Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Wombat paragraph

I've been following the big discussion here but haven't jumped in lately. I have a problem with this paragraph on WOMBAT exams, and I have removed it from the article.

In addition to her books, Rowling's influence on hard-core fans extends to her personal website where she tests fans on their civic knowledge, albeit in the fictional wizarding world, by administering a limited number of WOMBAT exams. Her students are tested on fictional political issues such as Goblin rebellions, and what lead to the downfall of certain Ministers of Magic. Rowling also occasionally visits some of the myriad of fansites to quell rumors and answer questions.

From what I've seen and read, the WOMBAT exams are marketed as, and actually are, tests on the Harry Potter universe which cover a lot of random things from the books. Unless there are actual citations from articles that can draw a link between the content of those quizzes and real-world politics, the existence of those quizzes is non-notable. Yes, Rowling has die-hard fans who have her website bookmarked and love to test their knowledge of her work, but there are better ways to illustrate that if necessary. Karanacs 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hadn't spotted that one. I agree - that was a really big stretch. As someone who has taken the wombat exams I can concurr with Karanacs, they cover a vast amount of trivia and knowledge from the Potterverse. I seem to recall there being only 1 (maybe 2) questions on the goblin rebellion although I could be wrong. To single that out in such a way massively distorts the true nature of the exams. You cannot write sections like this - you are assigning motives, political or otherwise, that simply are not there. Aula^TPN 14:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is definately influence and supposedly the exams are corrected by Rowling herself. A lot of the questions are on ministry regulations on when and where to use magic, and spells. Since Rowling has direct control of the website, it might be interesting for you to reflect that the wizard who supposedly wrote the tests was linked to Goblin rebellions by the Ministry controlled press and resigned her post when Umbridge was appointed high inquisitor by Fudge. Extreme Potter-trivia to say the least, but since it's Rowling's universe, I doubt she is playing dice with the inclusion of that name. In my opinion, WOMBAT is a way to get kids interested in civic affairs, but thats OR.

Can I suggest we reword the entry, because it is her most intimate influence on fans?

In addition to her books, Rowling's influence on hard-core fans extends to her personal website where she tests fans on their civic knowledge, albeit in the fictional wizarding world, by administering a limited number of WOMBAT exams. Her students are tested on fictional matters such as spell components, regulations on magic use, and historical issues such as Goblin rebellions, and the political events that ended the terms of Ministers of Magic. Rowling also occasionally visits some of the myriad of fansites to quell rumors and answer questions.

Libertycookies 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And on the assumption that these are "random" things from the books, you would probably like this story from Norway where a film director said that Rowling didn't really exist sparking a local controversy. [1]. I prefer to think of Rowling's universe as "intelligent design". ;) Libertycookies 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not a "controversy", but a conspiracy theory. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no real "correcting" of the wombat exams -- it's a multiple choice online test that is most likely "graded" with an automatic program. I absolutely don't agree that the tests are in any way notable enough to be given this much weight in an encyclopedia article. The exams are, like her entire website, another way for Rowling to communicate with and engage her fans. There have only been 3 wombat exams total, while the site has been up for several years now and has included all sorts of other methods for her to communicate with the fans. I don't think the wombat exams are worth singling out. Even if the site itself was notable enough to include in the article, I don't think it belongs in this section unless you can find quality sources that indicate that her website has actually influenced people (beyond making the pre-teen girls faint in ecstasy when the book 7 title was released). Karanacs 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What a sexist and ageist comment! Rowling was just 14 when she fell in love with Mitford, sometimes that stuff sticks with a person. Btw, the results of the 3rd test are back. I'm qualified to work for Weasly Wizarding Wheezes. Better results lets you work for the Ministry of Magic, and the best results lets you work for Hogwarts. No word on what people who fail get offered.

I think some mention of her online activities and network of dedicated fans is warranted. How about:

In addition to her books, Rowling's influence on hard-core fans extends to her personal website where she tests fans on their knowledge of the fictional wizarding world, by administering a limited number of WOMBAT exams, the results of which determine the quality of potential wizarding careers. Rowling also occasionally visits some of the myriad of fansites to quell rumors and answer questions for her legions of dedicated fans. Libertycookies 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That still overemphasizes the role of the WOMBAT exams, and I really don't see that her website is an influence on fans. It is popular with fans and provides her with another means to communicate with and engage them, but is it actually influencing anyone? Karanacs 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you if you think advertising, specifically google ads are influential. People seem to think that they are and are willing to pay good money for links on popular sites. How much would Rowling be able to charge if she chose to advertise, or would people say she has no influence on fans.

Here is a link to the WOMBAT questions [2] to refute the statement that these are random and not civic and political in nature. I think the questions are politically biased and Griselda Marchbanks should be banned, don't you? What a blood traitor and subversive goblin lover! Libertycookies 22:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess the big question, then, is whether there is any proof of or way to measure the influence of her website. I'm a Mugglenet junkie, and I've never seen any article that tries to quantify or even describe any potential influence her website might have. Instead, there are lots of announcements that there is new Potter-related stuff on the site. If X number of people wrote letters or donated Y number of dollars to any causes that she supported on her website, that would be notable, but you'd have to find reliable statistics about that. And for the wombat stuff, you'd have to find a reliable outside source that can create not only a link between those questions and modern-day politics, but also figure out what affect, if any, it has on the fans. Karanacs 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Traffic count is usually how Google prices their ads, and there is I think no question that Rowling's site has traffic. But I think you are believe "influence" means "political influence". I'm not jumping to that conclusion with the statement below. She influences fans to consider trivia in her books. Often that trivia is the fictional history and fictional political events like rebellion, corruption, prejudices, etc. These may have no parallels in the real world, especially not in this modern age. Read the below which doesn't mention history or politics at all and let me know if it is okay for inclusion: Libertycookies 15:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to her books, Rowling's influence on hard-core fans extends to her personal website where she tests fans on their knowledge of the fictional wizarding world, by administering a limited number of WOMBAT exams, the results of which determine the quality of potential wizarding careers. Rowling also occasionally visits some of the myriad of fansites to quell rumors and answer questions for her legions of dedicated fans.

(Resetting indent) Any strong fan of any book will likely consider taking quizzes on the official website of that book. I don't think this a fair representation of Rowling's influence on her fans, but more reflective of her writing capabilities. I agree with Karanacs in that the WOMBAT exams don't belong in Rowling's biography. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

With all this talk of Gordon Brown...

It should be mentioned that Rowling is in fact a close personal friend of Brown's wife. Thus any praise he gives her, however heartfelt, should be taken in that context. Serendipodous 09:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Most articles acknowledge that the Browns and Rowlings are friends, and that the friendship is not just because his wife like her. Rowling wrote a nice introduction to Brown's book of speeches, a friendly gesture to him that he may have chosen to repay with his statement of liking her books. I think in the charity section it describes the relationship to his wife, re meeting at One Parent Families.

Thanks for participating again. Libertycookies 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rowling gate again

I've been through a hundred Google hits, and I still cannot find any direct evidence linking Rowling Gate to JK Rowling. A lot of circumstantial evidence, but nothing direct. I think it's about time we took that down.

Wow. That was prompt.

Serendipodous 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

POV fork

The POV fork created at Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling has been redirected here. Libertycookies: please consider that attempt to bypass consensus, to be of poor manners and disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable... Aula^TPN 07:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why he was being so docile and compliant. Serendipodous 07:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Following all your advice, but with Jossi reediting everything two seconds after I put something in, I was forced to firm up the article prior to getting all of your negative feedback. And contrary to Jossi comments that are in poor manners themselves, I don't consider it any of the above. You three are way too much in conflict to be objective. Libertycookies 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

True. Which is why I haven't bothered adding my support to that article's deletion. Since it is effectively a re-inroduction of your other article which was also deleted (and which, note, I also didn't vote for), I'm confident it won't require my assistance. Serendipodous 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The way to do that is to create a sandbox page under your user pages and then when you're done you put it into the main article. What you've done is a flagrant violation of editing protocol and an unpleasant way of circumventing consensus. I'm not *personally* in conflict with anyone but I am committed to making sure that articles/editors stick by the rules. All of our actions here have been in accordance with well-established protocols such as WP:BLP, yours have not. Aula^TPN 18:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my ignorance of the sandbox. Please see if there hasn't been hostile and rude comments in this discussion, or a prejudice and ad hominem attacks against me rather than my contributions. Half the people on the delete said its clearly OR, when the other claimed its already been posted. Jossi jumped to the conclusion that the article was to be rude. Well congrats, I'm sure it will be deleted, as it falls outside of the majority held belief that Rowling is just a rich witch. Ever hear of tyranny of the majority? Libertycookies 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As a minor contributor to the argument, I have to agree with jossi. Liberty, you seem to be deliberately trying to circumvent the rules, and jossi is justified in labeling the new article disruptive. I highly recommend that you read through the pages on biographies and original research and point of view, because although various people have tried to point out the rules that we are supposed to be following, you don't seem to understand. You can't disregard the rules just because you disagree with them. Karanacs 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've transferred the only new content to this article. Hope you don't mind it. Libertycookies 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the content from this article. Content shouldn't be repeated across articles and as it's already in Hary Potter I felt it was more appropriate there. Aula^TPN 23:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah sorry, unless we delete the whole Harry Potter section, that doesn't cut it. Libertycookies 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what doesn't cut it - your continued ad hominem attacks and violations of rules. Believe it or not I'm actually doing you a favour - adding the same content to multiple pages is a sure-fire way to get unwanted attention from admins and I'm saving you the hassle. You've added it to this article and the Harry Potter article. It quite clearly belongs on the harry potter article and not this one so I'm removing it yet again. Do *not* add this stuff back in again and quit with the insults. Aula^TPN 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use a more civil tone, avoid making personal allegations, and leave admin work to the admins. Libertycookies 23:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So you come right in with a decidedly uncivil ad-hominem attack? Nice way to make your point. They are not allegations and I have previously supplied proof - check the various histories of the pages you've posted to. Also until your own editing decisions start to fall in line with policy I think you're the last person who should be telling people how to behave on wikipedia. Aula^TPN 10:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influence_and_activism_of_J._K._Rowling ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Harry Potter section

Section has too much on controversy and witchcraft and nothing on what Rowling states is the "obvious morality of the tales." Libertycookies 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an intro paragraph. It's not supposed to go into detail. Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series does that. Serendipodous 05:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So of the below draft, are you okay with everything except the quote from the book which can go into the Harry Potter article, where more detail would be appropriate? The quote below wouldn't make sense in controversy since it isn't disputed by Rowling or a significant number of Right wingers. Libertycookies 11:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyi, from the Telegraph review of the new movie: "It is hard not to look for hidden meanings as the fight turns political. Harry knows Voldemort is back, but the Minister of Magic blindly insists that he isn't. Subservient media obediently echo ministerial spin against Harry."[3] Libertycookies 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked for any articles like that about OOtP the book? The political climate hasn't changed that much in the last 4 years, and it's possible that the book was reviewed in a similar manner. Those would be quotes to help support some of your arguments. Karanacs 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There's tons, my viewpoint is hardly unique. Here's one from the Yale Review of Books:

"the series grapples with political questions in a way that classically juvenile fiction does not. Rowling's spotlight is on the moral problems raised by class systems throughout the fifth book, as Hermione works on a campaign to free house elves, small creatures who are essentially slaves for their human owners. Although everyone else dismisses house elves as unimportant and refuses to join Hermione in her endeavors, one wicked elf ends up nearly sending Harry to his death. This elf's unexpected agency gives credence to Hermione's abolitionist efforts. The wizards are interested in politics as well, and some choose to play the system in their climb to power. Ron's brother, for example, is disowned by his family when he goes to work for a wizard whose beliefs differ from those of his parents. Rowling's magical world is inventive in its departure from kingdoms where power is gained through strength alone, and focuses instead on a social and party system inhabited by people who just happen to be magical. " http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review08.shtml.htm

Check out the EW review of OotP:

"...one of fiction's great villains, Dolores Umbridge, a hissable Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher who turns Hogwarts into an Orwellian nightmare of political repression. Dolores absolutely believes she's purging Hogwarts for the greater good, says Staunton, an Oscar nominee for Vera Drake. It's the ultimate 'I was just following orders,' isn't it? Says Daniel Radcliffe of the character, who plagues poor Harry with literally torturous detention, Bad things don't only happen when Voldemort is around. [4] Libertycookies 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Draft:

Politics and moral significance of Harry Potter

J. K. Rowling says she is "left wing" and that there are a certain amount of politics in Harry Potter.

Rowling said that to her, the moral significance of the tales seems obvious. The key for her was the choice between what is right and what is easy, "because that, that is how tyranny is started, with people being apathetic and taking the easy route and suddenly finding themselves in deep trouble."

In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Rowling has the headmaster of Hogwarts, Dumbledore, explain tyranny:

"Voldemort himself created his worst enemy, just as tyrants everywhere do! Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? All of them realise that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back!"

WP:SYNTH.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no synthesis and no material not found in the articles. Are you suggesting two seperate headings, Politics in Harry Potter and Moral significance of Harry Potter? I thought that two seperate paragraphs would make it clear that these are independant ideas. Please be more clear. Libertycookies 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I tell you this for the nth time:

• Do not editorialize
• Stay close to the sources
• Do not frame quotes in a specific POV

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Those quotes are precise. Can't be any closer. Are you suggesting that the title should be "Moral significance and Politics of Harry Potter according to J. K. Rowling"? To be sure, other people have interpreted her work as promoting conservative values and witchcraft, which might be quite valid to those people. Libertycookies 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume that silence is acceptance, and there are no further objections to adding the material? Libertycookies 04:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Made quotes more direct and posted. Libertycookies 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How to move forward.

Right I think it's fair to say that things on this article (particularly the talk page) have gotten ever so slightly heated lately. Heck, I'm even willing to concede that my restraint hasn't been perfect of late so how to move on? Well as a start I've archived the latest batch of 'debate' to the talk page barring the current discussions so let's try and start with a clean slate. I propose:

• We stop the debate at AfD and just wait for the article to be deleted. I think Libertycookies understands that we're not trying to kill his edits - just make sure that they end up in the right article and without POVForking.
• I'd like to reiterate that I do think that the topics Libertycookies wishes to discuss are valid topics and would be a valued contribution to the article but they need to be presented in a way that is fair and balanced and does not violate WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I know Libertycookies sometimes doesn't see why his content violates these so perhaps we can be better at explaining why rather than just shooting it all down? But that must be dependent on my next point.
• I'd like to ask Libertycookies to agree that any proposed edits on these topics should be constructed here first as he has been doing of late but I would also like to ask that he wait for consensus to be reached here before moving the content to the article. I understand his concerns about delay tactics on other forums but I cannot emphasise enough that this is honestly not what we're trying to do here.
• Finally, no matter how annoying/frustrating this gets let's all try not to take/make things personal. Particularly not entering into 'he said, she said' arguments into which many of us have regrettably slipped.

With something which has obviously proven to be as contentious as this I think we can still get there provided we adopt some rigour and an approach of assembling changes outside the main article. Thoughts anyone? Aula^TPN 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section

Someone recently added a para on Harold Bloom's criticism of the books to that section, but I shifted it over to Harry Potter on the grounds that it had more to do with the books than with Rowling. On reflection though, I realised the entire controversy section is also not particularly relevant to Rowling personally. Since it's already in the Harry Potter article, I deleted it and replaced it with links in the See Also section. Serendipodous 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. The focus of the controversy has mostly not been on J. K. Rowling as a person but on the merits/effects of her published works. However there has been a good deal of controversy over her stance on society's current portrayal of 'ideal women' as being overly skinny. Perhaps that can be incorporated here? Aula^TPN 11:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that it correct to delete. We have a spinoff article and it is summarized here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That section is a flypaper for potential OR. It encourages people to add their own thoughts about how "good" or "bad" JKR or her books are. It's already in the Harry Potter article, where I think it belongs, as its focus is on the books rather than her. Since the controversy is about the books, not her, it makes better sense that the summary section stays with the article on the books. Serendipodous 12:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section was "spun out" from two different articles. The "religious" section was spun out from the main Harry Potter article. The "Legal" section was spun out from this article. Now that both sections have their own articles, if this article must link to part of the controversy section, it should link to the "legal" section only. In my opinion though, the legal section has evolved beyond its original theme, as many of the legal issues have nothing personally to do with Rowling, and thus is no longer directly tied to this article. Therefore it makes more sense to simply link to them, rather than mention them in the article. Serendipodous 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So, can I remove the controversy section or not? Serendipodous 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Letter to the Czech government (in Charities section)

There's sentence on how JKR sent a letter to the Czech government to stop using caged beds in mental institutions which the government obeyed immediatelly and without hesitation. The complete story is much more complicated and also much more entertaining.

Use of caged beds was supported by larger fraction of psychiatrists in the Czech Republic, some had opposed it. Independently, a British newspaper (Sunday Times) wrote a sensationalist article how badly they treat patients in this country (somewhere in the Wild East barbarians torture a retarded kid keeping him in a cage), JKR read it and wrote a letter to the president of the country, how she "is shocked this happens in an EU country".

The minister of public health (who was a doctor by profession and not very smart politician) on the next day banned the caged beds. This decision was associated (by the media) with the letter, the minister ridiculed all over (like whether JKR is the new ruler of the country), reprimanded by president and lost his position soon during a government reorganisation. The decision itself was disagreed by many specialists (who had JKR for incompetent meddling in things she does not understand) and later partly reverted. Number of injuries of the patients has increased and the clinics have been constantly complaining about the decision.

When JKR visited Prague in June 2007 ago she apologised for all the media uproar she caused. The timeline of the story in a Czech newspaper.

IMO the sentence "According to a press release by Amnesty International, Rowling is cited as having written a letter to the Czech government in support of the ban of cage bed in mental institutions in that country. This decision to ban these cage beds was made days after the authorities received her letter." should be removed as incomplete and deforming the reality. The complete story is not significant enough for an overview article. Pavel Vozenilek 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh... Removed. If you want, please re-add, this time adding the missing information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to comment, Rowling still advocates against cage beds and has several links to organizations and the sensationalist articles on her website. Not to say she is correct in her opinion, but her advocacy on the issue is significant, and warrants some comment rather than deletion because of controversy. Suggestions for a neutral sentence just mentioning the advocacy not the outcome? Libertycookies 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Gonna have to agree with this one. While it's a stretch to assert that she had any significant part in the government's decision it is an issue on which she has campaigned quited publicly and quite vociferously. I think that needs to be mentioned. Aula^TPN 08:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated first bit and merged it with "Other donations", since it was no longer big enough to stand on its own. Serendipodous 09:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

General reminder: This article is about JK Rowling, not the Harry Potter books

So. I have removed the controversial "controvery" subsection. It's already in the Harry Potter article and there it should stay. The controversy is about the books, not about her.

This should discourage anyone from trying to make any claims about Rowling vis a vis her writing talent, or lack thereof, her morality or lack thereof, or how good or bad the books have been for society. Such debates belong in the Harry Potter article if they belong anywhere.

This article isn't about how good or bad her books are. It isn't even really about how good or bad Rowling is. The main reason this article seems a bit pro-Rowling is because, quite frankly, she hasn't done anything overty bad. At least not yet. And to anyone who thinks that she might be getting away with murder, you haven't encountered the British tabloid press. Believe me, they've been trying to get at her for years.

For those of you intent on "balancing" this article's POV, well, if you want her to be a saint, we can list the charities she's given to 'til world's end, but any moral inferences from her books are out. And for those of you aching to tear her down, if any of you can come up with a substantiated story that has her fondling children or embezzling money, then in it will go, but complaints about her books are not relevant to her biography. Yes, she's very rich and gets a lot of press attention. Whether you think she deserves it is irrellevant. Serendipodous 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

About J.K. Rowling's personal dislikes and her exploration of themes in her book Harry Potter. Seren, you're just wrong to exclude this material. It is as least as relevent as the details on when she published her books as to why she included themes in the books. I'm reposting, the content on the books site is not as detailed with her personal detesting of bigotry, etc. Libertycookies 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling's exploration of moral themes in Harry Potter

In 2000, an interviewer with Entertainment Weekly asked why Rowling chose to explore a theme of bigotry in Goblet of Fire. Rowling answered saying,

"Because bigotry is probably the thing I detest most. All forms of intolerance, the whole idea of that which is different from me is necessary evil. I really like to explore the idea that difference is equal and good. But there's another idea that I like to explore, too. Oppressed groups are not, generally speaking, people who stand firmly together -- no, sadly, they kind of subdivide among themselves and fight like hell. That's human nature, so that's what you see here. This world of wizards and witches, they're already ostracized, and then within themselves, they've formed a loathsome pecking order."

Rowling also acknowledged that she was "left-wing", and said of Harry Potter, "there is a certain amount of political stuff in there. But I also feel that every reader will bring his own agenda to the book. People who send their children to boarding schools seem to feel that I'm on their side. I'm not. Practicing wiccans think I'm also a witch. I'm not."

In the Vancouver Sun, Rowling said that to her, the moral significance of the tales seems obvious. The key for her was the choice between what is right and what is easy, "because that, that is how tyranny is started, with people being apathetic and taking the easy route and suddenly finding themselves in deep trouble."

No. This page is not a soapbox from which JK Rowling can launch her personal agenda, nor should anyone else do so for her. This page is primarily a biography. If we let that kind of information in, then someone else will come along and add more biased material to "balance it out". Eventually, this page will become a rambling argument about Rowling's good or bad moral qualities. Best to leave it out. Serendipodous 17:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deep breaths...! I think Seren is right. As the purpose of this article is to serve as a biography of JK then the material is quite inappropriate for inclusion here. At best it unbalances NPOV inviting a landslide from anti-Rowling fanatics in an attempt to redress the balance. At worst it's a violation of WP:BLP and is largely irrelevant. However it is extremely relevant to the Harry Potter article and as that's not a biography I think it would be an excellent addition there. The trouble is that there are many instances where an artist in a certain field has produced a work which quite openly explores certain moralities which are neither shared nor espoused by the artist him/herself. Just think about almost any neutral book about Hitler or the Nazi party - it's an extreme example I know but you take my point. That being the case it's not entirely appropriate to attribute those themes to JK herself just because they're explored in her books. But like I said, it absolutely belongs at the Harry Potter article so let's work on it there. Aula^TPN 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To help me understand, please look at some of the assumption and POV put on this guy [5]. I can appreciate the concerns for needing to police the J.K. Rowling site for balance and personal viewpoints, but if she said it, shouldn't it be acceptable? I really don't see this as an attempt to knock her down, just to point out that her books have been seen in a moral light. There is a subindustry of books that go into this in detail, too. Libertycookies 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well exactly. And I completely agree but you said it yourself 'her books have been seen in a moral light'. So the commentary should be attached to the article about the books. I'm not even going to get involved in the article about the Pope - I'd get flamed into oblivion I'm sure! Aula^TPN 19:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, "If someone else is doing it, why can't I?" is not a good argument on Wikipedia. Second, there is a lot of unsourced synthesis material in that article. I was particularly struck by this line: "Benedict thus endorses creative reason, manifested in the crucified God as love, which contrasts with the strict rationality of the Enlightenment," which is effectively a commentary on Benedict's quote and is thus OR. The following paragraph is completely unsourced. The final section "Attire" contains no citations. Finally, Pope Benedict is a moral figurehead. His moral stance is therefore important. JK Rowling is an authoress. Her moral stance is not directly relevant to her biography. Serendipodous 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Aula^TPN 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not if 'her books have been seen in a moral light'. The issue is if reliable sources have describe them as such. If so, the significant viewpoints presented in these sources could be described and attributed to these sources. What must be avoided is to frame these issues as facts, rather than opinion. If there are significant opinions, these can be listed in the article(s) about her book(s). And if there are competing opinions on the subject, these need to be listed as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I had assumed that that was a given. It's almost exactly the same debate as is taking place at the AfD for the article about themes in Rowling's works. The question I think Liberty is unclear about is exactly what we could consider to be a reliable source in this context? Aula^TPN 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just a question of reliable sources. If I may coin a phrase, the issue here is one of "source painting." If we exclusively employ certain sources to paint JK Rowling in a particular light, we are engaging in OR, however well-intentioned. That's why bio pages should always focus on the "what", and leave the "why" to editorials. Serendipodous 10:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree about "source painting", after all it's why we have WP:SYNTH. I still think that it can be done carefully in a limited and balanced manner in the context of the Harry Potter article, just not here. Aula^TPN 12:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, assuming that I'll buy into the argument that the details about morality and politics belong in Harry Potter, not JK Rowling, would you permit an article specifically on these aspects? Not to be a POV fork, but to be similar to the Controversy article. Aula pointed out that anti-Rowling folks may attack the subject, so setting it away from the main articles might be a way to avoid edit wars on the main article.

Excellent article on the politics of the Order of Phoenix movie as the mainstream starts to grapple with what Rowling hath wrought.

"This is quite a political story," explained "Phoenix" director David Yates. "It's far more political than all the other 'Potter' stories, with the notion that there's this denial of truth outside in the wider world, there's an administration or a government who out of fear are trying to suppress and control information, the whole way the Daily Prophet [the wizard world's newspaper] frames Harry's story and presents him as a villain or a liar. J.K. Rowling's created those parallels, and they echo things in our world, very clearly." [6]

Libertycookies 19:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's someone else's opinion; unless it comes from Rowling herself, it doesn't count. And anyway, that would belong in the Order of the Phoenix page, not here. Serendipodous 19:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Its fairly well known that Rowling works closely with the directors of the movies to make sure they don't stray too far from the story. The politics extend to other books as well, and become stronger as the series progresses, which is why I was thinking a Politics of Harry Potter article would be appropriate. We can differentiate between the politics in the movies from the books if necessary. Libertycookies 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that's necessarily true, the producers have consulted her on occasion but she doesn't visit the studio that often. She has an extremely close working relationship with the scriptwriters though, Steve Kloves in particular. Anyway, I don't think a separate page is necessary for this topic but it does need to be enumerated. You can tell from reading the books that J. K. puts a lot of effort into the various topics placed into the book - some subtle and some outright blatant - and I think it's important that this is recognised especially in the modern age of brain-drain, lowest-common-denomenator, mass entertainment. The trouble is that you would have to be exceptionally careful in how you went about detailing these themes. For instance you couldn't go around saying that for topic X, J.K. or her books espoused viewpoint Y because 1) you'd have a hard time supporting it and 2) you'd get flooded by people who disagree and general Rowling-haters. What you'd have to do is state that book A deals with topic X and cite neutral references and maybe then say character E takes viewpoint Y while character F takes opposing viewpoint Z. For example:

In the second novel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, one of the core themes tackled is the subject of racism. This issue is explored in the Wizarding community using the notion of 'Blood Purity' where the community is segregated into those who are Pureblood and those who are not . The majority of the community is portrayed as having little regard as to one's magical heritage but there are certain, sometimes prominent, elements of society who exhibit great bigotry against those whose bloodlines are not pure.

Then fill in the refs above as appropriate. You might want to say more, if you could cite it reliably you might point out that those prejudiced against mudbloods are frowned upon by the magical community but I'd be inclined to leave it there. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when trying to explore such themes without editorialising it's much easier to highlight the fact that the topic is raised than to explicitly state the novel's preferred viewpoint and try to maintain factual, non-synthetic balance. Thoughts? Aula^TPN 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a direct quote on Rowling and politics.Libertycookies 20:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling has been gushing that seeing [Gordon Brown] in power was almost as exciting as seeing her novels made into films. “It’s really great to see him leading the country,” beamed the 41-year-old from under a huge umbrella at the rain-soaked premiere of the latest Potter movie, The Order Of The Phoenix.

Rowling recently collaborated on a charity book with Sarah Brown to help one-parent families but the multi-millionaire was adamant she would never go into politics herself.

“I’d never do it – absolutely not,” she said. Very wise.[7]

Yeah but so what? The fact that she's happy about GB as PM is fairly meaningless because she doesn't say why? Is it policy X or policy Y or just because he's a friend? That quote is, however, very valuable to the people who would oppose you as it can easily be used to support a stance that she has no intention to get involved in politics on any level. Aula^TPN 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a curiousity. Somewhat interesting in that she has ruled out elected office...here in the States being extremly rich with name recognition is one of the unwritten qualifications to run for office. But being elected and getting involved in politics are two different things. Case in point, you may have seen some of Al Gore yesterday? Libertycookies 12:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting isn't it? Unlike the US, personal wealth, special interests and campaign finance plays virtually no part in UK politics or campaigning. Elections are centrally funded from the public purse and all members' interests have to be openly declared in a public register so it's not really the same thing. Aula^TPN 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't quite remember why we revolted now.... (snark)Libertycookies 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to do with a tax on tea and a King driven mad by Porphyria... Aula^TPN

A good autobiographical article mentioning "marxist readings of Harry's adventures." A lot of articles like this one assume that she is guarded about her personal life because she is cold. She's contradicted that perception in other interviews, and more likely she just doesn't want to give the ending of the series away by saying too much. http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/features/article2737970.ece Libertycookies 12:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

From the RfC: Am I to understand that the EW reference where she discusses her dislike of bigotry and her statements on moral significance are considered inappropriate because they will 'need balancing'? Is that a decent summary of the problem? Hornplease 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that they will need balancing per se, but that they are irrelevant unless they are part of a larger point. And what point can one make with that statement? That JK Rowling dislikes bigotry? Ok, that's all well and good, but what does it have to do with her life, with her writings or with her as a person? Making the point that JK Rowling is a good person is very flattering, but it's also entirely subjective, and it leads people who don't think JK Rowling is a good person to add their own reasons why. That's why subjective statements really aren't useful in biographies. It also leads to editors inventing entire lives for other people by taking various facts and quotes and drawing conclusions from them that aren't actually in the sources themselves. Stick to the facts, leave opinions out. Serendipodous 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine the point is that bigotry and tyranny are central to her work. Which is relevant. Naturally, we can't draw our own conclusions, but if an article on her influences suggests these are major political influences, then I don't think your claim that they would add nothing to the biography stands up. Hornplease 10:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If bigotry and tyranny are central to her work, then that is best discussed in the Harry Potter article, not here. If bigotry and tyranny played some role in her biography (if, say, she was a holocaust survivor), then they might be relevant. Serendipodous 10:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's your claim, then it's absolutely incorrect. Major influences (including political concerns) on an author's style and choice of subject are the proper area of the author's biography. Consider, for example, Robert A. Heinlein. I'm sorry, but you haven't a leg to stand on here.Hornplease 10:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Three things: First, Heinlein is dead. Rowling is a living person. The rules for living people are far stricter than the rules for dead people; there is far less room for opinions and analysis. Second, Heinlien has a complete body of work to draw on; Rowling hasn't even finished her first series. Making claims about themes in Rowling's work would be like giving a geological account of the entire Earth based solely on the rocks found in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Thirdly, a generation of critics has analysed Heinlien's corpus, giving us a plethora of secondary sources to draw on. Nothing like that exists for Rowling, and any critical analysis we do would be our own opinions, which would be original research. Additionally, I ask you to refrain from making personal attacks. Wikipedia isn't an international insult competition. Serendipodous 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but Serendipodous is correct. As previously discussed, the fact that an author explores certain themes a creative work doesn't allow us to make the leap of original research required to state that they are an influence on or espoused by the author themselves. Also as Rowling is still alive, WP:BLP places much stricter constraints on what material can be in her biography. As it stands the correct place, if anywhere, to discuss these themes is in the articles for the works themselves. Aula^TPN 11:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

First, BLP says nothing about non-contentious, sourced material. Using it to keep out sourced, relevant analysis is inappropriate. Second, the fact that Rowling has written only one series so far is insufficient reason to assume that she does not have a coherent style. Certainly, if some critics writing in reliable sources do seem to suppose so, it is not OR to include that. Third, any original research is naturally out. However, if articles have been written attempting to analyse her style and influences, and quoting her in the process, those count as reliable secondary sources. Fourth, I fail to see where a personal attack comes in. Saying some doesn't have a leg to stand on isn't an insult, its a commonly used phrase. Hornplease 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As are most insults. On topic, how many critics would you need to employ before you could claim you weren't making a personal point? One? Two? Ten? If I wanted to prove that Rowling is a Marxist, a social conservative, or a Satanist, I could certainly find secondary sources to back those claims up. So when does a critical analysis of a book series become definitive? No single critical consensus has emerged about the themes in Rowling's work, partly because very few serious critics have bothered to engage in any kind of literary analysis of Harry Potter, partly because her total output is less than 4000 pages, and partly because she's only been published for about a decade. The dust still hasn't settled yet. Serendipodous 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reputable Sources (a.k.a because I'm tired of scrolling)

Too much indentation! I think the point is that at this stage in the game, the amount of serious literary analysis by informed reviewers is far too thin on the ground to push any particular viewpoint without it failing any reasonable test of WP:SYNTH. I hasten to add that this is the consensus opinion of a considerable group of editors and admins who have become involved over recent months - just in case you were worried that there were some 'ownership issues' going on. I honestly don't believe that to be the case. Aula^TPN 13:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Any and all of those points could be correct, but you would have to argue it on a case-by-case basis. About when a critical analysis of a book series becomes definitive, well, never. That's the point. Consensus in the wikipedia sense doesn't really emerge for things like this, critical analyses will always jostle around. That being said, to think that the most read works of fiction in the past ten years - and complex works, at that - do not have a sufficient number of secondary sources that a sense of literary consensus-es can emerge? Rowling herself has discussed her work and influences more than any other author in the information age. And yet there is insufficient reporting and synthesis by others?

In any case, this is beside the point, You argue for a novel approach to wikipedia policy. If you were to find secondary, reliable sources that concluded that satanism was a major influence on her work, I would be surprised, but you'd have to include it anyway. That's the way it works. Choosing to exclude all discussion because the jury's still out would mean we would have no reporting of analysis in here. See Chou En-Lai on the French Revolution. Hornplease 14:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Here. Rowling is a Satanist. Care to include it? [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]Serendipodous 14:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. None of those satisfy WP:BLP as sources, or, indeed, WP:RS. As I said, to rule out all analysis for fear of including the kooks is just not how things are done. We have policies designed to do that for us. Hornplease 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But who decides who the kooks are and who the kooks aren't? Is it because they reflect some broad mainstream consensus, or is it just because you happen to agree with them? Serendipodous 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again... ;-) Exactly, you're very quick to assign the label 'kook' to the Christian Right-wing analysis but they represent the, albeit misguided, viewpoint of literally millions of Americans and while that might not constitute a consensus viewpoint it certainly isn't a minority viewpoint. The point is that nobody wishes to rule out the analysis if your talking in terms of applying the content to her books - those are facts and are not in dispute. But you cannot generalise those analyses to state that they must, by extension, also apply to the author unless you can find a primary source where she explicitly states that she holds a particular view - anything else is mere guesswork and interpretation. Aula^TPN 14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The kooks are the ones who aren't writing in reliable sources. The viewpoint of millions of people is all very well, but until its stated as front-and-centre analysis of Rowling's thinking in Newsweek or a book published by Routledge, we do not need to concern ourselves with it.

Any analysis of her books belongs in the book article. Any analysis as it pertains to her own influences and motivations belongs in here. Naturally, the purpose of this talkpage will be to determine what it appears the various mainstream evaluations of those influences and motivations are. Really, this is no different from any other page. There will be disagreements and accusations of OR and synthesis, and it will be cleared up in time. Look at Joss Whedon, for example. Hornplease 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Joss Whedon doesn't seem all that resolved, what with the OR tag over the themes section. I don't think there's a way you can resolve something like this, and that's why I don't like including it in the first place. Serendipodous 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I chose Whedon deliberately as an unresolved case to demonstrate that such sections exist, and WP policies exist as well to keep OR there under control. One cant decide not to include these things because it might get messy in the absence of a guideline telling everyone its impermissible. Hornplease 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have to disagree. The policies are quite clear and the purpose of those policies is not to manage OR or keep it under control but to make sure it doesn't enter the article in the first place and, in cases when it does, to give editors the tools they need to resolve/remove as quickly as possible. Aula^TPN 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely true. However the fact that OR is not permitted does not mean that all sourced analysis is necessarily OR. Hornplease 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. The issue is over the quality and selection of sources. The popular opinion amongst editors around here is that WP:BLP requires sources of a much higher quality. Further, when similar topics to this have come up in the past the general consensus was that when it came to attributing any viewpoint/belief to Rowling herself, rather than her works, then the sources had to be primary i.e. Rowling herself. Aula^TPN 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

While I sympathise with that criterion as putting material beyond criticism, can you point to the part of WP:BLP that indicates it is necessary? Hornplease 21:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What, the bit about better quality sources or the bit about primary sources only? Aula^TPN 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PS only. Better quality sources is, of course, part of the guideline. Primary sources are required only for religion and sexuality, I think. Hornplease 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it isn't per se. That was a decision arrived at, after a lengthy discussion, as a preventative measure to protect the more high-profile articles from the massive amounts of flaming, edit/reversion-warring and NPOV-balancing that was happening. I think one of the problems is that while there's a good deal of analysis of her works by reputable sources the same cannot necessarily be said about analysis of her own personal views and beliefs. Aula^TPN 22:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it is established that a bar has been set here that is in fact higher than that of comparable articles. I'd just like to say that this is not tenable in the long run; you had better be prepared to defend each individual attempt to add analysis, of which some will definitely be forthcoming, as JKR is not shy about advertising her personal beliefs and influences. And I certainly think that according to the strict letter of policy, you and the other editors who have come to this consensus will be at a disadvantage. That being said, consensus on a page is consensus on a page.

There would not, however be an RfC if there was consensus. Given that, I strongly suspect that what we have here is editors who, with the best of motives, are setting a separate standard and excluding legitimate edits. I would suggest the next step in dispute resolution for anyone who feels excluded from the consensus. Hornplease 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... if you're referring to the RfC I think you're referring to then I think that it, and the whole dispute resolution process that started it, is closed (or should have been). So unless I'm unaware of a new dispute/RfC then I don't know of anyone who currently feels disenfranchised in that way. That being said I think we're all aware of the caveats you pointed out in your first paragraph above and just accept them as part of the cruft involved in keeping this article somewhat compliant. Aula^TPN 23:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I seem to see the person who lodged the RfC trying to insert material about her politics just a week ago. That is not a closed dispute by any means. There will be more, not less of this.Hornplease 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Threats, are most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And uninformed interjection even less so.Hornplease 17:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

For the umpteenth trillionth time, apart from describing herself as "left wing", Rowling has never made any overt statements about her politics. Any attempt to make any political inferences from her words or her books is therefore OR and is not permissable. Serendipodous 07:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in after reading Book 7, I think the major difference is that Rowling herself says her heroine is Jessica Mitford who was a Marxist. There are secondary sources that accuse Rowling of all kinds of things, but since she says she is polically on the Left, supports Labour's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, supports charities that lean leftward, then maybe it should be acceptable to add the secondary sources that align with her public statements. Adding a secondary source that claims she is a Satanist would be wrong because she denies it. Adding a primary source where she says she is polically left should be reasonable. Complimenting that with a secondary source that notes the Leftist angle of her work shouldn't be unacceptable as long as the quote is from a proper source, and it is in line with Rowling's own (limited) quotes.

Book 7 makes it pretty clear that Rowling doesn't believe in following leaders just for the sake of following them. She's always had a bit of an anti-establishment bent to her writing, and she prizes individual courage above all else. Remember the first time Neville stood up to his friends in CoS, and won Griffindor the House cup? Even the Malfoys regret their blind loyalty by the end of the series. I still say her quote about anarchy while teaching in Scotland is also relevent, as the whole school is in revolt by the end of the series.

Also, I would hasten to remind that there was majority of maybe 8 of the millions of people who have read Harry Potter that created the so-called consensus to delete the contended articles. If you want true consensus, post the questionable material in a section that requests comment and allow it to be discussed for a month or so. Not everyone is a WP junkie like us. Libertycookies 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling No Period

Jo is a Scot. Scotland is part of the UK. In the UK we don't put fartsy periods all over the place. In the UK Jo's name is 'JK Rowling'. Please have some decency and respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.125.44 (talk • contribs)

Wrong and wrong - good start. You're obviously not a Brit as nobody in the UK calls a full-stop a 'period', to a Brit a period is something completely different and much much scarier. Jo is English if it matters, born in Yate near Bristol. And British people most certainly do use full-stops all over the place - that is if they've actually been taught spelling and grammar. Oh and new talk subjects should be added to the end of the page. Aula^TPN 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

She pretty much is an adopted Scot, and her books were aided quite a bit by Scotland (arts grant and welfare). Now she pays the bulk of her taxes there, and is thrilled to have a Scottish PM. Perhaps a bit more on her relationship with Scotland? http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/bldev_famrowling.htm Libertycookies 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

True but the money for those grants ultimately comes from the UK Treasury and no matter where you pay your taxes in the UK they all still go to the same place. Unlike the US we have no concept of a local income tax. There's council tax but that's a whole other can of worms... Aula^TPN 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Studied writing or literature in the USA?

I'd heard somewhere that she had done a master's degree in writing in the USA - if true implying that she wasnt as skint as her image makes out. 80.0.104.93 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I had never been to America, for example, before 1998 and the first time I went for a book signing, which as incredible. JK Rowling, 2005 [15]

So either you're wrong, or she's lying. And if you're going to accuse her of lying, you'll need some pretty hefty evidence to back your claim up. Serendipodous 05:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a new one on me. Aula^TPN 20:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

She's visited the U.S., and that is about the extent of it. Libertycookies 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Privacy of Rowling

With so many assumptions in the media about why Rowling is shy and private, we probably should address the various viewpoints here. Here's a rough draft, needs work, and I've thrown notes in so you can see where I'm trying to go. I can track down the quotes if you guys think it is an appropriate subject. Libertycookies 13:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling is often portrayed as shunning the media [several quotes available]. The Independent recently wrote: "she remains an enigma - an intensely private person with a craving for security, a horror of intrusion, a distrust of fame ("I never wanted it and I never expected it and certainly never worked for it, and I see it as something I have to get through really")." [16]

There is indication that much of the books are personal [Hermoine "somewhat autobiographical" quote|quote that she'd finish the books if only for herself] and she stays quiet to avoid spoiling the plot [website plea to not spoil ending]. In an interview discussing the controversy over the books promoting witchcraft she said, "Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books. "'You can lead a fool to a book but you can't make them think'". Vancouver Sun. 2000-10-26. Retrieved 2007-05-01.

After Deathly Hallows was released, Meredith Vieira from the Today show said she read that Rowling was not an easy interview and “aloof,” but found her very much the opposite: warm and charming. She said Rowling was "protective of her material but not proprietary", Vieira explained, "In so many other interviews she had to be guarded. There was still this whole series and she didn’t want to reveal secrets before now." [17]

I have no problems in adding some text about Rowling shunning the media, if we have such sources. As for the "autobiography" claims, I am not so sure, unless there is wide consensus of sources on the subject or, at least, a significant vioewpoint in this regard (and not some vague speculation by a journalist). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mitford connection

I found a good quote from Rowling in the Guardian that sums up why she likes Mitford. Can we add it? Libertycookies 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling named her daughter after Jessica Mitford, sister of Nancy, author and avowed communist, whose autobiography Rowling read as a teenager. "Basically, [Mitford] had every single possible component you could want as a 13-year-old leftwinger." http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/childrenandteens/story/0,,474412,00.html

Not really. You can say that Rowling said in an interview that "[Mitford] had every single possible component you could want as a 13-year-old leftwinger". But you cannot paraphrase the journalist that make that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the subject could be added to the Early life section? Since the topic of Mitford comes up again and again in Rowling's life, maybe 2 paragraphs? Libertycookies 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When Rowling was a young teen, she overheard her great-aunt discussing how Jessica Mitford had run away at the age of 19 to fight with the Reds in the Spanish Civil War. Rowling says her great-aunt, "who taught classics and approved of a thirst for knowledge, even of a questionable kind" then gave her a very old copy of Mitford's autobiography, Hons and Rebels." [18] Rowling said in the Scotsman, "I wished I'd had the nerve to do something like [Mitford had done]. I love the way she never outgrew some of her adolescent traits, remaining true to her politics - she was a self-taught socialist - throughout her life.

Rowling told the Scotsman she read all of Mitford's books, [19] and Rowling wrote an article about Mitford for the Telegraph, The First "It" Girl. Rowling said in the Guardian that "[Mitford] had every single possible component you could want as a 13-year-old leftwinger." [20]

See: Harry Potter influences and analogues Serendipodous 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling is a real person, and Harry Potter is a fictional character in a book. There may be reason to keep it in the HP article, since names and themes seem to come from Mitford's books. Posted in the article unless there is a legitimate complaint. Libertycookies 22:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Too long, though, giving undue weight to that specific comment. Please summarize and keep the quotes in the footnotes. One sentence will suffice. If you do not know how to summarize, ask. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's long because Rowling is such a Mitford fanatic. Which specific comment? The first sentence is long because it addresses both Mitford and her great aunt both of whom had a strong influence on Rowling. It actually is very short for the amount of information it conveys. Libertycookies 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is too long in relation to the section about "Early life". Give it a try. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling in secondary school

We need to bolster that section. Maybe mention her friend who owned a Ford Anglia and she said she based Ron Weasley on. Mention her punky phase, where she listened to the Clash, Smiths and Siouxsie and the Banshees or how she sas a swot like Hermoine, whom she said was somewhat autobiographical.

We should really include what happened to her in the period of time when her characters in the books are growing up. Libertycookies 22:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that will be a great addition, if we have sources for it, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"My favorite group in the world is the Smiths. And when I was going through a punky phase, it was the Clash." -J.K. Rowling Conversations with J.K. Rowling, Scholastic. pg 29. (more about Mitford on pg 27...)

Sean Harris, her best friend in the Upper Sixth [12th grade] owned a turquoise Ford Anglia. "Ron Weasley isn't a living portrait of Sean, but he really is very Sean-ish. -Rowling, ibid, pg 19-20.

"Hermione is loosely based on me. She's a caricature of me when I was 11, which I'm not particularly proud of. She's quite annoying in a lot of ways. I like her as a character, but I'm very aware that some people wouldn't." [21]

Mmmmm.... not so sure about the last one, but will not oppose 1 and 2, Just please attribute it properly to the source: Feldman, Roxanne. "The Truth about Harry," School Library Journal, September 1999. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Rowling's marriage to Jorge Arantes

In light of Jossi's removal of what I assumed was a sourced comment, it seems pertinent to discuss whether it would be relevant or within guidelines to seek out proper sources regarding her supposedly abusive marriage to Jorge Arantes. There are sources I could post, but I'm not sure how reliable they could be. Even if I could find an impartial source, how relevant to the topic would such information be? The most vivid account was given by Rowling's father to the Daily Mirror: [22], but given what he subsequently told the Mirror a few months later, [23]he hardly seems like an impartial witness to events. The Scotsman has a very detailed account of their marriage as well [24] though I wouldn't give the writer points for journalistic integrity or objectivity. But then, when can you these days? Serendipodous 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You could source the removed material to J.K. Rowling a biography pg 115. Smith, Sean. Michael O'Mara Books, LTD 2001, 2003. There are numerous accounts of the volativity of her marriage, so probably just what was there is sufficient. Libertycookies 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling absolutely loathes that book, and from what I've read of it, I'm not surprised. I wouldn't describe it as a reliable source; it makes some pretty spectacular logical leaps, connecting every minor event in the books to every major event in her life without a shred of evidence in support. Serendipodous 05:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is a lot of speculation in that book, but it has been published twice, and to my knowledge no challenges from Rowling either in the courts or on her website about the "being thrown out by Arantes." It's not a subject I'm very passionate about including, but you could attribute the "rumored being thrown out" quote to Smith saying "he claims". Many of the other articles you mention probably just feed from Smith or from hearsay, as much of Smith's work. He is probably the most liable if it is a question of defamation.

Other suggestions? Libertycookies 13:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I will not use that book as a source for biographical aspects. If there is substantial sources and therie is wide consensus of sources about it, then we should consider it. Otherwise, it is a private matter and not relevant to her notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Its also in Muggles and Magic pg 13 by George Beahm, but was attributed to "The J.K. Rowling Story" by Stephen McGinty, The Scotsman. The media seems to be pretty incestuous on the sorrid details of her marriage. How about putting it in her words? Libertycookies 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Rowling says in Conversations with J.K. Rowling, (pg 42-43) that "having Jessica was without a doubt, the best moment of [her] life." She explains that she moved to Edinburgh because "it became clear that my marriage wasn't working, and I decided it would be easier if I came back to Britain."

Autobiographical aspects of Harry Potter

Rowling is known for her reticance in discussing her personal life, as well as her disdain for spoilers of her books, which may be due to the somewhat autobiographical nature of Harry Potter. In addition to Ron Weasley and Hermoine Granger being inspired by her best friend and herself, Rowling said that Ernie and Stanley, the driver and conductor of the Knight Bus, were named after her grandfathers. [Conversations with J.K. Rowling pg 12]. Rowling's mother came from a family of teachers, "was a huge reader," and was "quite bookish" which Rowling said was a big influence on her. (ibid pg 12) Dobby the house elf seems to come from her heroine, Jessica Mitford's second autobiography, A Fine Old Conflict. [25] Rowling says that the Dementors are representative of Depression, which she experienced while on the dole in Edinburgh [Chaundy, Bob. "Harry Potter's magician". BBC, 18 February 2003][26]. The death of her mother to MS aided in her description of Harry's longing in the Mirror of Erised in which Rowling said she "would see exactly what Harry saw." ["Harry Potter Charms a Nation," Electronic Telegraph (July 25, 1998)]. When asked how she got the idea of writing about magic, Rowling said "When I was younger, I think my greatest fantasy would have been to find out that I had powers that I'd never dreamt of, that I was special." [From radio interview with Margo Adler, All Things Considered, NPR (October 2000)]. Rowling shares a birthday with her protaganist, Harry, of 31 July, and says if people had asked her more about her [Christian] faith they could probably guess where the series was going.

J.K. Rowling says she is "left wing" and that there is a certain amount of "political stuff" in Harry Potter, but that "every reader will bring his own agenda to the book."

Several articles have noted the leftist influences of Rowling's heroine, one-time Communist Jessica Mitford, on the Harry Potter series, with the themes of cooperation among the magical races, racism, and the slavery of House elves.

Would something like this be okay for inclusion, or a spinoff article? Theres more, and I can look up the sources if you guys are agreeable to the subject. Libertycookies 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is good and interesting material if you can find good sources to support it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Are the attributions okay? Can we post? 70.137.148.86 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Philanthropist

Nice word Jossi! I added her to the wiki list with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Mother Teresa. What odd bedfellows. Libertycookies 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by that, but a living person that gives 22 million pounds of her money to comic relief and raised that much on special books dedicated to charitable work, is a philanthropist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant it in serious praise and wished I would have thought of the word myself. Libertycookies 07:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Freeze the page

Hey Jossi, maybe we should put a moratorium on change for a few days? Libertycookies 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What we need is to be ready for the onslaught when the 7th book is made available... Vandalism galore is guaranteed... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then this page should be semi-protected, like Harry Potter. Serendipodous 06:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected sounds good. I saw some yahoo trying to vandalize with a spoiler already. At least I'm trying to contribute positively, although sometimes slanted. Libertycookies 07:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've always been surprised that this page isn't semi-protected anyway. Aula^TPN 08:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected for 1 month. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

Although Joanne is her real name, she is best known to millions as J.K. Rowling. Per WP:NAME, the article should be under the latter name, so I'm going to move it. Exploding Boy 05:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Now, I'm no stickler for pronunciation, but when someone tells me what version of English pronunciation to use, I become offended. While Rowling's last name may be pronounced "rolling" in Britain, I certainly have never heard that pronunciation in my life. The closest American pronunciation to that is "rahling" but most of the time it is pronounced "rohwling" here.

For comparison, I would never expect anyone in their right mind to suggest that everyone should pronounce Harry Potter's name "Hahree Pawtah." It's just ridiculous that anyone could possibly suggest that. So why here is there given a sole pronunciation for Rowling, without even indicating that it's only a British version of the pronunciation, or even just the way she pronounces it?

Perhaps we could say something like this as a compromise:

Rowling pronounces her surname "rolling" (/rəʊ.lɪŋ/) as is customary in British English, but accepts the common American pronunciation "rohwling" /raʊ.lɪŋ/.

I was surprised to have just found a source for the fact that she accepts the American pronunciation (albeit, I'm sure, reluctantly). Regardless, I do believe it is important that the alternative pronunciation is included. If there is no response here soon, I'll make the changes myself. Thanks to anyone who gives feedback. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  01:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is acceptable for pronunciations of common words to vary, a name should be pronounced the way the person whose name it is decrees. The American pronunciation of "rohwling" is actually a mistake. One of the names in my family is Brough, which we pronounce "bruff." Other families with this surname often pronounce it "broh". That might be a correct pronunciation for their name but not for our name. Karanacs 01:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I do recognize this, which is why I was a bit hesitant in posting this suggestion, but I came to the decision to propose this because of the fact that I found the source above, citing that Rowling does accept the American pronunciation in addition. Look, I'm not here to try to encourage the use of the American pronunciation, nor am I trying to prove either of them more appropriate than the other; I'm just looking for the encyclopedia to be as honest as possible. And when you come to think of it, there are more people pronouncing it the American way than the British way, just by virtue of geography! This alone certainly does not merit it a valid pronunciation, but due to the widespread use of the pronunciation and her apparent indifference at the use of it, I would suggest that my version be included in the article. If you have an alternate way of suggesting the same thing, I would appreciate your (or anyone else's) suggestions, as always! _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  01:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As a continuation, Tony Blair's last name is pronounced "Blaih" in British English, but "Blare" in American English. I'm sure he no problem with this, just as Rowling doesn't. It's just a simple alteration of a vowel sound that comes natural to different variations of language. In America, Rowling would never be pronounced "rolling" just as Blair would never be pronounced "Blaih." Sure, the home language's pronunciation is usually the best, but that sure isn't going to make me change the way I mouth my vowels! That is why the American version should be introduced as well. It's more NPOV that way. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  01:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is about one person — J.K. Rowling — and mentions how she customarily pronounces her own name. The fact that somebody else with the surname Rowling might use a different pronunciation is obvious and not relevant to the article. There is nothing particularly wrong with your alternative version but it amazes me that you could classify a routine pronunciation guide as "offensive" or NPOV. Xanthoxyl 04:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, if the bald statement "Her name is pronounced..." strikes you as slightly bossy then go ahead and make the change, seeing as your version is concise, provides more information and gives the source. Xanthoxyl 05:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that she "accepts" an alternative pronounciation is a minor fact about her and should by no means be in the lead, if in the bio at all. Hornplease 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only Americans pronounce her name "gRowling"; plenty of British people do too, just as many Americans pronounce her name "rolling". "gRowling" isn't an "American pronunciation", it's just wrong. This "compromise' is an insult to Americans; it's basically saying that they reserve the right to be ignorant.Serendipodous 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote an episode of MuggleCast it's pronounced "Rowling like bowling" - end of story. It particularly winds me up when people insist on pronouncing it like "Howling" - ugh! Aula^TPN 08:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, where in that article does it say that she "accepts" this alternate pronunciation of her name? I went through that article line by line and didn't find any mention of it. Serendipodous 11:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to everyone above concisely. First, I'll set it straight that it's not to be in the lead, but the first sentence in the paragraph of the Name section. I would not in a million years try to force this into the lead. As to the comment about the growling version not solely being American, I apologize to my fellow Americans if I was offensive in making that crude generalization, and now that I think of it, it is way too generalized, so I will attempt to fix this when I relook my proposed change. In response to the general "it's incorrect, so why include it at all?" opposition, look, I know it may not be the author's preferred pronunciation, but whether she likes it or not, it's inevitable that Americans and apparently Brits alike will pronounce is a wrong way that she is apparently indifferent about (and by the way, it says so in a little box on the left hand side, not in the article). So due to the fact that it is not the way it should be pronounced by Rowling, and that not only Americans pronounce it growling, I will amend the suggested sentence to the following:

Rowling pronounces her surname "rolling" (/rəʊ.lɪŋ/), but accepts the widely-used variant "rohwling" /raʊ.lɪŋ/.

I think this is more appropriate than what I last suggested. This version does not tell people that they're pronouncing it wrong or right, as is how it should be. It only exposes the two pronunciations, and hints at the fact that it should be pronounced "rolling" because that is what the author uses. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  13:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What I don't get is why you are treating the way Rowling pronounces her last name as a kind of personal fashion statement. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't accept half the people you met mispronouncing your surname. Rowling pronounces her last name "rolling" because that's how the rest of her family pronounce it. Ergo, that is how her surname is pronounced. Just because other people mispronounce it that doesn't make it correct. That infobox didn't explain why Rowling accepted this variance in pronunciation; is it because she doesn't care how her name is pronounced, or is it because she recognises that she can't teach 100 million people correct pronunciation? Serendipodous 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia! We don't have to say why. We don't have to analyze the information we receive. We just have to display it in a NPOV way. Saying that someone should pronounce something one way, without even recognizing the alternate and more widely-used pronunciation, it just making a statement in and of itself.

And since you brought it up, yes, it may bother me when people pronounce my last name different from how I pronounce it, but the fact is, there are so many ways to pronounce things that there is no one right way. There is a preferred way, but no right way. For example, the principal at my school speaks with an Irish accent; he's Irish. Because of this, every time he pronounces my last name, he'll say it differently than how I pronounce it (and likewise, I say his last name different than he pronounces his). And I don't care because I know that it's only a regional difference in pronunciation that is causing him to do this. No hard feelings.

Look at Iraq#Etymology. There it offers 3 different pronunciations: the best one, an acceptable one, and one that is considered unacceptable. That is the way it should go down here. By not recognizing a pronunciation that is common, we are just slapping those who say it like that in the face (an exaggeration, of course). We should at least say "hey, here's how the author condones the pronunciation, but look, there's a widely-used variant that may not be to the author's style of speaking, but that she 'happily accepts.'" I think it's the only way to go here, and my alternate does this. If anyone would like to suggest something different in addition to their reasons against mine, please do it! It doesn't get us anywhere if I'm the only one suggesting things here! _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Before we put words into Rowling's mouth, I'd prefer a direct quote from her on the issue, indeed, I would prefer a comment that was attributed to anyone at all, rather than a single sentence in a box on the side of a fairly scanty and inconseqential report. Serendipodous 14:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As would I. It would have made my case a lot stronger. But I'm not going to doubt AP and CBS. I think they're very reliable sources. And ever regardless of whether she accepts the name or not (I wouldn't care if there was a source that says "Don't ever call me by the pronunciation or I'll cut your head off!), it is still important to recognize the alternate. I don't know how we should do this, but I've offered my suggested sentence.

On a side-bar, it's customary to strike out something you've already submitted rather than change the wording. No big deal, but I thought you might want to know. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  14:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a search of Accio Quote and found nothing relating to her accepting any alternate pronunciations of her name. She sticks with "rolling." But regardless, I don't buy your argument. This is the internet. The entire English-speaking world has access to our site. We can therefore tell millions of people the simple facts. Rowling's surname is pronounced "rolling." Some people pronounce it "growling", and those people are incorrect. The more people see the correct pronunciation of her name, the fewer people will pronounce it incorrectly and the less this "variant" will matter. Serendipodous 14:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that's where I believe that you're intrinsically wrong. Wikipedia isn't here to tell people what to do. It's here to report on what's already been done. Think of it like this: each article is supposed to be an expository essay, not a persuasive essay. And currently, there are two pronunciations: one condoned as correct by the author, and one I'm sure reluctantly accepted by the author but widely accepted by the general public. The Iraq article, as I mentioned above, does a superb job at exposing the various pronunciations, and then telling which is more appropriate to use. And that's what should be done here. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"We're an encyclopedia! We don't have to say why." Wow I don't even know where to start telling you what's wrong with that statement. The most fundamental requirement of an encyclopaedia is that the information contained therein should be correct. As she is very specific about the way her surname is pronounced then the 'only correct way to pronounce it is 'rolling'. Why is this even being debated I fail to see how adding anything to this section achieves any effect other than to introduce incorrect information? Oh and it is only custom practice to strike your comments if you are retracting them, not if you are re-writing them to expand or clarify what you've said. Aula^TPN 14:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm done arguing this due to the fact that I believe my argument was more cogent. Everything that I will add to the main page will be correct information. After careful consideration of the facts, I will drop the CBS source and eliminate any suggestion as to the fact that she accepts the alternate pronunciation. I will, however, include the alternate pronunciation, indicating that it is incorrect, but a widely-used variant. I believe that you will agree with this.

And about the comments thing, I may have said it poorly, but what I meant was that anytime you change what you have already written, you should strike you old comments and insert the new ones after. Sorry for the mistake. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

More cogent? Hardly. Your edit to the article is way to strong in favour of the alternative pronunciation. It should state that the correct pronunciation is "rolling" and that, although widely used, "rohling" is incorrect. Also, British English has nothing to do with it - it's not a UK/US thing, it's an issue of ignorance. Aula^TPN 15:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between regional pronunciations of various words and the pronunciation of names. Even allowing for regional differrences in pronunciation of certain names (like Sean, for example), there are clearly two possible pronunciations for a name like "Rowling": "rolling" or "r "ow" ling." This isn't a case of regional variation, but of a range of possible pronunciations: in this case, there is a right and a wrong pronunciation, just like the famous river is called the "tems" not the "thaymes." The article should use the correct pronunciation, which is the one Rowling herself uses. (Compare, for example, Catherine Zeta-Jones. She has said herself that the correct pronunciation is "zetta," but she goes by "zeeta"). Exploding Boy 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition by Jared because consensus among the editors at this point as that this statement does not belong. The article is about JK Rowling, not about the millions of people who mispronounce her name. We should stick to the simple fact that this is how she pronounces her name and leave it at that. People who have been pronouncing the other way will therefore be able to infer that their pronunciation is wrong. Additionally, the statement was unsourced and inserted into a paragraph that was sourced, thus implying that the reference at the end of the paragraph also covered its claim. Karanacs 15:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that the statement that the other pronunciation is "regarded as incorrect in British English" is untrue. It's a possible pronunciation that is simply incorrect in the case of J.K. Exploding Boy 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So are we just going to ignore all those people who pronounce it Rohwling? It deserves at least some mention in the article, right! Whether it's right or wrong, it's used and we cannot ignore that fact! _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can, because it is irrellevant. A large number of people think that Rowling is a Satanist and servant of the antichrist, but their opinions are not included here. Members of the John Birch Society think that Rowling is a Communist. Their opinions are not included here. Those people who pronounce her name "growling" are similarly irrellevant to Rowling's biography and can therefore be summarily excluded.Serendipodous 16:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'm very disappointed at the lack of an attempt to negotiate here, and would have expected better of people editing as such a well-written article. However, I don't see that I will be gaining any greater footholds here, so I have changed the article so something that we can both agree is true. Maybe I'll address my concern at a later time, but for now, I find it unfortunate that, though I have cited numerous instances where my reasoning has been precedented and correct, not one person here can see where I'm coming from. I wish everyone the best of luck editing here. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  16:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)]

Jared, please note that there is a very big difference in what someone's name is (i.e., what are the words) and how that name is pronounced. There is also a huge difference in what the appropriate pronunciation of a WORD is and how to pronounce the NAME. Just because British English leans towards pronouncing Rowling like bowling doesn't mean she would have to pronounce it that way. There is no need in explaining why her family pronounces their name the way they do. As for her name, when Harry Potter was originally released some news reports actually reported that Kathleen was part of her name; they did not report that her name was pronounced a different way. That is why one is included here and one is not. Please do not add information into the article until gaining consensus. At this point, the consensus among the editors of this page is not to include information on incorrect pronunciations. Karanacs 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted Jared's change again. You seem to be pretty familiar with Wiki Policies so I'm sure you know that what you're doing is against established consensus and hence liable for repeated and imminent reversion? This also includes your attempt to dilute the correctness of the pronunciation by changing the para from 'Rowling's surname is pronounced' to 'Rowling pronounces her surname', that's dangerously similar to using weasel words. Aula^TPN 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll end it like this: I shouldn't need consensus to make an edit fully cited and appropriate to the context of the article. Even still, I came to the talk page out of my common courtesy to alert other editors of my future change. If the only viable reason here for not including the most common pronunciation world-wide for her name is because it may suggest that it is "OK" to use (which it truly is, anyway) then I am deeply disheartened at the lack of thought put into this discussion. Look, people come to this page to gain information. Why should we leave anything out? Whether it's right or wrong, but yet still pertinent to the topic, still include the information, just say why it's right or wrong; simple as that.

I was never trying to dilute anything here. I only wanted to ensure that there was no POV pushing, and saying "Rowling's name is pronounced" is a blatant command and a poor phrase in an expository article, if you ask me.

I'm a member of a WikiProject and I know that while my colleagues and I there like to do things our way, we are always open to suggestions and changes to our "norms" and express this on a regular basis. It may seem like I'm preaching to you, but from experience (and not that long of experience, actually), I know how to handle suggestions to edit pages differently. And I know that if pages edits are handled like the one above, this article will never progress. (Just look at the fact that the article is 90% about Harry Potter, for example.)

I hope that you all at least saw where I was coming from, and hope that in the future, claims can be handled in a more cooperative manner. I would rather not clutter this talk page with more talk about this, so if you have additional concerns or comments, drop me a note on my talk page or e-mail me through Wikipedia. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple: her name is pronounced to rhyme with rolling; you can pronounce it other ways, and maybe other people will understand you, but that is not her name. Similarly, you could spell her name 'Rolling', and people might understand you, but her name is not spelt 'Rolling'. That is not her name. I could call you 'Shareed', and maybe people would know who I was referring to, but that wouldn't make it your username; your username is not spelt like that. It's not even an accent thing, since Americans and Britons are quite capable of saying 'rolling'. On top of this, the only cite you provided for the claim that she finds the other pronunciation acceptable was rather dubious compared to the cites for how her name is actually pronounced. Anyway, better luck next time :) Skittle 01:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely ridiculous! I don't know what the Hell the original poster is talking about, but I have never EVER heard anyone here in the U.S. pronounce her name "rohwling". Everyone here says "rolling", it's not just a British thing, so we should just finds another way to paraphrase it. Any mention of a different "American pronunciation" should be taken out immediately, as the majority of us say it the same way as the rest of the world. It shouldn't be taken completely out of the article, however, as anyone who doesn't know how to pronounce her name will. Therequiembellishere 03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious. Do you correct people if they pronounce your name wrong? It's an encyclopedia and should only list how the name is properly pronounced, i.e. how she pronounces it. Or shall we mention that the Japanese might pronounce it as "ro-ree-n-gu" and explain how those with speech impediments might pronounce it? Jesus Christ. Yeah, tons of people pronounce it "rohwling," and not only in the U.S. -- but it's not even a matter of varying accents as you're trying to suggest ("Hahree Pawtah"), it's a matter of ignorance. :) And when the holy crap did she ever say she "accepts" the "American" (more accurately called "ignorant") way of pronouncing her name? Not that I think Jo would pummel someone for mispronouncing her name -- I just find it funny that you're flippin' over this, yet have no problem with writing Jo's biography Rita Skeeter style. :D --70.55.39.170 03:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mismatched pages

Could we get the talk page on the same name as the article page is on, please? _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  18:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. User:Mr. panadol incorrectly moved the article and its talk page from J. K. Rowling to Joanne Rowling. User:Exploding Boy then attempted to revert that change, as per WP:NAME, by moving back but accidentally moved the pages to J.K. Rowling. The article was subsequently re-moved & redirected but not the talk page. The change is now working it's way through the Requested Moves process. Aula^TPN 22:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just figured someone here was an admin who could make the change right away to at least match them. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone change the "Harry Potter" section to read that seven out of seven books have been published.