Talk:J. K. Rowling: Difference between revisions

	J. K. Rowling has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 3, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 3, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

	This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WPHP

Template:V0.5

Template:WPCD-People Template:FAOL

Archives
Archive 01 (2003 to March 2006) Archive 02 (March to June 2006) Archive 03 (Requested move) Archive 04 (June to December 2006) Archive 05 (January to April 2007)

They are already covered in the controversy over Harry Potter page, so there was little point in retaining a single sentence that basically described her as a Satanist. Serendipodous 12:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was trying to do this the other day, but it was constantly reverted. 212.139.121.149 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British do not go to the obsessive and fetish maniacal use of punctuation as their less sophisticated former brethren in the United States of America. As JK is not American and as Wiki refuse to distinguish between correct English and less correct variants and as this is therefore an article about someone in Britain and not - thankfully - in the US it should behoove the authors to pay her - and other English speaking peoples - due respect and try to catch those tendencies to international arrogance and clumsiness wherever they can.

Ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.131.221 (talk • contribs)

The covers of the British Harry Potter editions list her name as "J. K. Rowling". Her official website lists her name as "J. K. Rowling." I think that's enough to assume she doesn't have an issue with it. Serendipodous 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, please refrain from your personal attacks on the people and grammar of the USA. All variants of English are "correct"; please do not try to instate American English as "wrong" or less accepted. As an American, I acknowledge the British and do not go around insulting how they spell "neighbour" or put the punctuation on the outside of the quotation marks "like so". Your use of the words "obsessive," "fetish," "manical," "less sophisticated," "thankfully" and "international arrogance and clumsiness" are extremely unwarranted. All that was needed to be said was, "In Britain we do not put full-stops"—or periods, as I would say—"after initials, as some may do in American or other varieties of English." Thank you. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She recently donated money over the equivalent of $495000 USD as a reward for a missing child.[1] I think this deserves a mentioning, but the page is protected. Does anyone else think it should be here? 72.200.27.179 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know she uses her married name for anonymity in personal business, and that both her children with Neil are named "Rowling Murray", but I don't know whether she is legally named Murray. Serendipodous 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she did marry him, doesn't that mean that your new name automatially becomes Rowling Murray? Intriguingly, there are no Google results for "Joanne Rowling Murray." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a regular contributor to this page, so I don't want to make radical changes. I would suggest, however, that the controversy section be expanded into a larger summary of the controversy article, and that the television section be removed. The television section is primarily trivia and doesn't add much to knowledge about her. I think with those changes, some work on the citation formatting, and a little polishing of the text, this might be ready for an FA review. Karanacs 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section removed. Citations fixed. Controversy section expanded. Main problem is finding images, since every image this page has ever had has been taken down for copyright reasons. Serendipodous 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about posting on Mugglenet or The Leaky Cauldron? Someone there may have any image they'd be willing to release. Good luck!Karanacs 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think user:libertycookies has a point about including information about JKR's political views. However, this would have to be presented very carefully and be more balanced. Rather than just statements from conservative political leaders, it would need if possible to have information from either a neutral party or JKR herself. I think she has talked about Jessica Mitford in interviews before, although I don't think that she goes very in-depth into why she respects Mitford. If you can make this information more balanced, I'd recommend that it be included under a separate section, not under controversy/criticism. Karanacs 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a lot of it. Rowling's admiration for Jessica Mitford is not necessarily political, whatever the rightwing loonies at the John Birch Society (the very definition of a "fringe group") may think. I think Libertycookies has gone a bit too far in pushing this single issue. Obviously he has a bee in his bonnet about it, but really it isn't that important, either to the understanding of Rowling or the understanding of Harry Potter. Personally I think that his additions as they are have completely overbalanced the criticism section (why should an obscure rightwing group like the John Birch society get more space than either AS Byatt or Stephen King?) and should be trimmed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to push single issues. If Libertycookies continues to press his case in other articles, I may request to have him banned.Serendipodous 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, rather than deleting everything, lets get some other viewpoints. Should we discuss how to word in the Talk section? I do have issues with the complete lack of coverage of Rowling politics in the MSM as well as wikipedia especially since the Order of the Phoenix movie (trailers) have such political overtones.Libertycookies 15:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no evidence for anything like socialist views on the part of JK Rowling. None. At all. Yes, she admires Jessica Mitford, but there is no evidence that she sympathises with her Communist views. Criticism of the books is one thing, but this is the biography of an actual person, and speculation on biography pages is not only inadvisable, it's potentially libellous. Making such a claim without direct evidence is completely against Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living people. Serendipodous 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - how about LibertyCookies goes first. Please compose and post here a ONE paragraph summary, with perhaps 4 or 5 sentences, regarding the "Rowling political views" you wish to expose, along with one or two reference links to reliable sources. Then we'll kick it around until it "sounds" suitably neutral and consensus is reached. If one paragraph is simply insufficient, then we might consider adding a second one. But one paragraph should be sufficient, if there is no agenda-POV pushing involved. If we can work hard to keep the fluff, weasel wording, and peacock phrasing out, and just state the basic verifiable facts, then it should be suitable for posting in the article in an appropriately designated section. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Rowling guards her privacy closely, she has spoken about some of her political views and causes.

Rowling worked for Amnesty International prior to publishing her first book, and wrote some of Harry Potter on her lunch breaks. A connection between the "three unforgivable spells" of killing, torture, and enslavery, and Amnesty International's mission has been suggested in an article by John Rose.[2] Rowling maintains a link to AI on her very popular website.

Rowling wrote an introduction for a collection of Labour Party candidate for Prime Minister Gordon Brown's speeches, praising his support for single mothers.

I'll concede to S. that this might not be political, so I suggest another category of 'Influences'. I can find the links to the non left-wing influences once you approve the content, but I'm certain it will fact check. I think the other influences should be bolstered, but can we post this?

Rowling says her heroine is life-long socialist Jessica Mitford, and claims to have read everything she has ever written. In 2006, Rowling wrote a review of Decca. The Letters of Jessica Mitford for the London Times saying, "I finished reading feeling even fonder and more admiring of her than before."^[1] Rowling's article generated a negative response from a Conservative MP.^[2] She also named her daughter Jessica, and gave her a copy of Hons and Rebels on her christening day in homage to Mitford.^[3] A writer for the liberal North Bay Bohemian has suggested that Dobby is named after the person who introduced Mitford to the Communist Party USA, and that Hermoine's formation of SPEW parallels Mitford's support for worker rights." [[3]]

Rowling also has read Emma by Jane Austen "over 20 times,"[[4]] and was reading J.R.R. Tolkein shortly before coming up with the Harry Potter story. The first story J.K. Rowling wrote in her childhood, 'Rabbit', was heavily influenced by Richard Scarry. According to the Scotsman, Rowling believes her love for literature was due to a bout of measles at the age of four "when her father raised her spirits by reading aloud to his bed-bound daughter the adventures of Toad of Toad Hall, from The Wind in the Willows" by Kenneth Grahame. [[5]]

A writer for the Republican/conservative magazine, the National Review, Dave Kopel has suggested that Rowling is an Inkling, "originally a group of Oxford dons who wrote Christian fiction. The most famous of them are J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis." Many commentators have noted the influence of these early writers of fantasy with moral tales, though Rowling humbly says that she isn't in their league. [[6]]

Rowling was quoted on her favorite books in 'The Australian':

"Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis, I have a problem with his imitators." At 33, Rowling still re-reads The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best), along with other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel Streatfield. "I try to do what they did in the sense of getting a good story and telling it as well as possible," she says. [[7]]

A transcript of Rowling discussing all her favorite books and influences can be found at [[8]]

Thanks for moderating, and please lets all try not to take any of this personally. Apologies for being assertive on what I see as a neglected subject. Libertycookies 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was surprisingly NPOV. I'll give a more detailed critique when I've had some time to think about it. Serendipodous 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was actually easier to write this than to go for the Controversy angle. I've added some more background from writers on both sides and fixed the links. Libertycookies 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. Now it's way too long. It was fine the way it was. Rowling's influences are covered in depth in Works analogous to Harry Potter; no more than a cursory examination is needed here. Serendipodous 18:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll step back. Can you pare it back as the draft#2, and lets let a jury decide, but you're probably right. Thanks. Libertycookies 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good paragraph. I cleaned up the citations so that when we're all in agreement this can move to the main article. Karanacs 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we consider merging the "Politics" section currently posted, with the proposed "Influences" section, for a "Politics and Influences" section covering perhaps 2 or 3 well-organized paragraphs? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it seems to be close to good, I've taken the liberty of posting a link to a longer article. Sorry, now is a convenient time for me to work and figured we can undo if it is objectionable. Libertycookies 10:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK well I guess we'll have to see what happens. I will give it 3:1 odds that the new article Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling will come up for deletion pretty soon (but not at my hands), with a recommendation to "merge" to J. K. Rowling being the final consensus "vote" (which I would tend to support). Just based on experience from hanging around in the WP:AFD pool, no offense intended: just brace yourself for some further debate; these things tend to bounce around like that. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2002/1102-fraser-scotsman.html

Libertycookies has made some interesting additions to the Politics section with good sources but I have a few problems with them:

• Much of the textual content of these additions is lifted word-for-word from the articles cited. I'm worried that too much content might have been lifted for it to slip past copyright restrictions so I've tried to re-word some of it where possible.

• There's still far too much emphasis on the theory that JK is a socialist - as the references state time and time again she has never openly endorsed any particular end of the political spectrum or political party. I'm particularly worried that the edits seem to infer that she must be a socialist because Jessica Mittford is a heroine of hers. From reading the cited sources, the only impression I could gain was that she admired her for her literary works and for her passionate dedication to her political views despite tremendous adversity. Not necessarily for the political views themselves.

I'd appreciate anybody's advice as to how we can clear these two points up further. AulaTPN 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my advice, for the record: Keep most of it, but ditch the Jessica Mitford paragraph. While every source I've read has cited Rowling's respect for Mitford as a person, there is no evidence whatsoever that she shares Mitford's politics. Any attempt to conflate the two is pure speculation and should be removed. I also have a slight issue with quoting Sean Smith's biography; he too makes some pretty big leaps in logic, but that quote at least seems pretty solid. Serendipodous 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think Rowling has socialist sympathies, but she isn't a Socialist. Personally I think she is a change agent with anarchist attitudes, hence her reference to Guy Fawkes, and the underground group the Order of the Phoenix. Book 7 will probably deal more with these issues, so leaving as much reference for readers as possible is a good idea. Book 7 might be a Mind Bomb unless there is a channel like wikipedia for diffusion of the force of her ideas. Keeping these incendiary ideas tightly contained is a horribly bad idea. Libertycookies 15:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]