Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 5

Early Life
Is there a reason why the Early life section goes from 1965-1994 do your 20s count as your early life? Harland1 (t/c) 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re-named the heading to Background. Maybe that will be more appropriate. Eagle Owl (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
I thought it was considered bad policy to protect the article of the day? Even if there's a lot of vandalism by IPs, it's dealt with. Protecting a page just alienates potential new editors. I really thinks it needs unprotecting. Any passing admins around who agree? GDallimore (Talk) 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Book?
I noticed that in the Harry Potter section, there is no mention of the title or release of the second Harry Potter book Wezelboy (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because it's the least important, the first and final book is what should be really noted. The second book is noted however in the list of the Harry Potter series. Jammy (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this
"she will most likely not use a new pen name as the press would quickly discover her identity." What, Rowling's identity? Buc (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * She was asked if she would write under a pen name, and said she had thought about it, but decided not to, since if she did, the tabloids would figure out who she was anyway.  Serendi pod ous  18:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Currency
moved from [{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors]] with some minor changes to indenting Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) It notes how much the Harry Potter brand is worth in dollars not pounds whilst in the article pounds comes first. Whilst you may say this is because that more Americans read the main menu I will disagree with that and my reason is because if we use pounds with the dollars in brackets it is showing that J.K Rowling uses pounds as her actual currency and then the dollars in brackets tells the readers how much that is in dollars. Pounds come first as that is what J.K Rowling uses, whoever made that one difference between the article and the main page needs to know that fact. Jammy (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the reason why it differs is because someone changed it in the article, but no one has brought it here before you. It's rare that there's an intentional difference between the article intro and the main page beyond extra summarisation. I agree that the change was proper and there has been no reversion as yet or discussion on the talk page suggestion there is consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it is in dollars because the source of that information is in dollars. I believe that is standard practice is to show the sourced amount and convert to the other, otherwise you risk assuming too much. It does look strange in this case though. --Siradia (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Originally I agreed with you and was going to make the reversion myself. But on second thoughts, I'm not so sure. Manual of Style (dates and numbers) seems to suggest we should indeed stick with GBP although it's somewhat conflicting since it also says conversion in parenthesis after original currency (but doesn't say what original currency means) For measurement and units, I would agree with you and I believe there is clear consensus for the practice. For example, if our primary source says the size of the chunk of ice that broke away from Wilkins Sound is 405 square kilometres then clearly that's what we should say since that's the original unit that they estimated. The thing is with currencies it's a little more complex since estimates of this sort tend to involve a lot more 'guess work' and exchange rates vary so whether the figure in the original currency is more meaningful or accurate is IMHO debatable. In the case of a country, I think it's more clear cut no since although all countries depend on the US$ to a fairly great extent, they are usally tied more to their own currency so in other words if an exhange rate drops (or gains) a lot, their GDP (or whatever) is not still going to be worth US$100 billion but would remain closer to whatever it always was in their currency (these things are all interconnected though so it's never a simple matter). In the case of this figure (as opposed to say her net worth) it's a little complicated since the worth of the brand is probably going to depend more on the US$ then the GBP (her net worth may depend more on the GBP then the US$ since although this is complete speculation, it's reasonable to presume a fair amount of it is more tied to the GBP). But ultimately I think we should just stick with the GBP (but I won't bother to disagree if anyone wants to revert) Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the current source is dead, this appears to be the same thing it would be good if someone could replace it Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I made the change in the original article this morning (I completely forgot about changing the Main Page summary also, but see no point now, we'll have a new FA in a few hours). I did make the change based on my interpretation of the MoS, I was under the impression that a British article should use the British currency, though I will say that I was in two minds because of the source. However, I see no real reason to change it back to '$ (£)'; I think it just looks a bit strange if we keep chopping and changing currency. RaseaC (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May I just add, being a Briton living for almost two years in the US - the dollar is the most widely used currency in the world and so its natural to place a value on such capital in terms of the dollar, which constitutes at least 60% of the worlds reserve currency. Tourskin (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tourskin, I'm not sure you have to be a Briton living for almost two years in the US to realise that the USD is the most widely used currency in the world, anyone with half a brain cell knows that it is. The fact is, according to the Manual of Style an article about a British subject uses the British currency, an article about an American subject uses the American currency, an article about a Swiss subject uses the Swiss currency etc. etc.RaseaC (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Writer/author
I suggest "British writer" be changed to "British author" as that is what she is- by someone else- as Today's featured article is semi-protected.
 * Well both 'author' and 'writer' are correct. I think the reason why writer is chosen is because 'British writer and author of the Harry Potter fantasy series' is better then 'British author and writer of the Harry Potter fantasy series' or 'British author and author of the Harry Potter fantasy series'. Of course, there may be a wording which is even better, but the current one seems fine to me Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note also she has written some (admitedly only 3) articles, and although she may be the author of these articles, I think calling her a writer more accurately conveys that she also writes articles as opposed to calling her an author Nil Einne (talk)

MOS
Shouldn't the lead be two or three paragraphs? I'm hesitant to change it as I would have thought that the FAC would have covered it, and that there might be a reason for the one-paragraph lead. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was three paragraphs, but complaints demanded that it focus on Rowling, rather than the books, so the extra information was shifted into the books section.  Serendi pod ous  13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The current lawsuit
Anyone who wishes to add any information regarding the lawsuit between Rowling and RDR books can do so at Legal disputes over Harry Potter.  Serendi pod ous  06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rowling/Murray
This article starts as "Joanne 'Jo' Murray" and cites this Guardian article as proof that her legal surname is "Murray" and no longer "Rowling." Though I would otherwise consider The Guardian a reliable source, I can't find anything else that refers to her as Murray -- it seems that one piece of evidence in an ocean of information to the contrary can be readily ignored or discredited. I move that we remove the reference to her surname being Murray, at the very least in the opening sentence. Objections? Thoughts? Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was ready to dismiss this out of hand, but you may have a point. Her children with her current husband have both Rowling and Murray as their names; not hyphenated, but it would seem odd to give them the name Rowling if it wasn't still JKR's name. Furthermore, her lawsuit concerning the HP Lexicon book evidently was filed under the name Joanne Rowling, which would be quite odd if that wasn't her name. On the other hand, I certainly remember a lot of discussion about how she continued to write under the name Rowling following her marriage. Regardless of her legal name, the press will always refer to her as Rowling, so I don't think that means anything, but does anyone have a more authoritative source? faithless   (speak)  04:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rowling uses her married name for private transactions, when she doesn't want to be identified. When she's engaging in public, she uses her maiden name. See this Tatler article.  Serendi pod  ous  05:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the Tatler article it sounds as though she uses it as a pseudonym to protect her privacy when shopping or making reservations. However, I thought she filed a lawsuit in Scotland under the name Joanne R. Murray?  Ariadne55 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adriadne55's conclusion, that it seems to be used as pseudonym. I think the lawsuit linked to by Faithlessthewonderboy is sufficient evidence that Rowling is indeed still Rowling. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have changed the opening sentence and name section to reflect the information in this discussion. Sean Hayford O&#39;Leary (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article, while not particularly flattering, does seem to suggest that, technically at least, she is Mrs. Murray.  Serendi pod ous  06:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Record Formatting
In the "influences" section of the top portion of the record (see source code) - the formatting is off and causing issues with the mediawiki API. The line should read "| influences ..." it currently reads "|influences ..." notice the space before "influences".

I would fix this, but I am a new member and do not have access to edit this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asnagy (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the mention of PLAGIARISM?
Nancy Stouffer, a Pennsylvania woman who wrote about a boy named "Larry Potter" in the 1980s. Stouffer says Rowling lifted character names, including the "muggles", from her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.174.24 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * see: Legal disputes over Harry Potter  Serendi pod ous  22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Finishing book in Balmoral Hotel
The article says that Rowling "had written the seventh book in that room on 11 January 2007". Surely the whole point of that was that she FINISHED the book in the Balmoral, to quote the artcile that is cited: "JK Rowling finished her Harry Potter series in a luxury room at one of Scotland's most famous hotels". Can someone who has access change "written" to "finished"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.145.227 (talk • contribs)
 * OK.  Serendi pod ous  08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonym sources
I don't have time to do this right now, but here is a list of sources regarding Rowling's possible future use of a pseudonym:  Serendi pod ous  09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 Rich List
There's been an update to the Sunday Times Rich List ranking. An editor originally posted Rowling as being the 6th richest woman in Britain. I thought this was a big leap from 13th to 6th, so I checked and I think she is currently 12th - it's not really clear on the Sunday Times website however. Could someone else please check? Thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

External link to ZotFish?
Hi, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for someone to add an external link to the ZotFish page for J. K. Rowling?. I believe it's of genuine interest to readers, but I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia policy and not post it myself -- more info on the site can be found at Mashable.

Zotman (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that site could work some day, but until it establishes itself I don't think linking to it it qualifies on notability grounds. Otherwise it's really just advertising.  Serendi pod ous  05:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The site violates WP:ELNO, WP:NOT, and does not enhance the article. It should not be added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Church she's a member of
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-atlanta-hulbert.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.34 (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what's your point? faithless   (speak)  02:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Beedle The Bard
Can someone add to this page the fact that Rowling WILL be publishing Beedle The Bard in December 2008? I'd add a link to a news page, but I haven't the foggiest how. Just do a quick search in Google News: it's all there. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.54.6 (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. :-)  Serendi pod ous  07:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation (yes, I know, but please read)
Yes, I know this has been discussed there, there and there (see box at top of page) but as Rowling is British, why is the US pronunciation of the vowel in the first syllable being used instead of the UK pronunciation; that is, why /oʊ/ rather than /oʊ/? Is it Wikipedia policy to use US pronunciation in all articles, or is UK pronunciation supposed to be used in articles on UK topics? Either is POV, of course, but in this case, using the US pronunciation seems more POV to me than using the UK one. &mdash; Paul G (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. :-)  Serendi pod ous  07:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See - this is exactly why we need to use the Super-Dooper* Pronounciation guide rather than the absurd IPA method. We Americans don't know /oʊ/ from /əʊ/, probably because we never read past the first few stanzas of Bëôwǔlf, or anything from Shakespeare; and faked it through most of the English Literature class exams.  But by golly I think, with some help, we can distinguish "ROLE-ling" from "RAW-ling" and "RAH-ling" from "ROW-ling" (as in cow-ling) - if we only know which is the right one.  That said, we still can't tell /oʊ/ from /əʊ/, so we say it however we first heard it, which may be any one of those four Super-Dooper ways, or something else entirely.  In any case, Paul G, this is NOT in any way shape or form a POV problem, but more of a diversity and divergence of the English Language, which is manifest sometimes confusingly in the re-convergence of a shared English Wikipedia.  If someone changes it (again) to a non-preferred pronunciation, please assume good faith, and switch it back patiently, with a proper explanation for the poor ignorant American.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it needs to be elaborated on. As of now, it says 'rolling'. This is indeed how *she* pronounces it (and probably most British), not necessarily the absolute right way in every occasion. The American-English way, I believe, is that which rhymes with 'howling', and it's common for American's to say it that way I've noticed. I think it should be stated that it's the way she pronounces it, then the citation makes perfect sense. Also, to include the alternative pronunciation too. I think that IPA is important to have since it's the 'formal standard' regardless of how useful it may actually be to readers. But it should be demonstrated in an example (say with a rhyming word). Anyhow, I know this is an old edit-war point, but the way it is now simply isn't entirely helpful for readers IMO. I mean, what's so wrong with pronouncing a name the way it's spelled??? -DougCube (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where this "American" pronunciation idea came from. First of all, it's a surname, not a word; the only correct way to pronounce it is the way the user of the surname pronounces it. Secondly, there is no "American" pronunciation. Lots of British (probably most who haven't heard it pronounced) pronounce her name like "howling", and lots of Americans pronounce it "rolling". It's not an "American" pronunciation, it's just wrong.  Serendi pod  ous  07:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. You just saved me a lot of typing, Serendipodous. :-) faithless   (speak)  07:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity.
The fact the article seems to fail to mention she’s English (I accept the "British in the opening sentence) really seems very strange. Scottish nationalist twits ruling this article like they try to with every other English related article? (Butters x (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Groan. Didn't you read the notice at the top of the board? This has been done to death. Rowling is British. That's her nationality. Her ethnicity doesn't mean anything. She's not Sir Walter Scott.  Serendi pod ous  06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And i don't see people like you going around to every Scottish people’s article and trying to assert they are "British" and that there Ethnicity is not important. (Butters x (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't edit those articles. I edit this one. And in my estimation, since Rowling's ethnicity has little or no bearing on her or her work, it isn't worth getting flustered over.  Serendi pod ous  13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In the infobox it should say she is English in ethnicity. That’s not to do with her work, that’s just her. So how is it right that a lot of English persons articles state there ethnicity (See J.R.R Tolkien) as English but not this one? (Butters x (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Why does it even matter? Do we insist that French people be called Occitanians or Bretons? Or that Germans be called Bavarians or Prussians? Or that Spanish people be called Catalans or Gallegos? What makes the UK deserving of special treatment?  Serendi pod ous  16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given her strong use of models from the English Tradition (the jennings stories etc) it is surely relevant. -- Snowded   TALK  15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * She also draws heavily from Scottish folklore and traditions.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"She also draws heavily from Scottish folklore and traditions" Im sorry but how exactly does that make her any less English in ethnicity? Why is that all Scottish/Welsh persons get the "Right" to be not called British but Scottish/Welsh? Because of biased editing from People. Her Ethnicity should be at least Mentioned. Without it's a factual error and therefore needs to be corrected. (Butters x (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

It doesn't. But it shows that her ethnicity has little or no bearing on her work. If anything, her work is pan-British, as it draws inspiration from every corner of the UK, including Ireland.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  11:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright Butters, I just don't get this whole English/British/Scots/Welsh/Irish/Danish/whatever thing, being, I suppose, an absurd and very ignorant American. I think Nationality refers to citizenship, while Ethnicity refers to ancestry, right?  In America we sometimes refer to "African-Americans", "Chinese-Americans", and "Japanese-Americans", etc., based on a sort of national (and/or continental) ancestry for American citizens, and perhaps using a sort of "Ethnic-Nationality" format as a standard (although I learned just last night during the Olympics Opening Ceremonies that there are many dozens of different ethnic groups in China.  Do they distinguish ethnic Chinese authors in China as, for example, Salar-Chinese and Nakhi-Chinese?).  Anyway, these American ethnic group "separations", if you will, only seem to apply to Americans who are not of some sort of white Euro-ancestry ... we almost never say "European Americans", except perhaps in jest, although "Caucasian" is a common reference to typical "white Anglo-Saxons" - which, now that I think of it, is probably be a contradiction of terms or something: are all Anglo-Saxons from the Caucasus/Caucasia?  Does it matter?  I thought the A-S's (and that is a pure accident of abbreviation, btw) came from the Germanic tribes of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes over in Germany or something.  And by the way, whatever happened to the Jutes in the definition of "white Americans"?  Did they get wiped out in tribal wars over ethnicity?  It gives me a cultural headache trying to sort through the whole "white-euro-ethnic" mess, never mind distinguishing different types of British citizens; perhaps this is why so many of the (perhaps disenfranchised) ethnic "tribes" left Europe and the British Isles and fled to America, and then revolted to get away from it all once and for all.  Melting pot indeed.  Anyway, so what exactly do you propose?  How do we fix it?  Do you want to say Rowling is British/Scotch?  Or Scots-British?  Or Scottish-Welsh/British?  Or that she is a British author of Scottish/Welsh descent?  If so, why - based on what?  Because she lives (or lived) in Scotland?  Gosh, I lived in France for a couple of months: 20-some years ago.  Does that make me American-French? (actually by pure coincidence I am of French descent, so perhaps that make me a Franco/American-French?)  Or are you saying her "nationality" is Scottish rather than British?  Or perhaps I got it all backwards here, and you mean to say that she is of pure English (Anglo?) ancestry, to go along with her British nationality, so therefore she should be designated as Anglo-British or something?  Is being specifically "English" a reference to some sort of "pure-bloodedness" that separates the "proper English" folk from the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh "mud-bloods", or "white trash" as some might say in America?  Yikes!  I just don't see a place in her article (or other biographical articles) for defining and declaring her exact ethnic pedigree as a pure-blood or whatever.  Does she have papers, perhaps like a properly bred Beagle?  Tell us exactly what you want the article to say, and where you want it said, and why it should say that.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no distinct ethnic divide between England and Scotland - lowland Scotland is mostly Anglo-Saxon. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Trevithick If you take a look you will see that his Ethnicity is "Cornish" in the Infobox (To be frank i don't know why, i don't recognise Cornish Nationality at all) So i don't see why the Infobox on this page could not say-Ethnicity "English" (Butters x (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC))


 * I have to say, I really don't know what you want and what you're objecting to. The article says she's British, which means from the UK (see British people), which includes England...  Also, you don't seem to be clear on the difference between ethnicity and nationality.  Exploding Boy (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK good - this is progress. So is "being English" truly an ethnicity?  According to English people, "As an ethnic group, they (the English) are normally presumed to be an admixture of different groups that have settled in England throughout history, such as the Brythons (including Romano-Britons), Anglo-Saxons, Danish Vikings, Bretons(ref7), Normans, Huguenots etc, and also, owing to the close interactions between England and its neighbouring countries, there has been a significant amount of immigration from Wales, Scotland and Ireland.".  It sounds like "English" as a people is very much yet another melting pot of many blended ethnic groups.  But do we have a highly reliable source that says she is of the pure "English" ethnic class per se, or perhaps she is from one of the other English sub-groups that makes up the English pot?  Otherwise we are just speculating and attempting to publish original research.  I only bring this up because, as evidenced above (see J.K. Rowling's ethnicity/nationality has been discussed here, here and here) the issue of her nationality/ethnicity has already been conclusively discussed and debated and reviewed at length by the community, several times, apparently to consensus, so what new 'truths' do we have at hand to bring to the long-disbanded party?  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 22:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual cafe that Rowling began writing Harry Potter
I could be mistaken, but as far as we know here in Edinburgh, Harry Potter was written in the Elephant House located on Nicolson Street, just two blocks up from the University Of Edinburgh. There doesn't seem to actually BE a "Nicolson's Cafe" as was quoted in this article. If you can't walk up to the cafe and actually read their proud newspaper clipping touting Harry Potter's birth, then you can see their claims on their websight http://www.elephanthouse.biz/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redphoenix5000 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard Nicholson's Cafe was the main one. I don't think anyone's ever pressed her on it.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a Chinese restaurant these days at 6a Nicholson Street, Edinburgh. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/18/travelnews.usa Libertycookies (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jane Yolen
I wonder did J.K. Rowling ever read Wizard's Hall by Jane Yolen because Harry Potter is a lot like it. To the people who will say Jane Yolen copied the Harry Potter books they are wrong. Yolen wrote Wizard's Hall 8 years before the frist HP book came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.28.86 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See Harry Potter influences and analogues  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  22:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter Movies - Date Change
The release date for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince has been moved to 17 July, 2009. 

I would change it myself, seeing as I've been a member for a while, but for some reason I'm unable to. If someone could change this incorrect information, that would be awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronicacullen (talk • contribs) 22:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done :-{  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  22:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing "Chamber of Secrets" Paragraph?
It is curious, in the "Harry Potter books" section, how there is no mention of the history behind Rowling's 2nd book, "Chamber of Secrets". Was it there but then accidentally removed, or was there never any mention of it? Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just that there wasn't anything really notable about it. It didn't win any major awards or break any sales records. If you can find anything interesting about it, then yeah sure we can put it in.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  07:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, none of the 21 awards that it received would be considered "major"? Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a line and a ref.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Why was the plagiarism story taken out of this article?

Is Wikipedia biased? I think so. It is no longer an encyclopedia but a giant advertisement for corporate world with their SHILLS looking over entry here and deleting anything negative.

JK Rowling did steal from another author. She has been very lucky in court cases. Including the recent one about the Harry encyclopedia book. How was she harmed? Absolutely ridiculous. What's the purpose of 'fair usage' laws? He wasn't writing a story using Harry Potter. Our judges are leaning way too far for big business and not staying neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) --Ericg33 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which plagiarism case are you referring to? JK Rowling's many legal trevails have been meticulously catalogued and examined in Legal disputes over Harry Potter, which was broken off this article for reasons of length.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there a link on the Rowling page?--Ericg33 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. At the bottom.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  08:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy or personal views
I'm going to suggest that political donations shouldn't be viewed as philanthropy. The donation to Labour while noble, promotes her own beliefs and is not entirely altruistic. This is her first donation to a political party, and carrys with it an endorsement of her views. Libertycookies (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * None of her donations are entirely altruistic by that measurement. She has charities that she focuses on because those are who she wants to help, most of which reflect her own life; children, single mothers, multiple sclerosis, all were very public donations that advertised her beliefs and priorities. This donation was no different.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  19:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The other donations were tax deductable because they were to non-profit organizations. Libertycookies (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that political parties were for-profit. At least officially.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  07:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also question the inclusion of Rowling's substantial political donation under the Philanthropy heading. Philanthropy is, in my experience, usually considered to be such donations that are not intrinsically controversial. While you may argue that this particular donation was made in line with some of Rowling's other, nonpartisan, donations, I do believe that a line was crossed when a donation to a political party was made.


 * My suggestion is that this information be included under the Personal life heading in conjunction with Rowling's statement of support for certain U.S. political figures, alternatively that the information about her political donation and support for certain politicians be placed under a separate heading. Sarnalios (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A third option would be to include Political donations as a subheading under Philanthropy (as has been done in at least one other article). While I still do not agree with the inclusion of political donations under philanthropy, at least this kind of article structure, where Political donations would be a subheading under Philanthropy, would be better than the current one. Sarnalios (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the para up, but I don't like the result. I think it breaks the narrative. The article now mentions that Rowling's donations are motivated by her being a former single mother, and her ties to Gordon Brown, twice. I liked it better when both were in the same paragraph.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  07:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's an improvement, but, as I see it, the whole article suffers from lack of section structure, why, now that I've looked more closely at the article, I'd actually prefer that the political donation be placed under a subheading under Philanthropy, with some additional subheadings introduced as well. A casual reader of the article may want to find some particular info about Rowlings and would then have to go through large blocks of text instead of jump right to the part of particular interest to that reader.


 * To preserve the narrative, as you put it, perhaps we could create subsections under the Philanthropy heading to include the information about Rowling's poverty related work (as this seems to be her foremost philanthropic concern), immediately followed by a Political donation subsection. Such a structure for this section would, I imagine, look something like this:


 * Philanthropy
 * Anti-poverty work (including the first four paragraphs now under the Philanthropy heading)
 * Political donation (the paragraph that you moved)
 * Additional philanthropic work (the last two paragraphs under Philanthropy)


 * Sarnalios (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. How's that?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, for the poor choice of words earlier. 'Non-Profit' is the American term for 'Charities', which both our Governments require to officially recognize a Philanthropic act and give donations a tax-deductible status.  I think we have in the past determined that Rowling's charitable contributions and associations with the Brown's don't necessarily imply any political beliefs.
 * This donation clearly is a statement, and is about getting people to vote Labour rather than getting people to donate to the cause of Labour. I think it should be under 'Personal' unless you are ready to set up a new category for her many other political acts and statements.  If you leave it in this category, then it should be retitled 'Donations' instead of 'Philanthropy' for accuracy.  Libertycookies (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rowling has only made one overtly political statement, and it's in this article. As far as I'm aware, none of her other statements can be considered political without personal interpretation. As for her "political acts", this would be the first.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  18:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than her description of her politics as "left wing", her prior criticism of the Conservative led government, and calls for Harvard grads to be more socially responsible, you're right. Anyhow, it just would seem to make sense to link the two overtly political statements in the article together, rather than mixing this in with Philanthropic donations and requiring all the extra subcategories.  Also, some would see her time at Amnesty as political in nature. Libertycookies (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks good to me. As far as I'm concerned, Rowling's political donation is fine under Philanthropy as long as it is made clear to the reader through a subheading. Sarnalios (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yate
Please note that Yate is in the county of South Gloucestershire, not Gloucestershire. 24.96.244.134 (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

JK Rowlings Nationality is ENGLISH
What's all this discussion about JK's nationality? She is English. Fact. End of. Her CITIZENSHIP is British. Fact. End of. The UK of GB & NI passport is the only one in the world that ansers the "Nationality" question with a different answer - hence it always says "British Citizen". No other passport in the world answers the question with "citizen" and that's because every other county states the nationality, eg French, German etc. The UK is a political union of four nationalities, but in the Wikipedia question, it asks "nationality", therefore JKR is English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.2.102 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archives regarding here nationality/Ethnicity. It's been discussed to the death. We don’t need another. 88.109.238.194 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I also add JK, has stong connections with Scotland, where she lives. This makes her more BRITISH than English. Does any one agree?

No. If you use that line of argument then Oscar Wilde was British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.64.202 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Légion_d'honneur
JKR has been awarded with the Légion_d'honneur by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Sources: http://www.elysee.fr/documents/index.php?mode=view&lang=fr&cat_id=8&press_id=2290 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1095823 189.4.250.18 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I confirm it, but I can't see where it would fit in the article. -- lucasbfr  talk 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added mention of it in the 'Personal life' section, where her honorary degrees are covered. That's as good a place as any, without a specific 'Awards and recognition' section. faithless   (speak)  21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Her name
Her real name is Mrs Joanne Murray. I quote from the Guardian "The author - suing under her real name, Mrs Joanne Murray ", the full version of which can be found here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/aug/07/pressandpublishing.privacy). Any concerns, please discuss here before making changes. I think this source is very clear. Also here (http://www.schillings.co.uk/news/private-client-news/JKRowling%E2%80%99ssonwi/), a source which is all of clear, reliable and respected. Barrabhoy (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Joanne, herself, mentions that the Gaurdian rarely gets facts straight about her life in fact she dispises them). She has gotten into debates with them about it. But when she began writing her name was Rowling. After marriage it changed. to Murray. the only real part of her pen name that is false is the "K". this is just for clarification (24.22.195.180 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

What does the writer (or do the writers) of this section think "legal name" means in the jurisdiction of England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.56.209 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out that there is no such thing a legal name in England. The legal situation is different in other countries, but there has been no legal requirement in England or Britain for 2,000 years to use a particular name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.135 (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

After Harry Potter, a matter of tense
In the section, After Harry Potter, the line "Rowling has stated that she plans to continue writing after the publication of the final Harry Potter book" suggests that the final Harry Potter book has not yet been published. 74.70.106.13 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture of JK Rowling
The picture is certainly not attractive. It needs a fix. 58.174.49.225 (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only non-fair use picture available.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall the previous picture of her had been removed because it wasn't free to use... I was only there for my brother's graduation, so apologies for not getting a particularly good photo of her ;-) Obviously if anyone has a better photo... Sjhill (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, as pictures of living people on this site go, it's pretty good.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  19:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

SHE HAS THREE CHILDREN
Why is her eldest daughter, Jessica, not mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.195.70 (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * She is.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but why is she not mentioned in the "Personal Life" section, while her other two children are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.169.128 (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the personal life section covers events after Harry Potter.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would a "Personal Life" section only cover a time period after a certain event? I think this is misleading, because someone reading only the Personal Life section might conclude, incorrectly, that she only has two children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.169.128 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Bryony Ev**E**ns
The spelling of her name should be corrected. A quick google and the Oprah interview confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.203.56 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Twitter
Jo has a Twitter now. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2009/9/25/jk-rowling-opens-twitter-account --Parodist (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

flogging the ground beside a dead horse
Looking at the pronunciation controversy of a couple of years ago, and the subsequent archives — Can I be the only one to wonder what the heck rohwling is meant to represent, and how it differs from rolling? —Tamfang (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Rowling's religion
I am fairly certain Ms. Rowling is not a member of the Church of Scotland, but rather the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is often confused with the former. This would make her Anglican, not Presbyterian. Some supporting claims can be found in an article by "The Scotsman", in some Anglican sites, NNDB or also AllExperts. She also is quoted by the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant as having been raised in the Church of England, the mother church of Anglicanism; thus for an Anglican living in Scotland, visiting a Scottish Episcopal parish would only be logical. If so, she should accordingly be listed in the category English Anglicans, not English Presbyterians.

At the very least, the claim to her being in the Church of Scotland should be removed and the categorization changed to a neutral version until such time as the truth can be definitively ascertained.

Ethelred Unraed (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rowling was raised in the Church of England, but whether she belongs to the Scottish Episcopal Church is a bit murky it seems. The most detailed reference comes from an article in The Washington Post, which describes her as a member of the Church of Scotland. This is confusing, I must admit. I'll have to track down some more sources.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  14:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW in (much) older revisions of this article, she was indeed listed as being a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church, and was classified as an English Anglican. Then at some point, that reference disappeared, and some time later the reference to the Church of Scotland appeared. Either way, I'd suggest the reference to at least be changed to just "Christian" (or "Protestant") for now.Ethelred Unraed (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I have been unable to find any direct quote from her, or an official source of hers, mentioning either the Church of Scotland or the Scottish Episcopal Church after scouring the Web. However, it seems that local Scottish and English media (like the link from The Scotsman above or also from the British Anglican group Ecclesia ) generally say she's in the Scottish Episcopal Church, if they mention anything at all; the references to the Church of Scotland seem to be mostly from American sources. Meanwhile, the book How Harry Cast His Spell: The Meaning Behind the Mania also says she's in the Scottish Episcopal Church. But I think the strongest evidence I could find one way or the other is that she and her husband were apparently married by a Scottish Episcopal minister, the Rev. Canon Professor John Richardson of Edinburgh (though I believe the name of the parish is misspelled in the reference -- should be "Columba", not "Columbia" -- the same Rev. Canon Richardson is mentioned there). Ethelred Unraed (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearer to American Readers
I think you should mention that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is called Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the American version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.161.45.99 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It says so in the article already.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  14:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rowling, her publishers and Time Warner [...] have been accused of copyright infringement themselves."
editsemiprotected You can't say that Rowling was accused of copyright infringement and leave out that the claims were dismissed as without merit. That's borderline libellous, especially as the source for that statement says that the person suing Rowling was fined for "pattern of intentional bad faith conduct"!!! [Copyright lawsuits protecting Harry Potter have been successful, so the part of the sentence (represented by ellipsis above) about how others have been sued doesn't need qualified]. 81.147.142.155 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken -- clause struck. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference 144 ("Potter author zaps court rival". CNN. 2002-09-19. ) needs removed as well; it only comments on the failed attempt to sue Rowling, which doesn't appear anymore in the sentence it's attached to. 81.147.142.155 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That must have been removed already. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  01:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Political leanings
This article written by JK Rowling in The Times covers her political beliefs and states that she would never become an expatriate for tax purposes.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece

Lord Brixton (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that definitely needs to be included. The article may need to be restructured a bit though. Let me sit on it for a day or so.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is not nice to mention that she dropped of £1 million to the Labour Party. We all know what happened to the Labour Party in 2010.--88.89.69.142 (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo: 'The Elephant House' - caption unclear and not mentioned in text of article
I notice that the otherwise nice photo of 'The Elephant House' has a confusing caption ("wrote the first part of Harry Potter" - does that mean the first book or the series) and is never mentioned at all in the text of the article. Anyone know what's up with this? Jusdafax  15:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Curious; "the first part of Harry Potter" was changed months ago into "one of the cafes in Edinburgh where Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter novel". Not sure why you're still seeing that caption.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Married name
I have carefully read the links above in the FAQ section, but my concern is not addressed. Unless there is some evidence that the subject of this article and others systematically uses the name "Jo Murray" then this should not be given as her "name" as the first mention. Per MOS WP:NAMES "A woman, like all other biographical entrants, should be referred to by her most common name, and that would not necessarily involve using her husband's surname." She does not appear to be known by this name at all: I note that our own article uses "Rowling" to refer to her, and that she has only used the name Murray occasionally, e.g. during some legal proceedings, where in newspaper articles this is pointed out as an unusual name for her. e.g. compare 503 googlenews hits for Jo Rowling with 9 for Jo Murray This conversation about Chelsea Clinton might make interesting reading. , and makes the important point that women do not automatically have their name changed on marriage, and that a "legal name" is actually the one that you use/are called, which is confirmed here for the UK All this to say, I am going to change around the information, so that Rowling is given as her name, and Murray is listed as her married name. --Slp1 (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rowlings an Astrologer?
I have just finished wathching an episode of Antiques Roadshow (British TV series) and a lady brought two horoscopes of her own children that she claims JK Rowlings provided to her in a typed format and hand illustrated the cover around the same time as Rowlings was writing her first Harry Potter book. She was a friend of Rowlings and lived nearby. This may suggest that Rowlings was or is an astrologer. I notice no mention of it here at this topic. Does anyone know if Rowlings studied astrology? Terry Macro (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * see http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Rare-JK-Rowling-work-on.6449408.jp Terry Macro (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the undisguised contempt with which she treats astrologers in her novels, I seriously doubt she has more than a passing interest in it.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not for us to do original research and make decisions independent of reliable published sources. Rowling was able to write astrological interpretations of two children's horoscopes - this is not a passing interest, Rowling definitely practiced astrology because only a competent astrologer can do a horoscope interpretation.  The reason she did the two specific horoscopes in question is that it was for a friend and Rowling was too poor to buy presents, and did horoscopes instead.  Some commentators claim that clues to Rowlings' future writings in the Harry Potter series can be discerned in her horoscope interpretations. This information rightly belongs in this topic - but not overly emphasized. Terry Macro (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also OR to draw any inferences from that article beyond what it actually says. All we have from that article is that Rowling cast horoscopes on that one occasion. Whether she habitually cast horoscopes is not mentioned. Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod  ous  01:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that Rowling was a 'habitual' astrologer, nor that she was a professional astrologer or charged clients to do horoscopes. The article clearly indicates that Rowling could interpret a horoscope which means she had at some time studied astrology, either privately or formally.  I am rather surprised you want to hide Rowling's knowledge of astrology as most people in the world do not find astrology offensive. I know I was rather astonished to discover this fact while watching TV, and it seems curious that an encyclopedia would not want some small reference to this fact - especially as it has now come to light in the public domain. Terry Macro (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether she studied astrology at all. The question is whether this one mention of her using astrology is worth including. Does it have a bearing on her career or her biography? The answer, as far as I can see, is no. In my life I have acted once. Does that make me an actor? No. In the same way, one mention of Rowling casting a horoscope does not make her "an astrologer".  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  07:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would question whether the cited article establishes that she genuinely cast or interpreted horoscopes - it makes that assertion, but that appears to rest on her use of the word "cusp". The rest of the quoted material is humourous. Is a Pisces really fated to drink like a fish? - Ian Dalziel (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Background
I may be wrong about this (any English majors out there?), but shouldn't the sentence in the 4th line of the 2nd paragraph in the Background section be changed from: "When she was a young teenager, her great aunt, who Rowling said "taught classics and approved of a thirst for knowledge, even of a questionable kind", gave her a very old copy of Jessica Mitford's autobiography, Hons and Rebels.[21]"

to read: When she was a young teenager, her great aunt, whom Rowling said "taught classics and approved of a thirst for knowledge, even of a questionable kind", gave her a very old copy of Jessica Mitford's autobiography, Hons and Rebels.[21]

Mthorn10 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be right there, since she's the indirect object.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  05:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence is fine as it is. If you want to change it to "of whom," then you will have to add "she" before the start of the quote (of whom Rowling said she "taught....").


 * If you eliminate "Rowling said" it may make it clearer why it is who and not whom. One would say her great aunt who cooks; her great aunt who was a painter; her great aunt who loved dogs.  It would be "her great aunt who taught classics and approved of a thirst for knowledge."


 * You can also apply the "he/him" test: if you can rephrase the sentence as a question and get the answer "him," then you can use "whom." In this case, the answer to "Who taught classics and approved of a thirst for knowledge?" would be "he did," so who is correct.  Exploding Boy (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

SHES ENGLISH
Why are people like Sean Connery listed Scottish but shes British when shes English I don't get it?86.183.207.198 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sean Connery is listed as a Scottish actor because his being Scottish is relevant to his biography. He supports the SNP and says he will only return to an independent Scotland. Rowling's ethnicity, however, has no bearing on her writings at all. It's similar to listing a Jewish comedian vs a comedian who is Jewish. If the comedian's style and humour are based on being Jewish, as with, say, Mel Brooks or Jon Stewart, then he or she can be considered a Jewish comedian. But if a comedian just happens to be Jewish, like Groucho Marx, then his religion has no place in the lead.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

PGCE?
I'm a qualified teacher in Scotland and my qualification is a PGDE (post graduate diploma) as opposed to a PGCE (post graduate certificate). I imagine Rowling will be the same, but she is listed as have a PGCE in the article. I believe that qualification is required to teach in England, not Scotland. Can anyone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.2.26 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry
JKR participated in the Who Do You Think You Are? (British TV series). There are some articles revealing information about her heritage. She apparently comes from a long line of single mothers, which is significant as she is a single mother herself. Also, when the episode is shown, that information of her ancestry should be presented on this page, no? 24.49.35.99 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Filmography section?
Would it be suitable for the article? It is normal for many producers to have a filmography section, such as David Heyman. Guy546 ( Talk ) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe J.K. Rowling is an author, not a film producer or an actor. --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Un-objective Source: Matt Latimer in "Life After Harry Potter" section
I'm concerned about one point on the J K Rowling article. Under the "Life After Harry Potter" section, the article states:  "Matt Latimer, a former speech writer for President George W. Bush has claimed in his book Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor that Rowling was turned down for the Presidential Medal of Freedom because White House officials in the Bush administration believed that the Harry Potter series promoted witchcraft."

Regardless of my personal issues with GW Bush, I'm concerned about using Matt Latimer as a source here for two reasons: 1) As a disgruntled former employee, Latimer is very biased against Bush, and therefore is not an objective source. It would be in his best interests to lump Bush and his administration in with some of the fundamentalists who actually do think the books promoted witchcraft. 2) Latimer's book has been frequently criticized as containing several factual inaccuracies, not necessarily because he was deliberately lying (I wouldn't presume to make a judgment in that regard) but because he did not always have first-hand knowledge of certain things, meaning his book contained Latimer's personal interpretations of hearsay.

Therefore, because Latimer is not widely regarded as an objective source under the best of circumstances and because there is a lot of dispute about the accuracy of other things he said he "knew," I question whether he's the best source for this. If such a discussion about JKR did take place, there are going to be other people who will have talked about it, so surely another source could be found if this is important to include.

Personally, I suspect the discussion did take place. And while I doubt any of Bush's advisors actually believed JK Rowling was promoting witchcraft, I'd bet that someone voiced their objection to giving JKR the medal based on the concern that it might alienate a key demographic (fundamentalists who DO feel that way about the HP books) for Bush. Therefore, using Latimer as a source for this doesn't seem to me to be a good idea since he isn't the most credible, and the statement he makes sounds heavily biased to me.

And, much as I hate to admit it, I suppose it should also be discussed whether this statement actually should go in this article, or if it should be limited to the article, "Religious debates over the Harry Potter series."

GioiaMia (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it's about something that didn't happen, whether it's true or not, I think it can be removed, though I still think it's relevant to Religious debates over the Harry Potter series.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Brucewh, 17 November 2010
edit semi-protected

Under the "Multiple sclerosis" heading is the statement "Rowling has contributed money and support for research and treatment of multiple sclerosis, from which her mother died in 1990." This statement is factually incorrect; there is no fatal form of multiple sclerosis. As described by J. K. Rowling in a 2001 essay, "I Miss My Mother So Much", her mother died not from the disease, but as a result of poor medical treatment and almost nonexistent physiotherapy.

I do not know how to create a footnote in a suggested change, but the original essay referred to was "I Miss My Mother So Much" in Observer (London) (April 29, 2001).

I suggest the sentence above changed as follows :

Rowling has contributed money and support for research and treatment of multiple sclerosis. Her mother developed the primary progressive subtype of the disease, and died in 1990 as a result of poor medical treatment and almost nonexistent physiotherapy, as described in I Miss My Mother so Much. This essay in the London Observer, followed by further activism on her part, led to extensive reforms in MS treatment in Scotland.

/Bruce/ &#91;aka Slasher&#93;&lt;br/&gt;DPC, USN (ret.) (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the essay says that her mother got no treatment, and says that she died, but doesn't say that she died because she got no treatment. Even if we added medical information explaining that MS is non-fatal, unless we can find a source that explicitly says how Rowling's mother died, we'd be violating WP:SYN.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Declining the edit semi-protected request as it's been contested. No view on content issue. -Atmoz (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tradition of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien
Within the fantasy genre, there was an informal 'tradition' that authors chose to publish using their initials plus surname. This seems just as plausible an explanation as the 'gender neutral' one that is currently put forward on the page. There is a whole section talking about the 'K', but there does not seem to be a reliable independent source that it was anything to do with gender neutrality. It seems just as plausible to me that JKR was following in the footsteps of male authors Tolkien and Lewis by taking this approach. Better sources would be helpful to resolve it one way or the other. MatthewTStone (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JK Rowling told Oprah that her publishers wanted her to change her name to appeal to boys. As I recall, Lewis used his initials because he never liked his first name. He called himself "Jack".  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't deal with what's "plausible", we deal with what reliable sources say. On this issue, we have reliable sources that quote her as saying: "...my British publisher, when the first book came out, thought ‘this is a book that will appeal to boys’ but they didn’t want the boys to know a woman had written it. So they said to be ‘could we use your initials’ and I said ‘fine’. I only have one initial. I don’t have a middle name. So I took my favourite grandmother’s name Kathleen..."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref added. Now can we finally put the name section to bed?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A good source is the main thing. However, perhaps this section in the article could still address the question of why more than one initial is the convention in publishing, e.g. H.G Wells, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton etc. After all, JKR could have solved the gender issue by publishing as 'J.Rowling', but the second initial was felt necessary by both her and the publsiher. Just a thought... MatthewTStone (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just irrelevant speculation, so no.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. The article raises the issue of the name, the 'K', what it stands for etc, but does not give a reason why a second initial was added. It has nothing to do with speculation. MatthewTStone (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe because they thought "J. Rowling" didn't sound good? Or perhaps because it sounded like a weird way of crossing the street illegally? Who knows? Unless we locate a transcript of that editorial meeting, we sure won't. This supposed "tradition" is bogus; most fantasy writers don't follow it, and many, such as E. Nesbit or L. Frank Baum, use only one initial.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  11:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm only trying to improve the article. It is just a little odd, for the average Wikipedia user (such as myself when I googled her name) who may know little about the publishing industry or this particular author, to come an article where there is a quite a lengthy section on the author's name, even before the section on her background. In terms of information hierarchy, a lot of emphasis is being placed on it. MatthewTStone (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go to the top of this talk page and see how many times her name has been brought up. There are ten discussions related to her name, and this is the eleventh. Every aspect of her name, every single one, has been bashed and bludgeoned into submission again and again and again. The reason her name is so important in this article is because it is the one topic everyone seems to care about.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no need to adopt a stroppy tone with other editors. I did look at the other discussions, and no one has adequately addressed the issue of why an author would add a fictitious initial letter to an otherwise real name. I figure it was something to do with the publishing industry, and that this particular section would benefit, that's all. It's quite possible more ink will be spilt, so please be patient. It's not a matter of life or death. MatthewTStone (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Last name
None of the three sources linked to agree with the statement "Following her marriage, she has used the name Joanne Murray when conducting personal business." Only one of them refers to a lawsuit, filed jointly with her husband, in which she is referred to as "Mrs. Joanne Murray" - which is not uncommon, but not evidence that she generally uses this formulation. The template at the top of the talk page conflates this issue, which has not been discussed, with the numerous discussions regarding her middle name. I've rephrased this statement to "has sometimes used", which seems to be the most that can be asserted here. Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 08:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of examples of her using her married name, particularly when involved in personal litigation.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  08:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to flog a buried horse, but I would think that using those examples as sources would be Original Research. You would need a third-party, reliable source which explicitly states that she uses it for personal business, if you were to keep it in the article. ☻☻☻Sithman  VIII !!☻☻☻ 22:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rowling as a producer
'''Please rewrite this article. As I am not registered with Wikipedia, I cannot access the source text!'''

It has been stated that Rowling is an executive producer of this film (citing a press article from 2000). However, that is untrue. The IMDb does not include Rowling in the crew credit list (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/fullcredits), and in addition to that it is stated on the trivia page of HP and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 that the latter is the first feature for which Rowling received a producer credit (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/trivia?tr1360473). You can doublecheck this when you look an the credit roll of HP and the Philosopher's Stone. Rowling is not mentioned there as an executive producer. --139.18.5.100 (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As this fact is contested, it can be removed, since it is of little relevance. Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Children's High Level Group
It says at beginning of article that J K Rowling supports this charity - as well as co-founding. However, it has been recently (ish) renamed 'Lumos' and the link should be changed from Children's HIgh Level Group to Lumos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.42.125 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Writing Style
We need more about her writing style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.195.172 (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a biographical article, not a lit-crit article. There is plenty on her writing style in Harry Potter.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The analysis of writing style can differ from reader to reader so the mention of such is not exactly biographical. 2 Feb. 2012

Influences
Could someone take off the show/hide tag off her influences if all it is going to show is a link to the page of her influences80.7.59.190 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Correction
Under "Subsequent writing" Last Word "fanticy"  should be fantasy. --Onefreehour (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The last word of the first paragraph ("installment" I believe) is misspelled as Instalment.


 * As per WP:ENGVAR instalment is in fact correct.  a_man_alone (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

British is not an ethnicity
British is a citizenship, it's like saying someone is ethnically American. She is ethnically english, her parents are english and she was born in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voucherman (talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that "white British" is an ethnicity on virtually all official British questionnaires, I fail to see the problem.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  12:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * isn't that to differentiate between Asian british people etc. it's clear from her picture that she is white, and from the opening sentence she is British, so what purpose does it serve? Or is it just an attempt to make it seem as though she isn't English?Voucherman (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as her ethnicity is concerned, I don't really care one way or the other. My only issue is that mentioning her ethnicity can lead to needless tribal squabbling on the talk page, so it's best not to. And besides, other countries don't get that kind of attention (no one really cares if Justine Henin is a Fleming or a Walloon), so why should the UK be singled out?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  14:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to give my view, I find it incredibly annoying when people refer to English, Scottish or welsh people as British, people such as Joshua Nkomo as referred to as Zimbabwean not African and furthermore my sole reason for coming to this page was to find out if she was Scottish, Welsh or English. --2.125.24.176 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "British" is her nationality, just as "Zimbabwean" is Joshua Nkomo's nationality. I have no idea what she considers herself, as she was born in England and lives in Scotland.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  21:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:UKNATIONALS. Rowling's Nationality could be considered English or British if she has a strong preference to either, and if no preference is present either is acceptable. It wouldn't surprise me if she identified with Scotland and England, judging by the theme of her books and that she lives in both, but this is all a matter of sources. And we all know what a private person Jo is, so there hard to come by. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC) --Τασουλα  (Almira) (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It really isn't important anyway, she's in English category's because that's practically default, she was born and raised in England. Her ancestry is irrelevant. She isn't an English Footballer or golfer or something, were English is undeniably the nationality (In the sporting sense, but can be the personal sense), but a writer known all around the world. Her ideintity in a sense, is an Author. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

DOB may be wrong?
According to Marc Shapiro's book J.K. Rowling: The Wizard Behind Harry Potter, J.K.'s birthday was July 31, 1966. This may have been an error, I am not so sure. Please advise or give a citation. Thanks so much! --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * JK Rolwing's own website gives her birth year as 1965. I'm pretty sure she's a better authority on this than some guy. If he can't check such a basic mistake then I have very little confidence in the accuracy of that book.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  08:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please give me the link of the date? Because I have found a citation in World Book 2006 Edition. But I quickly skimmed the J.K. Rowling site bio. No dates popped up at me.--Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here. J K (Joanne Kathleen) Rowling was born in July 1965 at Yate General Hospital in England and grew up in Chepstow, Gwent 

 Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Political Views - Socialism
One wikipedia article has J.K. Rowling down as a Christian socialist. Is there any way of verifying this from an interview or biographical source, other than the contributor's inference of her political views?--Michael 20:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikem1234 (talk • contribs)
 * Which wikipedia article is this? Rowling isn't a socialist, at least no more than anyone else in England. She's certainly a progressive liberal, but there aren't that many socialist billionaires.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

She is listed in the article on Christian Socialism, along with other allegedly 'well-known' Christian Socialists such as Tony Benn, Keir Hardie, Helen Keller, etc., but there are no citations or verifiable sources for the information, which does seem somewhat arbitrary, to say the least. I've never heard this mentioned about her in the press.Stelmaris (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Childhood
Is it worthy of note that her childhood home in Tutshill was put up for sale in 2011? - here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we had more than the seller's word for it. Say if it was mentioned in the news.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  10:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Et voilà! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's wait and see if someone interesting buys it.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  11:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't info about her childhood home be briefly mentioned in the early life section(s)? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Err....it is, now. "At the age of nine, Rowling moved to Church Cottage in the Gloucestershire village of Tutshill....."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Francisgoldlava, 27 September 2011
to do ancestry of JK Rowling

Francisgoldlava (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reworked it slightly to bring more attention to it.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  18:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism Accusations
Shouldn't there be a section on the accusations that portions of the Harry Potter series were plagiarized? There were two books written about it, but I don't know if a suit was ever brought against J.K. Rowling. Someone more informed than me should probably include something in this article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.59.174.46 (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * see note above.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  04:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of installment
"the final instalment" in the first graph. Could someone update that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.220.106 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry i tried to but could not. The error is located in the lead.MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's British spelling.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)