am hesitant to use myself as a source because I have personally witnessed (contributed in, rather) pretty big internet "fights" in which Anne has come under ridicule and abuse by Amazon trolls because of her stance on anti-bullying. One thing I noticed is that when a male creates controversial threads, they tend to get on better than when a female speaks, in which the first desire is to silence her. But the idea of using myself as a first-hand source lacks integrity (I think). Because I can't be trusted since I'm the one insisting it's true. Parogar (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of it is documented like on here: http://www.stopthegrbullies.com/2014/01/26/anne-rice-owns-the-bullies/

And much of it can be seen in the original forums. Parogar (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As long as information is publicly available, you may include it. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand...

She can be a woo enabler. For instance, getting readings from John Edward: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1477768 --Paul S (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That was a long time ago. And I really don't think that that counts as enabling. Parogar (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If you look through her Facebook page, I don't think she's ever put forth any woo. Even if she happened to do an interview one time in which she has one belief that people here might not believe in, if you look objectively about what she actually does, she spends the most of her time doing good for the world. Attacking her for that reason seems very unfair. Parogar (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Paul if you really want to take things on that level, then Anita Sarkeesian is a Christian. Why is there no section in her article condemning her for it? I don't see how Anne has taken any actions to cause any harm to science. Parogar (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the frequency that Ann Rice is involved with such things, but I know that we have sections of articles criticizing people who are otherwise rational for their more pseudoscientific ideas when they are vocal about them-Sam Harris would be the most obvious case as he is in the category Extreme Moonbattery because of his promotion of paranormal stuff.Arachne1988 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I get that. But I don't know for sure that she still holds these beliefs. That was in 2003. Much more recently, in 2013, she described herself as a secular humanist. I don't know whether or not this is still true of her today, but I can only say I've never seen any promotion of supernatural phenomenon myself. If she said something about meeting John Edwards once in 2003, well, that was 11 years ago and I don't know nor can I speculate on whether or not that still applies to the way she thinks today. Parogar (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, if you feel it's a fair criticism, then add it. But mentioning something that was said one time in a podcast 11 years ago (in my opinion) hardly counts as being an advocate for it or promoting it (being vocal about it). Parogar (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm of course biased, as well. There's also that. Parogar (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is that old and her views have changed, then I am not sure it needs to be added. There needs to be more research to determine what her current views on the paranormal are. If it is included, I would definitely frame it in a way that it is not clear she still holds such views until we know. Arachne1988 (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'll remove the section I added in until I can be sure. I could ask her, but that would make for a very strange conversation starter, and it's a tad bit unethical seeing as how I am already extremely biased as is, though I still remain insistent that she is a wonderful woman who has done a lot for feminism. Parogar (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have anymore time to edit on here tonight, because I am REALLY falling behind in my writing, so I need to stop now and get back to it. I won't get in anyone's way if they want to undo / revert my changes to this article or add any. Parogar (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me know how this is

I'll add in a section regarding the woo to address those concerns. Let me know if it's not good enough, please. Parogar (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I will work more on this tomorrow. Just wanted to check my grammar again.

Deleted

See RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Anne Rice. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)