Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 2

The other image
The image titled "The Great Hall at Hogwarts" isn't official Harry Potter artwork (it's actually a Painting of the Hall of Christ Church College. It shouldn't be included in the article then, should it? -Pilaman 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rant on hallowness of this article.
This article is as hollow as Godric. There is not a single word on the git of it: how good/bad/what kind of a writer JKR is? There is not a single reference to University XY, which had the entire HP corpus fed to computers and what the result of such statistical analysis was. Not a single opinion or evaluation featured by any Nobel-laurate author on JKR's specific talents and weaknesses, style etc. Not a word on where to place her in the evolutionary chart of european literature from Aesopus to Milne, Dickens to Proust. These are important issues, her eye colour and fashion house are not. 195.70.32.136 14:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to miss a "critizism" section. Before adding it, note that there is one in Harry Potter, where it might be better placed.  I'm not sure her place in European literature is important, the Harry Potter books seems to be primarily a cultural, not literary, event.--Per Abrahamsen 14:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, critical views on the HP works should be in that article. As for the other missing information, this is a wiki.  Feel free to add such information yourself, if it does exist - we're all volunteers here.  And if you're reluctant to edit the main article, feel free to add any link here, and request that the information from that source be added to the article.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

List/contents of works
It is striking that in all this text there is no clear description of what Rowling actually wrote! The section on her works does not mention the 2nd or 5th books at all (one only presumes they exist because there are 3rd and 6th books), or give the name of the 6th one. I would think a list of titles and publication dates would be a minimal requirement. I would also like to see a brief description of the fantasy world Rowling created. Even if this is covered in more detail in the "Harry Potter" article, it would help to know more than just that she wrote about a boy at school who has magical powers. A very brief - I mean a sentence or two - synopsis of each work would be illuminating as well. Together, a description of their world and synopses of the books would explain what all the fuss is about, and how the story progresses. As it stands, someone who did not know anything about Rowling or Harry Potter would leave this article knowing a good deal about where Rowling went to school (and didn't), how much money she has made, and what train she was on when she started writing, but virtually nothing about why anyone cares. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.64.41.106 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
 * The fantasy world is described in great detail in the Harry Potter article. This is an article about Rowling, not about Harry Potter, and it focuses on her specifically. Serendipodous 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rowing or rolling
According to the The Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation, Rowling is pronounced as "rowing". But others said it should pronounced as "rolling". Which one is correct? 203.83.115.130 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's "Rowling like bowling." See . In addition, when Rowling was at Radio City Music Hall this summer, she was introduced by Jon Stewart who said he joked with her backstage how he would say Rowling (like howling) and she said to go ahead, but that her entire fan base would yell out "Rolling." --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusing Rowling of copyright infringement without evidence is libel
Please stop adding personal interpretations of what constitutes copyright theft to articles on JK Rowling and Harry Potter. Just because you feel certain works may be similar to Harry Potter, that doesn't automatically imply copyright infringement. If you have issues with what you think Rowling may or may not have lifted from other sources, get a degree in copyright law and present your case in court. Don't make libellous claims without the knowledge or the evidence to back them up. If you want to discuss similarities between Rowling's work and others, Works analogous to Harry Potter is the place to do it. Serendipodous 09:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unreplaceable FU image
We now have a source that confirms Rowling does not make regular public appearances. The article reads "But while Edinburgh residents may respect her privacy, book collectors are not so polite. It has become increasingly difficult for her to be anywhere in public." I would say we should upload another photo of her under FUC. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But she is not a recluse. She may not make regular appearances, I will concede, but she is not a recluse.   argued the same for Robert Post, but it was deleted per Image talk:Robert_Post.jpg.  Even more against this photo is that it's ordinary.  There is nothing extraordinary about this photograph that makes it irreplaceable.  J. D. Salinger is irreplaceable because it depicts him in the 1950s, something clearly not possible now.  Bill Watterson is irreplaceable because it depicts him in 1986, not possible now.  This is a mere modern photograph of her. Hbdragon88 07:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Has any effort been made to contact her publishers, official website, or even an active fansite (chances are someone will have taken a photograph at an old book signing or charity event), to ask for a single image to be released under a free licence? Until that's done, it's fairly difficult to claim that any copyrighted photograph of the author is "irreplacable". If you want to have a go, I'd seriously advise reading Example requests for permission first, or you're likely to end up needing to send further letters. Granting Wikipedia permission isn't enough, for example, since use by other parties, commercial and otherwise, must be specifically stated. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 19:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for your responses. I have found this image which I think is the best image I can find that is in fine quality, with a picture of her, with a licensing that I believe is owned by The Leaky Cauldron. I've sent them an email using some text from WP:ERFP and I hope they respond! --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it doesn't matter, and it's probably not too good a source since it's six and a half years old, but The Times did once call her a "recluse"… Anyway, I'm still waiting for a response from Leaky. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. JK Rowling
She does have an honorary doctorate from the U of A, so should her name be changed to have a Dr. in front?
 * Instead of adding the "Dr." I've added "LL.D" after her name in the lead. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

CHILDHOOD from steeley
216.105.208.2 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Italic textwhen did jk write her first book? how old was she? what was the book called?
 * Rowling has only had eight books published (six in the HP series, two as supplements to the series). Thus her first book was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, published in 1997 but written across seven years or so; she was 25 in 1990. For questions about content, you might want to try WP:RD next time. :-) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Philopsher's stone!?!? what? ~Fixed~


 * harry potter and the sorcerer's stone in US, but the name used is Philosopher's stone as that's the UK version Randomtime 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

According to her UK publisher, Rowling was born in Chipping Sodbury, which lies very close to Yate, where she lived in early childhood. (In fact the two have merged into one town really.) She was probably born in Chipping Sodbury Cottage Hospital (which no longer exists). --Genie 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the note that says her birth certificate gives Yate and the place of birth. In that case we need to edit the Chipping Sodbury article for consistency. --Genie 16:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Name
Rowling's "legal name" is mentioned in the article. There has not been for 2000 years in English or British law any such thing as a legal name. Other countries, such as Denmark and Turkey, may differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.50.244 (talk • contribs)

Ebay Lawsuit Sources
This edit deleted mention of a lawsuit filed by Rowling against Ebay for selling counterfeit books, saying simply please cite a source. While I think it is appropriate to delete unsourced and unverifiable comments, we need to also be careful to at least make an effort to check the facts and see if there are reliable sources first. There is a better way to request a citation, and that is to use the "citation needed" Fact template, so interested editors can have a chance to get the requested reliable source and post it. The deleting editor could also have assisted the anonymous/newbie editor, by doing a simple google or yahoo search for any news articles involving Rowling and Ebay. This is not a difficult task, and here are some sources:  and  and  and  and  and. My point is, we the experienced editors need to moderate our actions and help the newbies, not bite them. If you need a source, ask for it. If no source can be found, then after a suitable time, then delete the claim. See Tagging unsourced material for more information and guidelines. Thanks. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rowlings Current Family section
It says - Shortly after Rowling began writing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, she took a break from working on the novel to care for him in his early infancy. However David was born March 2003, OOTP came out June 2003 so 3 months later so shouldn’t it be she began writing HBP in place of OOTP

Also David was born on the 24 of March —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mixed5000 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Middle Name
The cover of Deathly Hallows was just released and the back flap reads "J.K. (Joanne Kathleen) Rowling"... I think this needs to be brought back up for discussion. Shall we add Kathleen? I think we should... --  Valley   2   city   ₪‽ 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the (Joanne Kathleen) is saying what the J. K. stands for; we know that J.=Joanne and K.=Kathleen. It doesn't mean it's her name: in fact, she explicitly states her name is "Joanne Rowling." I think this is closed. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Her assumed middle name, Kathleen, is that of her late grandmother, whom Joanne loved very dearly. It is not her middle name, as she was never registered as having one.

As I understand it, she was asked to use a second initial so that (as the article already states), the author's credit on PS would be gender-neutral. Thus, she chose 'Kathleen' after her grandmother. I do not, however, know if she has since adopted that as her middle name by deed poll.

Religious beliefs
I think perhaps the Wikipedia should have more information regarding the religous beliefs, and reasons why JK Rowling wrote the Harry Potter series. Anyone can belief in God! Satan beliefs in God, yet its the faith in Christ that makes Satanism diffrent from christians. I wa Jo Lord —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.217.194.6 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

j.k rowling is the most amazing author in the history of the world. Maybe i can even convince my friend jenny to read the books if only j.k. could meet her. the books are sometimes scary but what is cooler than a thriller? (to me) I recomend that everyone read these and don't fool yourselves into thinking your too young. I finished the series in first grade. (except the ones that hadn't come out) -C.F.O.P. C. Salgero ...a fourth grader in love with the series plus i'm a girl.

Format
Undid radical changes in format; they made no sense. "After Harry Potter" occurred before "Harry Potter" and her sudden rise in fortunes from penniless single mother to billionaire was not explained until three sections later. The "Harry Potter" section is a part of her biography because Harry Potter is a major part of this woman's life. Serendipodous 08:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Flag is wrong
The flag that is supposed to be a small flag of Engalnd is wrong (I believe it's Norway's). Someone please fix it.

67.162.215.20 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is indeed England's flag. You are perhaps thinking of the UK's flag, which is . --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I was.

67.162.215.20 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Religious beliefs" section
They are already covered in the controversy over Harry Potter page, so there was little point in retaining a single sentence that basically described her as a Satanist. Serendipodous 12:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was trying to do this the other day, but it was constantly reverted. 212.139.121.149 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * In addition, please refrain from your personal attacks on the people and grammar of the USA. All variants of English are "correct"; please do not try to instate American English as "wrong" or less accepted. As an American, I acknowledge the British and do not go around insulting how they spell "neighbour" or put the punctuation on the outside of the quotation marks "like so". Your use of the words "obsessive," "fetish," "manical," "less sophisticated," "thankfully" and "international arrogance and clumsiness" are extremely unwarranted. All that was needed to be said was, "In Britain we do not put full-stops"—or periods, as I would say—"after initials, as some may do in American or other varieties of English." Thank you. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Should her full name be "Rowling Murray"?
I know she uses her married name for anonymity in personal business, and that both her children with Neil are named "Rowling Murray", but I don't know whether she is legally named Murray. Serendipodous 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, she did marry him, doesn't that mean that your new name automatially becomes Rowling Murray? Intriguingly, there are no Google results for "Joanne Rowling Murray." --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay two things even though her middle name isn't Kathleen many people believe it to be Joanne Kathleen Rowling Murray brings three google results. Two marraige doesnt nessasarily change the womans last name here you still need govt. permission to change to the spouces (though its almost gaurenteed) so I don't see why it would be forced on the woman in the UK so I am unsure as to her name.. however as far as the article name i doubt anyone would expect it to be anything but what it is at present and for full names listed in the article I feel putting Murray may fit WP:OR even though it is a logical conclusion My $0.02 or maybe I should say 1p--Shimonnyman 09:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
I'm not a regular contributor to this page, so I don't want to make radical changes. I would suggest, however, that the controversy section be expanded into a larger summary of the controversy article, and that the television section be removed. The television section is primarily trivia and doesn't add much to knowledge about her. I think with those changes, some work on the citation formatting, and a little polishing of the text, this might be ready for an FA review. Karanacs 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Trivia section removed. Citations fixed. Controversy section expanded. Main problem is finding images, since every image this page has ever had has been taken down for copyright reasons. Serendipodous 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you thought about posting on Mugglenet or The Leaky Cauldron? Someone there may have any image they'd be willing to release.  Good luck!Karanacs 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

JKR's political views
In this case, I think user:libertycookies has a point about including information about JKR's political views. However, this would have to be presented very carefully and be more balanced. Rather than just statements from conservative political leaders, it would need if possible to have information from either a neutral party or JKR herself. I think she has talked about Jessica Mitford in interviews before, although I don't think that she goes very in-depth into why she respects Mitford. If you can make this information more balanced, I'd recommend that it be included under a separate section, not under controversy/criticism. Karanacs 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed a lot of it. Rowling's admiration for Jessica Mitford is not necessarily political, whatever the rightwing loonies at the John Birch Society (the very definition of a "fringe group") may think. I think Libertycookies has gone a bit too far in pushing this single issue. Obviously he has a bee in his bonnet about it, but really it isn't that important, either to the understanding of Rowling or the understanding of Harry Potter. Personally I think that his additions as they are have completely overbalanced the criticism section (why should an obscure rightwing group like the John Birch society get more space than either AS Byatt or Stephen King?) and should be trimmed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to push single issues. If Libertycookies continues to press his case in other articles, I may request to have him banned.Serendipodous 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

Current Article: "Politics"
Although Rowling guards her privacy closely, she has spoken about some of her political views and causes.

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

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

Draft #1 - Rowling's political views
I'll concede to S. that this might not be political, so I suggest another category of 'Influences'. I can find the links to the non left-wing influences once you approve the content, but I'm certain it will fact check. I think the other influences should be bolstered, but can we post this?

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

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

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

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

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

Comments
Thanks for moderating, and please lets all try not to take any of this personally. Apologies for being assertive on what I see as a neglected subject. Libertycookies 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. That was surprisingly NPOV. I'll give a more detailed critique when I've had some time to think about it. Serendipodous 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was actually easier to write this than to go for the Controversy angle. I've added some more background from writers on both sides and fixed the links. Libertycookies 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Woah. Now it's way too long. It was fine the way it was. Rowling's influences are covered in depth in Works analogous to Harry Potter; no more than a cursory examination is needed here. Serendipodous 18:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll step back. Can you pare it back as the draft#2, and lets let a jury decide, but you're probably right.  Thanks.  Libertycookies 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

j.k really needs to right a new book. just 1. who agrees?

Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2002/1102-fraser-scotsman.html

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


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


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

I'd appreciate anybody's advice as to how we can clear these two points up further. AulaTPN 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's my advice, for the record: Keep most of it, but ditch the Jessica Mitford paragraph. While every source I've read has cited Rowling's respect for Mitford as a person, there is no evidence whatsoever that she shares Mitford's politics. Any attempt to conflate the two is pure speculation and should be removed. I also have a slight issue with quoting Sean Smith's biography; he too makes some pretty big leaps in logic, but that quote at least seems pretty solid. Serendipodous 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I think Rowling has socialist sympathies, but she isn't a Socialist. Personally I think she is a change agent with anarchist attitudes, hence her reference to Guy Fawkes, and the underground group the Order of the Phoenix.  Book 7 will probably deal more with these issues, so leaving as much reference for readers as possible is a good idea.  Book 7 might be a Mind Bomb unless there is a channel like wikipedia for diffusion of the force of her ideas.  Keeping these incendiary ideas tightly contained is a horribly bad idea. Libertycookies 15:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. But find some other forum to disseminate your views. Wikipedia has to remain objective and to maintain a neutral point of view, especially as regards living people. It is not the right place to make such statements. Blogs, personal sites, forums, magazines, these are the venues to express your opinion. Not Wikipedia. Serendipodous 15:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfectly fine, however posting others opinions from legitiamate groups should be allowable. Burying the information so that it cannot be found should be unacceptable. Libertycookies 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on notability. Wikipedia is not a forum where every crackpot gets to air their views on anything; unless it's notable in that it has had some kind of impact outside its own sphere, then it's not permissable. Regardless, there is nothing in any of the sources you have supplied that says the Rowling is a socialist or even has socialist leanings. Serendipodous 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Liberty you are so far wide of the mark it's not funny. Guy Fawkes is someone we Brits ceremonially "burn" in effigy every year and so, in a play on words, Fawkes is so-named because, as a phoenix, he regularly bursts into flames too. The reason we burn effigies of Guy Fawkes is to commemorate the fact that he didn't blow up parliament which is the exact opposite of why you infer she has socialist/anarchic sympathies! In other words you've managed to grasp exactly the wrong end of the stick.


 * Further, all your arguments are completely based on original research and are full of holes so big one could drive a bus through. Wikipedia is not a channel for the diffusion of anybody's ideas or agendas - it is an Encyclopaedia - a place for undisputed and verifiable fact.


 * On a personal note, I'm getting very tired of this whole business. Up until now I've been prepared to take your edits in good faith and to assume that you've been trying to make a valid contribution to Wikipedia but you've been told about the policies here so many times that your continued violations leave me with no choice but to assume you're pushing some bizarre personal agenda. I'm going to lay things out for you here:


 * There is no evidence whatsoever in any of your cited references to support the view that JK has any socialist leanings whatsoever.
 * You consistently try to assert that she is a socialist by making quantum leaps between the stated facts and your position by using them to infer that she has certain leanings/supports certain causes/ideologies.
 * Many of your arguments and inferences see Fawkes above are just plain incorrect.


 * I would strongly urge you to please stop grinding this particular axe or I don't how we will resolve this in any way other than asking for arbitration and that's never a fun process. Again, this is not a personal attack - many of the points you have raised are valid and interesting ones when you've backed them up with reliable sources but you seem determined to take things just one step too far by inferring meanings and links that simply aren't there. AulaTPN 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that the Fawkes thing isn't obvious enough for wikipedia, she's only mentioned it once. Feel free to challenge any of the current entries and quotes. I'd be glad to put quotes that show she is a conservative, but they don't exist.  The only thing from conservatives are the criticisms for her socialist attidudes that S. derides. Libertycookies 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, it's all about me, even when someone else says exactly the same thing I've been saying since minute one, this is all because I hate socialism (?!). Your attitude is bordering on personal attack here Liberty.Serendipodous 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * S., I don't even know who you are, but you have derided the criticism for her socialist attitudes. I'll take you at your word that you don't hate socialism, but your views only matter to me because you continuously want to keep valid quotes from Rowling buried.

The Fawkes thing isn't obvious enough for wikipedia? I'm sorry is that meant to be a personal attack? I notice you conveniently glossed over the fact that you tried to use Fawkes to argue your point using the exact opposite meaning of the real connection. Here's the thing - we don't need to challenge any of your points - they're pure fantasy. It is your obligation to prove your points when adding them by citing references that actually back them up. AulaTPN 09:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are wikipedia. But you are criticizing me for being far of the mark...which mark is that?  I don't think anyone but Rowling knows for sure where the books are going, but we should include the quotes that she has made.  Also your viewpoint on Guy Fawkes is clearly not as sympathetic as that of other citizens like Morrissey, Alan Moore, and members of SPEW.  He is a fairly complex figure, but this is not to suggest anyone should blow up Parliament or that his actions were not unacceptably violent. Libertycookies 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are far off the mark in terms of trying to assert that Rowling is a Socialist/Anarchist because of the Fawkes reference - I don't know how many ways I can say this but you implied a rationale behind the link that just doesn't stack up. I haven't expressed any viewpoint on Guy Fawkes whatsoever. I simply stated the well established fact that all around Britain he is burned in effigy every Nov 5th to celebrate the fact that he was unsuccessful. And you can't use Morrisey as a prop for your argument either - he's so massively anti-establishment that he can't be considered an unbiased, impartial critic. AulaTPN 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rowling loves Morrissey, and was interviewed in The Importance of being Morrissey. Perhaps she is anti-establishment as well?  Nah...too rich. Libertycookies 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And Morrisey is poor? SqueakBox 17:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, but there is rich and then there is RICH. Far be it for me to guess what Rowling really believes on a day to day basis.... Libertycookies 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what you're doing!!! You take little bits of unrelated quote and citation and then glue them together in an attempt to prove your point! AulaTPN 16:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: request for comment, then mediation, then arbitration...What specifically is the complaint? I acknowledge that some of the material I would like to include lacks sufficient citations.  Please take the bother of marking up, unless you want to delete everything related to Mitford, which seems too extreme. Libertycookies 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting us nowhere. I think arbitration is the only way forward. Serendipodous 13:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes please. AulaTPN 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rowling a socialist? Lol, SqueakBox 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Rebellion Begins" poster for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix''. Commentators have suggested that the Harry Potter books and movies encourage dissent and rebellion against authority by youth.''

Liberty, if you cannot see how utterly insane this statement is, then I'm afraid there can no longer be common ground between us. When it comes to making claims about living people, I'll stay on the side of reality. Serendipodous 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC) ::Seren, I thought you were well versed with the controversy from the religious right...mostly they make this claim, but other more reasonable folks make it as well. Try to not be overly biased against people who don't share your opinion....Jo would be disappointed. Libertycookies 16:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm here from the RfC -- in my opinion, the politics section is absurd in the extreme. It's basically a collection of random vaguely-political statements and stances she's made, held together by a bunch of second-hand gossip and tabloid supposition. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and it's certainly not a dumping ground for attempting semantic necromancy on a heap of largely unrelated information in a thinly veiled attempt to insert original research into this article. It's totally unreliable, mostly supposition, and patently unbiographical. Delete it all until there's something of real merit to write about. --Haemo 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, Libertycookies is determined to push his agenda and will not allow any content he places in this article to be deleted. It is currently impossible to edit this article without fending off Liberty's OR and essay writing. I have put my neck out repeatedly to draw attention to his edits, but so far no admin has seen fit to punish him.  Serendipodous 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct Seren, I won't tolerate mass deletes based on a minority viewpoint. I've apoligized because I know you take pride in this page. Libertycookies 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that you are the minority viewpoint Liberty. Every independent editor and admin who has looked at this has determined that your content is completely unsupported. However, ArbCom seem to have no guts whatsoever so I suspect they'll let you get away with this nonsense. AulaTPN 09:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you say, but you have yet to show anything in the current article that isn't sourced. Please refrain from insulting ArbCom or minorities. Libertycookies 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia guidelines, and the previous deletion debate to understand why your material is inappropriate. --Haemo 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

More politics: antimetrication
The British Weights and Measures Association, an organisation opposed to the use of the metric system in the United Kingdom, claims JK Rowling as a supporter and lists her as an honarary member.

http://www.bwmaonline.com/Hon%20members.htm

Blaise 22:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rowling should mind her pints and quarts. ;) Libertycookies 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Jessica Mitford and John Bull paragraphs
The Jessica Mitford paragraph made points that were not in its sources (there is no evidence that Rowling's admiration of her is political) and the John Bull paragraph was confusing (it appeared to treat a symbol as a real person) and unsourced (the link provided by libertycookies didn't go anywhere). I also added a slightly reworded mention of the "Weights and Measures Association" comment. Serendipodous 07:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You can adjust the headline to "Politics and influences" if you would like. T-dot endorsed some inclusion of Mitford as I recall. Libertycookies 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Who was her youngest child?
I noticed that in the early life section it says that Rowling had a daughter called jessica in her first marriage in 1992.

Then in current life it says that her youngest child, mackenzie Jean Rowling Murray, to whom she dedicated Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, was born in January of 2005. 213.55.23.71 14:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes? Jessica is her oldest child. Serendipodous 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal
I have removed the section on political influences. That section was previously added as a full article, that was deleted in AfD. re-adding that text here is inappropriate as it is bypassing the AfD. Further additions of that material will be considered disruptive and a can result in blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also removed Harry Potter poster, as it fails WP:FAIR. Please do not re-add. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I knew I recognized that material from somewhere else. The correct course of action to take when material is deleted as original research at AfD is not to add it to the main article; it's to delete it.  --Haemo 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, I've reverted the removal. Please don't overstep your authority, this issue has been refered to mediation. Libertycookies 00:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, you should bow to the fact that you're the only person who thinks the inclusion of this material is appropriate. Community consensus is clear on this point; this material is inappropriate; it was inappropriate as an article (above), and it's just as inappropriate as a section.  --Haemo 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware of what the community whom Seren has invited personally thinks. I'm willing to see what others think. Libertycookies 00:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think the request for comment section is a "personal invitation" by Seren, you've seriously misunderstood what's going on here. --Haemo 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I meant the request on your personal talk page. Sorry that you misunderstood me. Libertycookies 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That happened after I arrived here from the Request page. Check the timestamps. --Haemo 20:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you are here today because he found you sympathetic to his views. But regardless why you are here now, why do you feel the article is improved by not including what Rowling describes as "autobiographical" and her interviewer describes as "obvious"? Libertycookies 13:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there is mediation in progress. As per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:OR, the disputed material will remain excluded from this article, until the mediation process is completed. Any attempts to re-add the material will be considered disruption and the editor re-adding that material will have his/her editing privileges temporarily suspended. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I notice that User:Libertycookies is again adding his politics content and I'd like to get a consensus on one point. If any of this is to be posted then it must be supported by quotes from Rowling either directly or in interviews. Using a citation which is a third-party's interpretation of her beliefs is insufficient to satisfy WP:V and WP:BLP. If such a source cannot be found then the material cannot stay, is that fair? AulaTPN 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't necessarily my politics, they are Rowlings, I'm just one of the few that thinks that they are noteworthy. Also it would seem that 3rd party interpretations of her beliefs are the norm in Controversy over the Harry Potter series, with only a single paragraph at the end saying that she doesn't worship satan and nothing mentioning the church she does belong to.  Just a friendly observation and wondering if you aren't setting a much higher standard for politics than you do for religion. Libertycookies 18:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics themes and influences (Compromise)
Request for productive comment on improving the Politics, themes, and influence section.

The four paragraphs that I've put in today might cover the topic sufficiently, but I'd also like to put in something about Mitford being an influence. Please edit because it might read as OR and is pretty amazing, but is meant to be an impartial summary of the book 'Hons and Rebels'. I can back all of this up with sources if need be, just mark away. Libertycookies 16:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Draft#1
Rowling says that her heroine is Jessica Mitford and gave her book Hons and Rebels to her daughter, who was named Jessica in homage to Mitford. Hons and Rebels was an autobiographical account of Mitford's childhood in the early 1930's and the household conflicts with her sisters Unity and  Diana, who were ardant supporters of Nazism. Diana eventually married the leader of the British Union of Fascists in Nazi Germany with Hitler in attendance. Jessica Mitford was a supporter of civil rights, class equity, and Communism, eventually running off "to fight with the Reds" in the Spanish Civil War. Writer John Rose suggested that Dobby was named after the person who introduced Mitford to the Communist Party USA later in her life.

Also, should the theme of Nazism be included (deleted because it wasn't politics)? Note to Seren, please accept my apology and lets go forward for the interest of all other parties. Libertycookies 18:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I deleted it because it was hearsay. I have run out of ways to tell you this. This article is not about the books. It's about JK Rowling. The only person who can tell us JK Rowling's political beliefs is JK Rowling. Unless JK Rowling says, "I love Jessica Mitford because she's a socialist" then any claim that she does does not belong here. Or on Wikipedia. JK Rowling is a living person. Wikipedia has very strict rules about making assumptions about living people that can't be backed up. And citing the opinions of others is not backing it up. If you do, then you will be blocked. Serendipodous 19:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My confusion stems from your Controversy section, which is all about assumptions and defamation of Rowling's beliefs because of the content of her books. Regardless, is your lack of criticism of the Draft#1 above mean that its okay?  Libertycookies 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That draft is an excellent example of ... WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To avoid OR, you can just say: Rowling says that her heroine is Jessica Mitford and gave her book Hons and Rebels to her daughter, who was named Jessica in homage to Mitford. and leave it at that. Needless to say, you need a source for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Controversy over Harry Potter page cites people's opinions but does not claim that they represent reality. Just because a number of people say Rowling is a Satanist, that doesn't mean that she is one. The page makes only one statement concerning Rowling's actual religious beliefs, and that statement is from Rowling herself. Conversely, just because some people say Rowling is a socialist or has socialist leanings, that doesn't mean that she is one. The only direct proof of this must come from Rowling herself. And yes, perhaps the CoHP page should have a mention that she belongs to the Church of Scotland. Serendipodous 12:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I never say that she is a socialist. I merely say her favorite author is a socialist.  You are the one making the leap that this means Rowling must be a socialist. Libertycookies 13:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please. You've been trying for over a month to insinuate that Rowling must a socialist, even to the point of telling me that I'm some kind of authoritarian uberconservative for not allowing you to say so, and now you're accusing me of doing what you've been doing nonstop all these weeks? If not to claim that Rowling is a socialist, what point are you making with that section? Because right now it's just a random collection of quotes. Serendipodous 14:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you going to allow any third-party interpretations of her politics (much as you've allowed for religion)? The only thing you allow to stay is a direct quote, and although you claim to have some experience editing, you have yet to try to enhance the section in a productive way.  You've stated that you see no themes, politics, or influences in the books, and I think that nothing could ever convince you that you may be wrong.  Not even direct quotes. Why don't you edit the constructive criticism section for a while.  It needs some help. Libertycookies 14:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I haven't tried to enhance the section is because I know it would be pointless. Any revisions I make would simply be reverted by you. Third party interpretations of her politics are only valid if you are, to use the IDers' phrase, "teaching the controversy." There is a genuine (if rather idiotic) controversy surrounding the books' supposed Satanic themes, so giving both sides of the argument in that case is a valid form of reportage. There is no controversy about JKR's politics, so it doesn't really matter who thinks she is a socialist, a libertarian, a Neocon, a Nazi or a Monster Raving Loony. Which brings us right back where we started. You could collect a hundred different quotes from a hundred different critics saying that Rowling's politics must lie one way or the other across the political spectrum (as you may remember in the Harry Potter article, the books have been criticised for being both socialist and conservative), but the only truly valid source of information regarding her political stance is her and her alone. Now if a substantial portion of the world's population started burning the books because they believed her to be a closet Communist bent on subverting the minds of their children, then you'd have a case for bringing in third party interpretations. Serendipodous 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * re: fact, here are two of your quotes from this very page:

"For the record, I think Rowling has socialist sympathies, but she isn't a Socialist. Personally I think she is a change agent with anarchist attitudes... Book 7 might be a Mind Bomb unless there is a channel like wikipedia for diffusion of the force of her ideas. Keeping these incendiary ideas tightly contained is a horribly bad idea."

"The only thing from conservatives are the criticisms for her socialist attidudes that S. derides" Serendipodous 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So you are claiming that saying "she isn't a Socialist" and "her socialist atti[t]udes" insinuate "Rowling must be a socialist?" Is that correct? Libertycookies 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * btw, if you're updating the CoHP page, some claim she belongs to the Scottish Episcopal Church Rowling says, "like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes about if my faith will return. It's important to me." . But she did baptized her daughter in the Church of Scotland.

Here, Liberty, is the full text of Rowling's review
Please find one shred of evidence here that Rowling is a Socialist. Start by explaining how the review is in the most conservative paper in England, the Telegraph.

Here it is
 * Seren, I've never claimed she is a socialist. Are you claiming that she is the most conservative woman in England because she published an article promoting a book in the Telegraph?  Oh, just for sake of arguement, have you considered that she might chose to promote the book in the newspaper with the largest circulation? Libertycookies 18:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about "Politics, influences, and themes"
I still have serious concerns about that section. It is a bad case of quote mining and inappropriate on that basis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific with your concern and how it equates to quote mining. The only point seems to be that Rowling actually has some politics, influences, and themes. Or are you reading something into it? Libertycookies 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure she has. But these what is called quote mining: choosing only specific quotes to forward a specific viewpoint, the one that you have been trying to forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There just aren't any quotes where she says that she is a right-wing conservative and loves Thatcher, just as there aren't any saying that she is a witch and worships satan. In fact, there are just more and more quotes that bolster the position that she has written a moral tale which leans to the left.  I could add a third party saying how conservative the world of Harry Potter is, but I thought that was out.  Please help me understand how I can possibly balance this out.  And the only viewpoint I am putting forward is that of Rowling's writing having meaning.  As I told Seren, I think she is more of an anarchist (in terms of challenging authority, not in setting off bombs) than a socialist, but I'm not trying to make that point in the article. Libertycookies 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (Did I equate loving Thatcher to worshiping satan back there? Oops, sorry.)


 * I do not think you are understanding what me and others are saying. These are indeed mined quotes, from some interviews. Selectively citing is not a good thing in biographical articles. If you can develop a section about "Interviews with Rowling" that will work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that you are correct that I'm not understanding. Considering that her books are so extremely popular, shouldn't there be a section dealing with any message or themes behind the work?  Should we add some of the criticism of her work that had Seren convinced I was a Right Wing Libertarian to make it more balanced?  RE: the tags on the article, is there anyone who is contending that these are not properly sourced?  Should we all declare our politics before commenting? Libertycookies 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * shouldn't there be a section dealing with any message or themes behind the work? The answer is "yes", as long as you can find multiple reliable sources that analyzed her books and describes these messages and themes  as a topic.  If there is no such multiple reliable sources, then the answer is "no". Given the popularity of her books, I am sure that if this subject is important, then there will be multiple reliable, reputable, and published sources that discuss it, from different viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As for you last question, the answer is no. Just note that after a while, our biases become quite obvious. See WP:AKASHA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for last post. I'm going to try to make this inclusive again and not be as hostile.  Hopefully everyone will respond favorable to this, forgive the past, and we can continue that way.  Could someone edit the following for an intro?  I can put more citations if it reads neutral.  And if this is getting too long, can we spin off to a seperate article? Libertycookies 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Draft of Intro
Rowling has long been politically active, having worked for Amnesty International prior to becoming a successful writer. Some commentators have compared her writing to that of the Inklings, a group of Oxford dons that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books. In contrast, a few commentators have accused her of promoting witchcraft and worshiping Satan, which Rowling and her many supporters refute. Rowling gives often to charities and is close friends with incoming British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah Macaulay. Rowling collaborated with Macaulay to support One Parent Families by producing a book of short stories by Scottish authors called Magic. []


 * Some commentators, Who?; In contrast See WP:WEASEL; A few commentators, Who? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rowling worked for Amnesty International prior to becoming a successful writer.  X, Y and Z have compared her writing to that of the Inklings, such as C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books.  N. M and have accused her of promoting witchcraft and worshiping Satan,  a claim which Rowling  refutes. 
 * You need, of course, sources for these. The last sentence is OR, and I have excluded it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the Inklings, the main supporter who says she 'is' an Inkling is John Granger, but many have responded favorably to his thesis and more often the comparison is to Tolkein and Lewis and the moral themes in their fantasy writings. Can we say "some people compare her to the Inklings" and provide multiple links supporting the statement?


 * On many supporters, I meant like Judy Bloom and the many other notable figures who defended Rowling against the onslaught of a very very small minority of people who have gotten way more press than they deserve for accusing Rowling of leading children to Satan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertycookies (talk • contribs)


 * These multiple sources all refer to either John Granger, or are Christian-related sources. That is wht attribution is so important to maintain NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would something like this work then? Just want to show that the books are considered on moral issues (most see them as good, some see them as evil).  Libertycookies 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Several Christian writers have compared Rowling to the Inklings, a group that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books. In contrast, a few Christians have accused her of promoting witchcraft and devil worshiping, a charge which Rowling, who is a Christian herself, refutes. 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. 


 * Now you are getting there. You still need attribution. "A few Christians" does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Several Christian writers have compared Rowling to the Inklings, a group that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books. In contrast, a minority of  Christian conservatives have accused her of promoting witchcraft and devil worshiping, a charge which Rowling, who is a Christian herself, refutes.  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. 
 * Good enough? Libertycookies 20:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be good enough:


 * Several Christian writers have compared Rowling to the Inklings, a group that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books. A minority of  Christian conservatives have accused her of promoting witchcraft and devil worshiping in her books, a charge which Rowling, who is a Christian herself, refutes.  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.
 * You will also need to replace the URLs to accio-quote.org with info on the original sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From Jossi talk page:

Politics of JK Rowling

Hi Jossi, Is the entry too long? How about a spin off article, since issues of civil rights are obviously of great importance to Rowling, and some sections of Harry Potter are fairly autobiographical? Thanks Libertycookies 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would add to Harry Potter, and if it becomes to large we could consider a spinoff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

reinserted the section, and asking for any legitimate concerns against citations or accuracy. Don't delete, mark up. wikipedia is supposed to be iterative, not 100% complete on the first try. Libertycookies 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The concerns were raised multiple times. The issue is not about citations. The WP:V policy must be read together with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection, or if no one can summarize any prior objections which have not been met, then I'll post this revised Politics section. Putting it in the article might get more active participants to perfect the text. Libertycookies 13:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

=Draft of Politics= with multiple sources, and Rowling quotes. Please mark with specific objections. Libertycookies 07:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for all the reasons already explained the text you want is not compliant with WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is that? If she says she is left-wing, and reliable, credible sources are stating all of the bottom, how can it be construed as WP:OR? -AgentFade2Black 21:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have missed the fact that an article with that name was AFded, and that the cherry picking of quotes is indeed OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And for anybody who can't see what harm would be done by adding this content then paring it down, there are concrete legal reasons why this kind of stuff cannot be posted without cast-iron sources. WP:OR and WP:BLP don't exist to piss off a few editors, they exist to try and make sure that the wikimedia foundation and responsible editors are not exposed to law suits and damages due to issues of defamation. All caps time - DO NOT ADD THIS STUFF BACK until all statements have been adequately cited to the consensus of the involved parties here - wiki is very protective of legal rights and will not hesitate in banning people if they are seen to represent a real, legal risk. AulaTPN 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Time Magazine isn't a cast-iron source? Even Seren admitted that the Telegraph that Rowling published her First It Girl review of Mitford is a highly Conservative Paper.  Rowling has said it again and again, she is on the left.  Just because you don't like it isn't enough reason to bury it and delete it.
 * Btw, the article that Jossi says was AFded, was done so with a minimum of comment, and definately had some OR in it (which I admitted was put there to annoy Seren). The below content is solid fact and straight from the mouth of the Rowling.  Tag it as controversial, but extreme acts like deletion of the entire section, without comment or editing, makes it look like you are pursuing a campaign of burying and delaying the inclusion of well publicized information about Rowling's political views and beliefs.  Reposted with OR sign.  No one has shown any interest in rewriting or finding additional citations, only deleting.  Libertycookies 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't that tell you something? This speculative content is not wanted, if anybody other than you had any interest in seeing it in the article then they would contribute to making it post-worthy and not in violation of so many policies. I think you need to concede that it's time to drop this particular dead donkey. AulaTPN 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This approach, re-adding the material again and again, will only result in temporarily loosing your editing privileges. See also WP:CONSENSUS. If you have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, you can post a notice at WP:AN, until then, please avoid misusing edit summaries as you did here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If Rowling had any bones to pick over the past articles, you would find them on her website where she dispells all the rumors: [].


 * That's not the point, you can't break the rules just because it suits you. And making highly charged personal comment such as the one you inappropriately placed in the edit summary will earn you a one-way ticket to a ban. Threatening admins is never a wise sport. AulaTPN 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm following the rules, you are the one who keeps deleting without participating in the discussions. Its pretty clear that Jossi already has his bias and would ban me if he could find a justifiable excuse.  I would ask that you quit trying to bait me and trying to defame my user id.  Your own bias is quite clear.  Scaring people with legal concerns when Rowling's web page has SO much more traffic than this little site is patently absurd.  She is more than capable of defending her own reputation, as if having Left wing sympathies makes her evil...it doesn't you know. Libertycookies 00:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You cannot assume anything about me, I am afraid. You cannot read my thought,s nor you can assess my motives. I came to this article in my duties of a BLP patroller and admin of this project, and my actions are related to that capacity. Revert once more, and you will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can assess your actions, and I'm giving you fair warning that you had better play by the rules too. Libertycookies 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had enough and you need to get a clue. Nobody is breaking the rules but you - read WP:BLP and tell me you're not! Jossi is entirely correct and nobody is scaring with legal concerns, I'm trying in vain to explain to you why policies such as WP:BLP have to be rigorously enforced. Just because Jo has yet to sue anybody doesn't mean that it's ok for you to post this stuff. And nobody is baiting or defaming you - the only person behaving poorly and leaving unpleasant personal attacks/slurs is you - I've seen the unpleasant things you've posted on Serendipodous and Jossi's talk pages... AulaTPN 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly you haven't had enough since you keep insulting me because we disagree. Perhaps you should read this Rowling article:| You can lead a fool to a book but you can't make them think.  I've apologized for the unpleasant comment on Seren's page, and while it may be unpleasant for Jossi to consider that his account is in risk if he pursues a personal agenda, I haven't resorted to the personal comments that you have. Libertycookies 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Relevant parts from WP:BLP for User:Libertycookies' contemplation ...
 * Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles
 * Material from Time Magazine, The Telegraph, and published books on Rowling are not unsourced or poorly sourced despite how much you claim otherwise.
 * The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
 * Were you on O.J.'s jury? How much evidence do you need?
 * The Foundation and Jimbo Wales get well-founded complaints about biographical content on living people every day — people justifiably upset at inaccurate or distorted articles.
 * Which is why only quotes from Rowling in highly crediable sources have been used.
 * The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
 * Yep, yep and yep. Sorry but if you are writing about someone who is left-wing, you have to mention left wing politics
 * Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.
 * Well sourced, and multiple sourced.
 * Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.
 * Editors SHOULDN'T remove sourced material just because they don't agree with the content.
 * Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply.

Sourced and only derogatory to someone who thinks not being right wing is evil.
 * Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
 * If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

She's #48 on Fortune's list of most powerful celebrities. Rowling is the billion dollar gorilla in the room. These are very reliable third party sources. She's acknowledged that her political values are very imporant to her and parts of the book are autobiographical. Shouldn't we address the subject in her bio? Libertycookies 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * AulaTPN 00:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Interspersing comments on other editor's comments is a breach of talk-page etiquette. Your response to AulaTPN are incorrect, see my comments below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, rookie mistake. I hope that it was clear enough to see my comments from Aula's. Was he wrong to say I needed to get a clue, or is civility no longer important? Libertycookies 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Telling you to get a clue is hardly uncivil and I would assert that I have never been uncivil to you and have, in fact, shown tremendous restraint and patience where other editors might not have. As I recall you're the only one running around making threats against others and making ad-hominem attacks but that's beside the point. Your answers are clearly incorrect as Jossi points out below plus accio-quote is hardly a reliable, first-hand source. AulaTPN 10:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, it hardly sounded friendly. Neither have your threats to have me blocked.  Oh, and as an administrator you may want to rethink defaming and discrediting accio-quote as being unreliable.  They could hold wikipedia liable for your actions.  I have yet to find any of their quotes not be word for word of the cited articles.  Do you have any examples of their unreliability from personal experience or was this another attempt to discredit me? Libertycookies 14:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Take it easy, no one is here to "get you", just listen to more experienced editors, would you? See the edit I made to your last edit. That is NPOV/ NOR writing 101: stay close to the source, do not interpret the source, do not extend the meaning of the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You've just made my point for me Liberty. I'm not defaming/discrediting accio-quote at all but for our purposes so-called news aggregators are unsuitable. If a particular link on accio-quote is, say, an article from the Times then you should be citing the original article from the Times. In the case of biographies, no other copy can be considered an acceptable/reliable source - now I quite agree you could possibly get away with it in any other type of article but I wouldn't like to try it myself. As far as getting you blocked goes, you may not believe it but nobody actually wants to do that and nobody is threatening to do that - it's not like some kind of sport we derive pleasure from - but you must accept that under the current policies that is the standard method for dealing with people who habitually break the rules and we're trying to draw your attention to it. In this case, which is a fairly moderate violation compared to some we've all seen, it's more about protecting Wiki and it's articles and not about punishing people. I, and I'm sure the others, would love nothing more than for you to continue contributing but you must do it the right way. Again, biographies have much more rigorous requirements than other articles and for good reasons. AulaTPN 17:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So say what you mean, accio-quote is accurate but someone has to go to the original source to cite properly. I'm somewhat lazy and feel that if I point you in the right direction, cleaning up could easily be done by someone else.  My strengths are in research and persistance (my weaknesses are being too blunt, impolite, and not overly conserned with rules).  Seems like the idea of wikipedia is to leverage the community for their various skills. Libertycookies 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did! And nobody has ever tested the accuracy of accio-quote but that's not the issue. The accuracy of a news aggregator can never be verified, which is why you have to go back to the original source. Policy states that if you cannot find an acceptable quote yourself then you don't add the material. Relying on others to source your content is not acceptable. AulaTPN 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics, influences, and themes
Rowling says she is Left-wing and that there are a certain amount of politics in her books. . Time Magazine noted that Rowling adapts the "politically, culturally, and  psychologically" conservative genre of fantasy for her own progressive purposes. The fantasy world of Hogwarts is secular, sexual, multicultural, and multiracial and the books present very real problems--embarrassment, prejudice, depression, anger, poverty, death. "I was trying to subvert the genre." Rowling explained. When an interviewer from the Guardian suggested her books portrayed a conservative world, she replied, "So I'm told repeatedly. The two groups of people who are constantly thanking me are wiccans (white witches) and boarding schools. And really, don't thank me. I'm not with either of them." 

Several Christian writers have compared Rowling to the Inklings, a group that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books. A minority of  Christian conservatives have accused her of promoting witchcraft and devil worshiping in her books, a charge which Rowling, who is a Christian herself, refutes.  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 an interview in 2000, Evan Solomon observed to Rowling that civil rights becomes a theme in Goblet of Fire with Hermione and the rights of elves. Rowling confirmed this saying, "that was fairly autobiographical. My sister and I both, we were that kind of teenager." . When Solomon said that issues about race relations and civil rights were obviously crucial in Rowling's life, she replied that she thought children were interested those issues too. 

On Nazism, Rowling says Voldemort "takes what he perceives to be a defect in himself, in other words the non-purity of his blood, and he projects it onto others. It's like Hitler and the Arian ideal, to which he did not conform at all, himself. And so Voldemort is doing this also. He takes his own inferiority, and turns it back on other people and attempts to exterminate in them what he hates in himself." Rowling said she had invented the idea that some wizards were not considered to be “pure”, and realised the similarities with the Nazis beliefs only afterwards. Her decision to talk about such a sensitive issue was welcomed by an education officer at The Jewish Museum in London, who said the stories could be used to help children deal with racism in the playground. 

Rowling says her most influential writer is civil rights activist Jessica Mitford: "When my great-aunt gave me Hons and Rebels when I was 14, she instantly became my heroine. She ran away from home to fight in the Spanish Civil War, taking with her a camera that she had charged to her father's account. I wished I'd had the nerve to do something like that. 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. I think I've read everything she wrote. I even called my daughter after her." In a review in the Telegraph, Rowling praised a book of Mitford's letters, dgeting a negative response from a Conservative Party MP.

Resolution

 * If we want to add material on influences, we need some research on secondary sources that may describe these influences. Adding one citation from interviews here and there is not sufficient;
 * Regarding themes, these are explored already in the articles about her books and in the sections related to her books;
 * As to politics, ditto: Find some secondary sources that describe her politics and it would be OK to add these.

The issue is one of balance. For NPOV, we need to describe significant viewpoints made by reliable sources, and we need to apply good editorial judgement in particular as this is a WP:BLP. Selectively citing from a couple of interviews and declare "These are Rowling's political views", is a bit preposterous. I would love to have a section on this subject, if indeed interested editors can find substantial sources to describe these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome!! I'm glad you agree that we should start the section and tag it OR so that people know that it could be improved. And I'll keep watching the live article for your tags on citation where you feel one citation isn't sufficient. Thanks, Libertycookies 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the way it works. Add material without having the need to add a dispute tag, and given the lack of consensus., propose the changes in talk first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, the only thing in dispute is the interpretation of Wiki policy. Everyone allowed this material while you and I were fine tuning the religion component.  The quotes are from rock solid sources.  There was even some concern of liability for quoting a little too direct.  Is it preposterous to say that Rowling is "left wing" when she says she is left wing?  The other components of the section being on civil rights and racism happen to be positions typically taken by someone with progressive values.  Seeing as there was no discussion of these issues from anyone other than you, I have to assume no issues with the content until someone gets specific.  It hardly needs a dispute tag in my opinion, since none of it is OR, but I wanted to try to help you in your quest to develop the article further.  I guess that is the nice thing about wikipedia, someone will read it and edit it if they have more sources.  Deleting it makes it too hard for them to contribute. Libertycookies 09:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it that you continually read comments from editors who clearly disagree with you as ringing endorsements of your actions? Consensus is not with you and it never has been. To be clear - nobody has any vendetta against a section on politics - it would certainly be a good idea - but it has to be fair, balanced, sourced without quote-mining and above all else it must be done the right way in accordance with all applicable policies. AulaTPN 10:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So why is it that no one has thought to simply start the section and ask users to expand it. You seem to have only one tool in your arsenal: delete.  And I'm just a perennial optimist, which why I keep hoping that other editors will come around if they are allowed to know that there is a topic of J.K. Rowling politics.  Ever notice that there is always a conflict between those who create content and those who maintain content?  Some people just love change, and some people prefer the status quo.  It doesn't matter what your political affiliation is, sooner or later you'll fall into either a conservative mindset or liberal mindset. Libertycookies 14:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We delete because that is the absolute requirement of the policy. It's got nothing to do with change/stagnation or anyone's political mindset. Frankly that's just insulting - I like to think I'm educated and mature enough to edit articles in a fair and responsible manner. AulaTPN 17:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I invite you to read these two essays: User:Durova/The_dark_side, and WP:WIW ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping the content on "Charities and Donations", although I think the category should be expanded with "Values" or "Influences" or something that better describes her general support and endorsement of liberal values and causes....where she puts her money is almost more telling than where she puts her mouth, and I think there may just be a bit of politics in her choices.
 * Re: the essays, they are good and I understand what you are trying to say, but I'm merely suggesting that some people know where the boundaries are and never cross them, and some people are incapable of knowing where the boundaries are without crossing them. Self censorship is probably the worst form of censorship. Libertycookies 15:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As said above, you are welcome to research material for a "Influences" section. But please avoid making the same mistakes you did in the previous edits, and make sure that the material is not designed to push a certain point of view. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Libertycookies: You keep pushing your POV. Please exercise caution and stay close to the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And quite simply put, we delete because it is the biography of a living person. The process would not be the same if we were writing about a country, the moon, or a cat for that matter.  Wikipedia has strict policies on the biography of a living person, which a few editors have linked here for you to read on many occasions.  In other words, we delete because it is policy to do so when dealing with the biography of a living person.  Here is the exact wording taken from the WP:BLP policy:


 * Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material &mdash; whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable &mdash; about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.


 * Now I know you are going to head in the, "But the material was properly sourced." direction. To which my response is, "No it wasn't." as Jossi and others have pointed out for you many times before, what you were doing is quote-mining to protray J.K. Rowling under one point of view.  When dealing with the biography of a living person, quote-mining is not proper sourcing.


 * Lastly, you can get your Politics and Influences section back by simply following Jossi's suggestions above. You are not going to garner support for the re-addition of the section by unilaterally deciding to re-add the material, and then posting empty threats on user talk pages or in edit summaries. You've stated a couple times that you are now willing to follow the rules, well how about you start doing just that so we can finally conclude this dispute and move on. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Social and political influence?
I do not mind adding these bits of trivia to the article, but surely not under such heading as that is asserting an opinion as fact. If she did met with Bush or Gorbachev, great, we can say that. But that is it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Libertycookies : It is becoming really tedious to clean after yourself... Please make an effort to integrate new materials without adding your 2 cents. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no opinion stated in "social and political influence." Her influence on social and political matters clearly exists. She has been praised for her contributions to world wide literacy. The cage bed example is a clear political action. She also is influential to politicians as cited. If you demand more to the section I think there is a way to call for entry. And who says you have to clean up after me every 2 seconds? One could make the same point about any editor that constantly contributes. Libertycookies 18:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. That does not cut it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want the material I deleted back, you will need to find ways to incorporate it into the prose of the article. The fact that she met with Gorbachev, or that she wrote an intro to a book, or that shed did an Easter reading to the Clintons, does not amount to "social and political influence", which is, by the look of it your opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * [This is the way it is done. If you cannot edit in that manner, you can suggest content in talk and others will edit. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That really made Amnesty International look like a questionable source. I added more quotes to show that her involvement was more of a leadership role....more than likely she pulled AI into the fray rather than the other way around.  But that's just my opinion based on a detailed understanding of the facts. Libertycookies 14:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of cleaning up, I'd like to point everyone towards the Citation templates. The bulk of the article already properly uses this, and I just cleaned up the politics section to use the appropriate templates as well. Please try to use this model when adding information in the future. Karanacs 14:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)