Talk:It (character)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

The recent craze of scary clown sightings in darkest Alabama mean this article can now be improved, which means we're going to have to cut out large swathes of fancruft from it. I notice Paleface Jack had a good go at cutting out some of this, but was reverted. Does anyone have opinion on what unsourced content should stay, and what should be sent to Pennywise to be mauled to pieces? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Only if someone is able to find an appropriate source. If not then it should be deleted. Also much of this article needs to be reworded as it is poorly written.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling line

The Atlantic in general is a reliable source, that doesn't mean that suddenly every single line put down on paper by their writers is one hundred percent correct. First of all it's already arguable that citing 'something J. K. Rowling would later emulate with boggarts' is necessary or adds any value to the article. Secondly, regarding the legitimacy of the source, I found no sources in which Rowling stated where she got her inspiration for her version of a boggart from, neither first- nor secondhand sources. Neither did I find anything which shows that Sophie Gilbert (the writer of the referenced article) had any contact with Rowling, not about this specific subject and not about anything else. That article in The Atlantic is also the only source which makes this claim.

On the other hand it is very easy to find multiple sources in which Rowling said thing which make the claim in The Atlantic only less likely g.e. when she said she barely ever reads anything fantasy-related, for example in this NYT interview. For as far as we know she's never even read 'It'. There is also [wikipedia article] on this subject, Stephen King's It is nowhere to be seen in this article. The same page also quotes Rowling saying she took 'horrible liberties' with folklore and mythology, in which boggarts are already an established thing, and gives the source as BBC radio 4.

That a discussion must be held about something as small as removing a single line like this one is already ridiculous in itself. That this is the case for a line that's got so many red flags doesn't really make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.172.243 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It would seem that removing it twice without explanation then removing it because The Atlantic didn't cite sources would be enough for us to understand that you are right and The Atlantic (founded 160 years ago by, among others Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Harriet Beecher Stowe) is wrong.

It is a reliable source. That it does not cite sources is completely immaterial. That you didn't find the material elsewhere is immaterial. That a different Wikipedia article does not mention it is immaterial. Heck, maybe someone there didn't like it either. I don't know.

It would seem, however, that influencing another significant author's work would be relevant here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me? Only in the end of January this year the Atlantic published an article on ultrasound that was filled to the brim with mistakes and had to go through numerous edits and possible still has mistakes and contradictions in it. Not everything the Atlantic publishes is right, not every single line is reliable, not all their authors are all-knowing beings. That the author of the article does not provide any proof isn't necessarily a problem, it does become a problem when it turns out that there are no sources, no proof to begin with. Not in English, not in Dutch, French or in German. Any person with a basic level of education would label this as unreliable but possible at best and as misinformation and blatant lies at worst.

As for the other wikipedia article. Maybe you should then go to that articles' talk page and put it up for discussion there. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines would want that if this claim is on here then it should also be on there. That article is the one meant to be mentioning all the possible influences after all. Or I can do it for you if you want me to, then we'll be sure that all the involved information is included.

So I won't delete the line for now and instead I'll just put disputed in front of it. We'll see if other people can be bothered to get involved in this and give their point of view, cause just the two of us don't seem to be going to resolve this anytime soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.172.243 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh no! The source isn't the word of God engraved on stone tablets! It must be full of "blatant lies" meant to undermine civilization by exposing our children to the pernicious lie that a character from one novel was influenced by a character in another novel. Clearly, The Atlantic is evil, preying on Wikipedia articles through our greatest fear: unreliable sources.

So far, you've removed it twice without explanation. Then it had to go because The Atlantic didn't cite its sources and you felt it was more likely "inspired from multiple mythological creatures" (excluding, obviously, this one).[1] Then, perhaps, it should be removed because The Atlantic may not be "100% correct", maybe the information isn't "necessary" or add "anything of value", you couldn't find anything where Rowling directly made the statement, you couldn't find "any contact" between the article's author and Rowling, etc. In fact, Rowling clearly never read this novel (or saw the miniseries) because she said she rarely reads anything fantasy related. Heck, I'll bet she's never even heard of Stephen King.

Incidentally, you linked to a New York Times article. They print retractions and corrections daily.

And yet it moves. Extensive kettle logic doesn't explain why, but you are disputing the factual accuracy.[2] You are apparently fine with using the source for some of what it says, but have a problem with Rowling drawing anything from this particular character, after all, you haven't been able to prove minor details that you assume would be true (you assume Rowling would have mentioned this repeatedly, you assume the article's author would have had to have had "contact" with Rowling and that that contact would be reported somewhere, etc.). Heck, maybe The Atlantic has taken to making up blatant lies to spice up articles.

The Atlantic is a reliable source. If you disagree, please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. (Please give me a heads-up on that one. I won't comment, but I'd love to read it.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Up until now you have:

-downplayed my arguments (saying that they're wrong doesn't make them wrong, that's something you've got to prove, which you can't since I gave reliable sources to back them up)

-exaggerated everything that I say (for example I believe there's a single error, in a single line in a single article which I believe should be left out but according to you I'm saying that the Atlantic is made up of lies)

-put words in my mouth (I haven't said that the Atlantic is unreliable a single time yet you keep on saying that I did)

-accused me of arguing based on assumptions while you're doing exactly that (we're talking about something that's never been confirmed, you've got no choice but to argue based on assumptions. But you know what? You can make assumptions based on facts so here's a list: 1. J.K. Rowling barely ever reads books in the style fantasy, sci-fi, etc. 2. She started writing PoA mid 1998 3. Boggarts are established creatures in British folklore 4. creatures which use its victims fears (in any way) is a global trope as old as time that already existed centuries before Stephen King wrote 'It', g.e. the boogeyman 5. Stephen King's It is far from his most successful book, not now, neither in the 90s when Rowling was writing her books or in the 80s. But yeah of course with all these facts and numerous more the safe assumptions is that she did read it, and not that she didn't. And that she simply got her inspiration from Stephen King who was the original creator of the 'creature that feeds of fear'-trope. That was sarcasm btw)

-accused me of taking actions I did not do (like removing that line numerous times, while I only did once after which you told me to 'take it to the talk page', which I did)

-accused me of false argumentation, in particular kettle logic (for which I need closely related but contradicting arguments, while in reality I am using separate, non-conflicting arguments, who can stand on their own. In no way is that a form of false argumentation, let be kettle logic.)

This "discussion" (can't really be called that since you refused to participate, you just jumped to doing all of the above) is over for as far as I am concerned. From your accusation that I've deleted the line multiple times before can only be concluded that at least one other person before me has attempted to delete the exact same line as I did. You failed to provide further sources to help increase the verifiability of the information, one of the cornerstones of wikipedia, while other reliable sources have brought up information that decreased it, this includes information provided by the author in question through an interview. Your actions listed above may or may not be considered an infraction of multiple elements to be found on the wikipedia civility page (depending on who you ask, apparently). etc.

So since you've got nothing going for you except for a single article with nothing or nobody else backing it up I'll leave you with 3 options:

-I remove the line '(something J. K. Rowling would later emulate with boggarts)', the 'disputed' tag and this discussion completely.

-I remove the line as well as the disputed tag, and place a separate line: probably something the likes of "The character might have been a source of inspiration for the boggarts seen in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series'.

-We keep it as it is now, with disputed tag and all, and let people watch this 'discussion' to make a conclusion for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant O'Brien (talk • contribs) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

We could get into the whole bit of your attempts to prove the source is wrong, that you said it's somewhere between "unreliable but possible" to "misinformation and blatant lies", your feeling that my arguments are uncivil (in your third attempt at this post, you managed to remove your personal attacks) and mischaracterized my statements (I have not said: Rowling read the book, King invented the trope, Rowling based her character on this character alone, etc.). That's rather pointless.

Here's where I think we are. 1) No, do not remove this discussion. Per WP:TALK, the record of the discussion should be kept when resolved, in case the question arises again. 2) There is nothing in the article right now that you have indicated you believe is not true. You don't believe that Rowling based her character on It. The article does not say she did. The article says, "The Atlantic commented on the character, writing ..." That, it seems to me, is true, unless someone has hacked The Atlantic's website or the site is not what it appears to be. 3) We do not have a source to cite which says the character might have been a source of inspiration. We have a reliable source which says Rowling would later emulate the character with boggarts.

If our article claimed the character inspired Rowling's and someone disputed that, several steps could be taken to end the dispute: 1) Cite a reliable source which directly supports the statement. 2) Directly quote the source. 3) Attribute the statement to the source in-line. We have all of those.

1) You want to say different than what the source says. 2) You want to drop that portion of the direct quote. 3) You want to remove the in-line attribution.

As an alternative, you want to remove the flatly true statement (that The Atlantic said this) because you feel it disagrees with your research.

I cannot support either of those alternatives. The article says that The Atlantic said something. At present, your tag seems to say that is not true, not because you believe it is not true, but because you believe part of the direct quote isn't true. If Wikipedia reports that the president said, "Somewhereistan is evil." demonstrating that Somewhereistan might not be evil does not mean Wikipedia should say Somewhereistan might be evil. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright I think I understand what you're getting at now and I can agree with that. However I'd also like to note that at present the section is made up as follows: one paragraph in which the reception of the character is summarised followed by paragraphs talking about it's legacy. Additionally each separate case involving its legacy gets its own paragraph, in this case one about the rockband 'Pennywise' which took its name from the character and one talking about the recent clown sightings.

This line is in the paragraph which seems to be meant for reviews, not legacy, and should say "The Atlantic commented on the character, writing 'The scariest thing about Pennywise, though, is how he preys on children's deepest fears, manifesting the monsters they're most petrified by" because "something J. K. Rowling would later emulate with boggarts" is not part of the reception of It and is/feels out of place in this paragraph.

My new proposal is as follows: We remove "something J. K. Rowling would later emulate with boggarts" from the article and in its place create a new paragraph/line in which we says "It has been cited to have been emulated by J.K. Rowling with boggarts" (or something like that) giving it the current reference. This way the article will improve both it's continuity of style (is that what you'd call this?) and will also be less likely to cause further confusion. I believe that what ended up happening is us (and apparently to a minor degree others) bickering about the correctness of the statement and getting lost in a massive argument about that while completely missing the actual problem. That problem being that the article in its current state, to certain people, appears to be making the claim that J.K.R. emulated It instead of saying that someone in the Atlantic says so.

I still believe that it's stupid that something like this can be placed on wikipedia just because a single person who happens to work for a newspaper that's considered reliable makes this claim, without providing any proof and without anybody or anything else backing it up. But I guess I'll have to live with that. I hope that with this the dispute is resolved. Sergeant O'Brien (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to make sure that Wikipedia does not say that J. K. Rowling emulated It with boggarts. Instead, you are willing to accept if we make it clear that someone said this, something along the lines of "The Atlantic commented on the character, writing that 'The scariest thing about Pennywise, though, is how he preys on children's deepest fears, manifesting the monsters they're most petrified by (something J. K. Rowling would later emulate with boggarts).'", perhaps?

No, it's not "a single person who happens to work for a newspaper". It is material published in a reliable source. The difference? Fact-checking and editorial oversight. Effectively, the magazine and its editorial board said that Rowling emulated. To be a reliable source, they do not need to "{provide) any proof" or present "anybody or anything else backing it up". The overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not provide footnotes that you can check and challenge. More to the point, that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a topic. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

gender = Female

Resolved

As near as I can recall, there is no direct indication of this. Yes, IIRC, It is pregnant at some point. However, the assumption that It's species has no more or less than two sexes and reproduces sexually is a lot to assume. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The character is female. Read the book and you'll figure that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.185.33 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The book does not make clear that whatever It is has two and only two genders and that this one is female. You are assuming all of that.

There have been numerous guesses and constructions added to this section over the years. We have neither a clear statement as to what gender It is, nor a consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)- SummerPhD^v2.0 13:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It does make it clear, we are going by what the characters state in the book, not what you assume might be. If you want to analyze Stephen King then do it somewhere else. You aren't going by the source material, you are going by what you assume King is saying, what his characters state is what he says. Unless you have met the man and asked him yourself stop putting words in his mouth and the characters mouth. At no point does any character state all this crap about what it might be or might not be, It is stated to be female, and if you can't accept that then you are biased and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.185.33 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, one of the characters says something along the lines of, "Oh my god! It's female, it's pregnant." Is that what you are referring to? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Further comments on this issue should be made at Talk:It_(character)#IP_editor_from_Finland, below. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Guesses

Resolved

It might be a "Trans-dimensional ancient demonic entity
Human (as Pennywise The Dancing Clown, Mrs. Kersh and Beverly "Bev" Marsh)
Spider-like creature (as The Giant Spider)".

However, this is not a species, it is a description. Canis lupus familiaris is a species. "Wolf-like mammal that comes when I call its name and likes to chew on my shoes" is a description.

It might be "Asexaul
Female (as Mrs. Kersh, Beverly "Bev" Marsh and The Giant Spider)
Male (as Pennywise The Dancing Clown)" or "Unknown, possibly Female or Male".

However, that we do not know whether it is male, female or something else does not make it "asexual" because we just said it might be male or female. This does not then imply that It is both male and female, changes between the two or is both at the same time. Finally, that we do not know if It is male, female, both, neither, something else, etc. does not mean that the gender is "unknown", only that we do not know. We do not know Stephen King's Social Security number, but it isn't "unknown": he likely knows it, as does his accountant, the IRS, the SSA, etc.

In any case, "depicted" is an English word. "Depected" is not.

Please do not add guesses, misspellings and statements that you don't know something to articles. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The best thing to do here is to find a couple of relaible sources that say the same thing and go with that. We can't add what the primary source (the novel) says, as its subject to interpretation - as King himself has said in different interviews over the years. We can, however, use sources that try to define it. Indeed, there might even be value in pointing out where different sources interpret It as different things. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It is made clear in the book that the spider form (spider, spider-like, doesn't matter) is It's true form. Therefore It's true form is known, what the species is can't be known since it is obviously from another dimension, still does not change the fact that the true form of the character is known, not unknown. The character is a spider from another dimension, and It is female. It is not described in the book in this form as an asexual being, it is described as being a pregnant female (whether it is truly female, or both sexes is not known). We have to go by King's description, and not try to interpret what isn't there to interpret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.185.33 (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The "spider-like" form is closest to It's true form. There have been various guesses and constructions added to this parameter over the years. We have neither a clear statement as to what species It is, nor a consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you said that already, doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.185.33 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Which portion do you disagree with? "Spider-like"? "Closest"? Or are you saying that "something close to a spider-like being from another dimension" is a species? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Further comments on this issue should be made at Talk:It_(character)#IP_editor_from_Finland, below. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

True form never revealed?

Resolved

Did the person who wrote the beginning of this article actually read the book? The article states that Its true form is never revealed. Yes it is, the novel reveals that It is actually a spider-like creature from another dimension, and It is also a female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.185.33 (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That is two separate topics that you are already discussing above. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So? And where do you get off reporting me for vandalism when I did no such thing? Don't be mad because you're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.185.33 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So there is no reason for one discussion on gender, one discussion on species and one discussion on both.

I warned you for personal attacks and vandalism on other articles. If you disagree with either, feel free to ignore them and debate the issue in an unblock request later on. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Further comments on this issue should be made at Talk:It_(character)#IP_editor_from_Finland, below. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

IP editor from Finland

As it turns out, virtually all of the changes to gender and/or species for quite some time have been one editor from Finland.

Although they prefer to call It simply "female" (37.136.93.137, 37.33.88.249, 2001:14BB:180:A58:50E3:857:B835:F014, 178.55.202.104, 2001:14BB:180:A58:A4BF:DFE7:853F:C049, 37.136.12.102, 37.136.44.248, 87.93.99.19, 37.136.113.146, 87.236.224.73, 176.93.138.114, 188.67.7.208), two of their IPs first said It is male and female on their first edit, vandalized an unrelated page, then came back and said It is female 87.236.224.73, 176.93.138.114

Since I removed the "species" that is not a species, they have repeatedly added the non-species "Trans-dimensional ancient demonic entity" as the species (37.136.44.248, 87.236.224.73, 176.93.138.114, 188.67.7.208). They also tried listing various species (human, "spider-like", etc.) (37.33.76.125). Clearly, they either do not understand what a species is or don't care. Humans cannot change form, so anything that can change into a spider-like creature or from an anonymous clown into someone's dead mother is not a human. "Spider-like creature" and "Trans-dimensional ancient demonic entity" are descriptions.

Had this editor used an account, they would have been blocked repeatedly or convinced to reach a consensus in one of the discussions earlier on this page. Until such time as there is a consensus to the contrary, I will be reverting their contributions as vandalism. I welcome further discussion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Good call, Summer. Just the comment, "read the book and you'll see", made me want to slap the contributor with a trout. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Major Issues: Rewrite and Citation

This article is poorly written/developed, and is missing important citations for its information. The article itself is improperly formatted and should be reformatted to follow the Manuel of Style for Fictional Characters (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide and Randall Flagg for more information on the correct format and style for Fictional Characters). Many of the sections in this article are poorly written and need to be rewritten, several major sections like the character's history (which should be redone and re-titled Appearances), and powers/abilities are not only poorly written but unsourced as well. The latter section is unnecessary and should be removed from the article. There is so much work that is needed to be done to this article in order for it to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this article again, I can see some major issues that need to be fixed. The tone of the article doesn't fit with Wikipiedia's real world and encyclopedic standards and should be rewritten. The appearances section also needs to be rewritten as it's a bit excessive on the character's fictional biography. Like all articles on fictional characters it should be reasonably brief and split into two sub-sections detailing the character's appearances in literature and film with each appearance being properly sourced. The powers and abilities section also needs to be worked on as it's a bit excessive and unsourced. Information on the character's concept and creation should be added to the article as well. A better image of the character should be used in this article as well as the current one is low-res. A lot of work is needed for this article if it's ever going to reach its full potential, hopefully soon.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional Literary Sources to Add

So looking at this article, there is still a lot that is needed to be done to it with some sections needing to be cleaned up. I have also been looking at some information from literary sources that can be added to both this article and the ones on the character, and novel. Here is what I have so far on some Literary sources that can be added (there are plenty of other literary sources that are not mentioned here):

• A Literary Stephen King Companion by Rocky Wood (Pgs 100-101; 137)
• Stephen King: The Non-Fiction by Rocky Wood and Justin Brooks (Pgs 372-373; 374-375)
• Stephen King and Philosphy edited by Jacob M. Held (Pgs 173, 176, 177, 181, 186, 189, 242)
• TV Horror:Investigating the Dark Side of the Small Screen by Lorna Jowett and Stacey Abbott (Pgs 72, 74-76)

--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

I'll try to do it if no one else does but could we change the infobox image to something that showcases both versions like the article for Hannibal Lecter does?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)