Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Scottish?

Since when has JK Rowling been Scottish?

That is how she refers to herself. Referring to her as "British" is a reasonable compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydey (talk • contribs)
Does she? Never heard that. Serendipodous 07:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I see her referred to as Scottish all the time. I was sifting through google yesterday for definitive examples of either "Scottish" or "English". The only interview I found asked her a question on Scotland and how it felt to be Scottish. I can only imagine it's based on parentage or for having lived there for a while with her Scottish husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydey (talk • contribs)

She hasn't referred to herself as Scottish ever, because she isn't. She is sometimes INCORRECTLY described as Scottish purely because she is based there. There's even a ancestry thing online somewhere that shows about 99% of her ancestors were English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.124.191 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, and Alexander Graham Bell is 100% Scottish. That doesn't stop Canada trying to claim him. There's a short interview where she is asked about Scotland and what it feels like to be Scottish (the exact wording escapes me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydey (talk • contribs)
Oh come on - are we going to have to go through this once a week now? J. K. Rowling is English, born to English parents in England. British is a compromise, yes, but not a good one. As you can probably tell from the number of times this comes up there is a great deal of nationalism between the constituent parts of the UK with each part very eager to "claim" certain celebrities as their own but that doesn't alter the fact that she is ethnically English. AulaTPN 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh and Clydey, please sign your posts in future. AulaTPN 08:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact I am going to change it back. Clydey you cannot claim she is Scottish because she was not born in Scotland and has no Scottish parentage and even though she has lived there for a considerable time it is not possible to become a naturalised Scot. Her nationality is British but her ethnicity is English and it would seem from my travels through Wiki that standard practice when referring to people from the Isles is to detail their ethnicity. Further, the vast majority of your edits seem to be solely concerned with attributing famous people as being Scottish. You seem to be a single-purpose account engaged in POV-pushing across Wikipedia. I urge you to consider your edits more carefully and not to revert my change. The consensus has always been to list her as English. AulaTPN 08:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
My purpose is to ensure that Scots get the credit they deserve. I am not attempting to distort the facts. She is often referred to as Scottish and I did read an interview where she was asked how it felt to be Scottish. I am not randomly trying to label people as Scottish. I am not delusional.
You know those pages to which you refer, the ones where I was allegedly trying to push an agenda? Not one of those people were listed as Scottish, despite clearly being Scottish. Scottish people are British when it suits the English. Leaving a successful Scot's nationality ambiguous opens up the possibility of that person being mistakenly referred to as English. Most of world are ignorant to the fact that England is not Britain.
I am not unreasonable. I have agreed that Mark Knopfler should be referred to as British, even though he was born in Scotland. I am not about to sit back and watch great Scots be claimed by every country other than their own. It is a joke. Please get off your high horse. Ok, here's a challenge for you. Out of the pages you were referring to earlier, highlight one instance in which I have distorted the facts. My interest is in removing ambiguity and emphasising the facts. What I did was no different to you taking issue with J.K. Rowling being listed as Scottish/British. Do you get it now? Clydey 13:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh. If this matters so much to you, join the SNP. Independent Scotland, no ambiguity. Let her get a Scottish passport and decide for herself. Serendipodous 13:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no desire to engage in a tit-for-tat argument, I am not on a high-horse and I think your goal is admirable however I would encourage you to consider to points. 1) Edits to Wikipedia must be done on the basis of consensus - that's how things work. The consensus at the moment is to list as English - that can always change. 2) You cannot *possibly* believe or hope to claim that J. K. Rowling is Scottish. As a much more perspicacious editor wrote the last time we had this discussion one can not be Scottish by nationality as one cannot be a citizen of Scotland. Therefore we can only talk of someone's ethnicity in this case and J.K. is most definitely and incontravertably English. Sorry you don't seem to like that but those are the plain facts. AulaTPN 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In essence you are discounting someone's place of birth and emphasising their ancestry? What I mean by that is someone with Scottish parents, although born in England, would be referred to as Scottish, correct? I am just trying to clarify your point. I don't think there is a consensus on how one defines ethnicity on here, whether birthplace takes precedence over parentage.
Again, I go back to Alexander Graham Bell. It's pretty clear that the man was Scottish, yet on many, many webpages he is described as an American. If Scotland is lucky, he is referred to as a "Scottish-born American". If we're really, really lucky and the Americans are feeling generous, he is a "Scottish-American". Funnily enough, this also applies to his father, a man who never gained American citizenship.
It's funny how success has that unique ability to modify/split someone's ethnicity. Bell spent his summers in Canada to be close to his father. He was listed as one of the "100 Greatest Canadians". 'Nuff said really. I think I got off the point a little. Yeah, as far as J.K. Rowling goes, I was merely following what I found on goggle. If I'm a bit off the mark, I'll gladly concede. I found it strange that she was so frequently described as Scottish, however.Clydey 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole issue is stupid. JK Rowling is British. That's her nationality. Her ethnicity shouldn't matter to anyone any more than her race should. All ethnicity is is what combination of myths and stories one chooses to believe about where one came from, most of which are made up anyway. Is it really that important? Serendipodous 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clydey that's not what I'm saying but that's beside the point. Seren, I do think it's a fairly pointless argument but to attempt to assert that J.K. is Scottish is ludicrous. I don't necessarily have a particular point to push save that as far as I could tell, the consensus was to describer her as English and that there is an extreme amount of nationalism pushing from the other consituent members of the UK. I notice for instance that any Scottish address which is listed as "... Scotlant, UK" instantly has the "UK" removed. Whereas I have no particular objection to the removal, other than that adding "UK" is factually correct, it seems to me that the standard practice on Wiki when it comes to the UK is to go down to that level of granularity rather than stop with just British. And if there is one apparent rule for articles pertaining to the rest of the UK then it should surely apply to the whole of the UK so as to maintain consistency? AulaTPN 14:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't having a go at you, Aula. I was quite genuinely seeking clarification on the point you made. And it is not ludicrous to label J.K. Rowling as Scottish in light of how often she is referred to as Scottish. It might very well be wrong, but it is hardly ludicrous. You will notice that I have conceded in this case and have not reverted it to "Scottish" or "British". Clydey 15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia will reap from having created this entirely illogical double-standard in reference to subjects relating to the United Kingdom. There is no other country I can think of where Wikipedians see themselves able to comment on someone's identity rather than simply labelling their nationality. It seems incredibly obvious to me that the only way to sort this out should be to label any British person as being British - add in their Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish allegiances if relevant in addition to their nationality, and only consider removing British where they have made an actual statement that they don't view themselves accordingly. Personally this whole British/Scottish/English etc thing has really lowered my respect for Wikipedia. --Breadandcheese 18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, although long-time watchers of this talk page might not believe me! The unfortunate double-standard, due to the very nature of the United Kingdom, which has arisen here is crazy and short of a new Wiki Policy to combat this I don't see how you could ever hope to sort it out? I don't mind which way the decision falls, whether everything and everyone gets labelled British or English/Scottish/Welsh, as long as it is consistent but given how vigorously any attempt to apply the terms "British" or "UK" to anything which is not solely English seems to be met with reversion, it would seem that to keep things consistent would imply keeping English things as English? What do you think, can we push for a new policy or is that going to be viewed as the height of pedantry? AulaTPN 18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough (or maybe not) there's been quite a discussion about this over at the Village Pump policy article. While no official policy has fallen out of the discussion as yet, the consensus seems to be leaning towards accepting that this is a quirk of the way the UK works as a sovereign state and sticking with English, Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh rather than British. One of the justifications seems to be that the UK government itself recognises the nations as separate countries. AulaTPN 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I rarely if ever check the Village Pump, so I'm glad I didn't miss the heat of this discussion. I'd very much like to create a new policy. While I'm not one of those people who thinks that UK need be everywhere (I'm quite comfortable with, say, "Nowheretown is a town in Somewhereshire, England" - but infobox locations and such should clearly identify the country as what it is. I also note it seems to be a small number of people who revert away all mentions of the UK - often ones with self-confessed political allegiances not shared by most. --Breadandcheese 05:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, Tony Blair is referred to as British even though he was born in Scotland. Why? Well, for a starts his passport clearly states, British Citizen. There is no such thing as an English or Scottish nationality and the sooner it dies out the better. Gavin Scott 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the heck was wrong with that image?

Why was the image of JK at Radio City deleted from the Wikimedia Commons? For years people have been complaining that only images taken by users can be uploaded, but when we finally have one, it gets deleted. Do the Wiki admins not want any images for this article? Because if they don't, they shouldn't program those bloody automated checklists complain when an article doesn't have any. Serendipodous 08:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was just watching these edits and I have no idea? Maybe we can persuade the uploader to reupload and add the copyright information? Or maybe we can persuade the uploader of the image which replaced it to add the copyright information for that one?AulaTPN 08:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, I found the original copyright info and have passed it on to the admin at commons who deleted it and asked them to reinstate the image here. AulaTPN 08:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok so the reason it was deleted from commons is that it was determined to have been a screenshot from TV so I doubt that there's any chance of getting the image back. AulaTPN 11:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Bugger. When will these pedants accept that taking a picture of JK Rowling is virtually impossible, and allow us to post a promo pic instead? Serendipodous 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Who knows? I certainly can't understand why it seems to be good enough for 95% of the other BLP articles but not for this one? AulaTPN 13:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was wondering why this article was missing an image. It seems odd that this page lacks an image, considering her new novel was just released. No offense, the article is great anyway. Thanks, Meldshal42 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Could someone ask for a photo, preferably someone of Admin status? Here's the contact info for Scholastic, who have provided the Press with numerous images. 70.137.158.83 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Media Inquiries Corporate Communications news@scholastic.com http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/offices/index.htm

We will once the Wikimedia Foundation changes its direction and stops trying to promote a fully free encyclopedia. That will unleash the gates for more promo pics. Unfortuantely, the directive is quite clear, and the English Wikipeida is a huge exception in any kind of non-free image – most other language Wikipedias only allow free iamges. hbdragon88 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

is there anybody take J.K.'s picture anywhere anytime? Pmuean 14:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that someone sometime has taken a picture of Rowling at a charityreading or before she got so famous? Couldn't it be wise to contact some of the biggest fanclubs? sv:Suz 2 August 11.07 (CEST)
Done. I happened to see her getting an honorary degree from Aberdeen, when my wee brother was getting his degree... Sjhill 14:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You, sir, are an absolute star! This has been driving us insane for months! Thank you. AulaTPN 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] money, money, money???

Why does the introduction talk mostly about how much money Rowling made? Doesn't that demean her achievements as a writer? OK, mention that she made a ton of money, but that more than 2/3 of the intro should be about money is too much, inho.--345Kai 02:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical response

This section contains the view of only a single critic, which makes it seriously misleading. There is a wide range of opinion about the quality of her books amongst literary critics, and this ought to be reflected in the section. JH (talk page) 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Discussion of the books doesn't belong in a biographical article. Serendipodous 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church Affiliation

Has anyone seen a direct quote from JKR regarding which church she attends/is a member of? The American Prospect from 2002 (as well as many websites) states that she is a member of the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian. Wikipedia (and other websites) lists her as a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church (not cited), which is Anglican. The latter makes sense as she attended Church of England schools growing up. --Cdman882 02:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See: Religious opposition to the Harry Potter series#Rowling's response. The article "Charmed, I'm Sure" describes how her daughter was baptised into the Church of Scotland.[1] The Tatler [2] describes her as an "Episcopalian" but doesn't mention the Scottish Episcopal church. This could simply mean she was baptised into the Church of England, which doesn't really mean much for an English-born Englishwoman, since pretty much everyone born in England who is of English ethnicity is baptised into that church, whether they call themselves religous or not. Serendipodous 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a confusing matter, but I propose we either change Rowling's church affiliation back to "Episcopalian" or leave it as "unknown" on the Wiki page. I say this for several reasons. First, as noted above, various articles refer to her as either "Episcopalian," "Church of Scotland," or "Presbyterian." However, the Scottish Episcopal Church is still sometimes called the “Episcopal Church of Scotland” or “Church of Scotland” (its original name as the established church of Scotland, until it was officially replaced by the Presbyterian Church in 1689), and also remains part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. I think this clarification of an otherwise equivocal term helps to make sense of the confusion with some stories labeling her “Presbyterian” and others “Episcopalian”. On top of that, there is the the “J.K. Rowling and Neil Murray Marriage Profile” in the marriage section of About.com, stating that “Joanne Rowling and Dr. Neil Murray were married on December 26, 2001, in the library at their home in Perthshire, Scotland” in “a private 20-minute ceremony” led by “minister, J.S. Richardson of St. Columbia’s Episcopal Church in Edinburgh.”[3] When you put all of the known stories about her church affiliation together, it clearly sounds like she was raised Anglican in England and remains Anglican (a.k.a. Episcopalian) now that she lives in Scotland. Using the phrase "Church of Scotland" has simply confused some people, including reporters. What do other people think of this proposed change for the Wiki article? --Mcanaca 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming she is a member of the Church of Scotland makes it sound like she is active in the church. This quote seems to explain her religous beliefs and doubts:
She is a Christian (Episcopalian) and says, "like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes about if my faith will return. It's important to me."
Article: 'There would be so much to tell her...'Interviewer: Geordie Greig.Publication: Tatler Magazine. Date: January 10, 2006. 'http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0110-tatler-grieg.html
I second the motion to change it.Libertycookies 08:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolson's Cafe

I noticed the article Nicolson's Cafe was deleted and we now have a red link. It seems like a wiki-worthy article since it is a site of pilgrimage for Potterheads, and maybe a photo and address would be interesting. I never read the deleted article, so maybe it was deleted for good cause. Should the hyperlink be eliminated or a new Nicolson's Cafe article posted? Libertycookies 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Nicholson's exists anymore. Last I heard it was a Chinese takeaway. Serendipodous 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Still think it's a notable and worthy article. AulaTPN 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If it doesn't exist anymore, all the better for us to have an article. No one can claim it is a commercial advertisement for Nicholson's, and we can (hopefully) find a vintage photo. Libertycookies 16:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Her "middle name"

"Joanne Kathleen Rowling" produces 494,000 google hits. "Joanne Rowling" produces 170,000. How else can it be shown that this middle name is "often assumed"? Serendipodous 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It says on the inside right hand flap of the jacket of Deathly Hallows that she is Joanna Kathleen Rowling
Why don't we just cite a few articles like this one from Forbes http://www.forbes.com/maserati/billionaires2004/cx_jw_0226rowlingbill04.html or this entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9346272/JK-Rowling#720696.hook

Karanacs 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Her pseudonym is JK Rowling, not Joanne Kathleen Rowling - hmm possbily debatable but you're probably right to leave it at that. Prior to the release of Deathly Hallows I would have obviously agreed with you but on the inside cover of my copy, the publishers have decided to confuse matters by expanding her pseudonym. AulaTPN 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Rowling she has no middle name, she adopted the middle name Kathleen after her grandmother to give her JK Rowling in response to her publishers who believed that it sounded like a male author and would appeal more to the target market of boys. I will have to find a source for this however.CalWalker 10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education

The article reads, "Rowling read for a BA in French and Classics at the University of Exeter." The biography on her official website reads, "I left school in 1983 and went to study at the University of Exeter, on the south coast of England. I studied French, which was a mistake; I had succumbed to parental pressure to study 'useful' modern languages as opposed to 'but-where-will-it-lead?' English and really should have stood my ground. On the plus side, studying French meant that I had a year living in Paris as part of my course. After leaving university I worked in London."

So, she read for a degree, and then she left university. But neither source states definitively whether she, in fact, completed the course of study. Did she graduate with her BA? Poldy Bloom 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mitford's Communism

What relevance is there in writing "Rowling's heroine, one-time Communist Jessica Mitford"? Rowling doesn't appear to be a Communist, nor does she claim to be one. Nor do I see any reference to Mitford's Communism being the reason that Rowling looked up to her. I'm not sure how it fits in the article, and it looks like a clumsy attempt to smear Rowling. 64.131.230.21 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given up trying to debate Libertycookies on this issue. If someone else wants to take up the slack, they're welcome. Serendipodous 10:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It is relevent because she is Rowling's self described heroine. Mitford was a Communist at one time and never was ashamed of it. It in fact defines much of her and her beliefs. However, if anyone else can give a brief summary of Jessica Mitford in a few words please propose below...we could lose the "one-time", but then you miss the fact that Mitford left the Communist Party USA. Radical socialist muckraker, maybe? Mitford shouldn't be whitewashed just because of editor prejudices against political philosophies. Libertycookies 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Lib, This article isn't about Jessica Mitford, it's about JK Rowling. The issue here isn't whether Mitford should be "whitewashed"; the issue is whether, and in what way, Mitford has affected Rowling or her literary output. Rowling herslef has given a number of very detailed explanations of precisely the kind of influence Mitford has had on her (see Harry Potter influences and analogues#Jessica Mitford), without once claiming that she inspired her to become a Communist or an anarchist. JK Rowling is not a Communist. If she were, she would be living in a co-op and not an $8 million town house. JK Rowling is not an anarchist. If she were, she wouldn't be best friends with the Prime Minister of her country. Deathly Hallows is out, and it is loaded with very un-Communistic religious allegory. On a side note, I have to ask, do you have any other purpose, any other calling, in editing Wikipedia apart from trying to make an idological link -any ideological link- between JK Rowling and Jessica Mitford? Anything at all? Because you don't seem to do anything else. I edit Harry Potter articles, but I also edit articles on the Solar System, on Tudor history, and Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. I can't imagine your level of obsession is psychologically healthy.It's been a week now, and your fears of the book being a mind-bomb have yet to materialise. Don't you think it's time you let this go? Serendipodous 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"Leftists influences" I can accept, but "one time communist" is pushing it. Removed the latter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, you don't even have to read Mitford's autobiography to pick up that she was a Communist, just open your eyes. But if you want to whitewash who she is, how can I possibly stop an Admin?Libertycookies 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

90pix|thumb|Labor lawyer husband, Bob Treuhaft, and Jessica Mitford.

Hey Seren, where do you get the idea that Rowling must be a communist simply because she admires one? RE: her friendship with GB proving that she isn't a Communist, you are aware that Gordon Brown edited the Red Paper on Scotland in his younger days, right?[4] Her association with him hardly proves she is anti-communist. On a personal note, your own behavior crosses WP:OWN with your claims and protection of articles and your prejudice of Leftist political philosophy.

I said that her friendship with the prime minister proves she isn't an anarchist, not a Communist. Even Communists believe in political heirarchy. Anarchists don't. Serendipodous 05:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Only if you take a very narrow definition of Anarchism is that true. Anarcho-syndicalism supports a labor friendly government and is class-conscious, advocating solidarity and direct action, not unlike a certain British writer. Even anarchists like Fawkes only wanted to overthrow a repressive government to allow a new one to take root. The Russian revolution and Spanish Civil War had many instances of Anarchists collaborating with Communists. And btw, it is only your POV that she is friends with GB because she supports the status quo....or is it because he is a departure from Tony Blair and the status quo of the last 10 years? Libertycookies 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Rowling means to redistribute her wealth (other than voluntarily to orgs that she approves of) or anyone elses, but her books clearly advocate questioning authority and revolting when necessary. Or did you get a different edition of Deathly Hallows that endorses conservative values and the status quo? Libertycookies 20:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I take exception with equating questioning authority with Communism. You could say one of democracy's central tenets is questioning authority and revolting when necessary. That's why we have elections periodically, and both the US and France had pretty bloody revolutions in trying to become democracies. In the UK, the Magna Carta was pretty revolutionary, but it is definitely not a sign of communism either. I don't think it matters one way or the other if Mitford was a Communist. She's now listed as an influence on JKR, and anyone who doesn't know about her can click the link and make their own inferences. Karanacs 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Not the point I was trying to make, but I agree democracy should question authority. The US was founded by a bunch of rebels. A book about one of the radicals that helped fan the flames of democracy, Citizen Tom Paine was a gift from Dobby to Jessica Mitford in A Fine old Conflict. Rowling and Mitford are certainly both radicals. Libertycookies 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Mitford was a radical, yes. I don't think we can say that Rowling is a radical from the information available. The character Harry Potter might be a radical, but that doesn't mean Rowling is (some of Stephen King's characters are psychopaths, but that doesn't mean he is one or that he advocates brutal murders).Karanacs 13:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
We certainly could call her a radical, or at least a radical thinker...what's wrong with that? It's the unopposed status quo that is responsible for anarchy in Iraq and a perpetual war on terror, not the radicals, anarchists, and commies...the Left is so out of power that it's hard to blame them for anything. Here's a Rowling quote on being radical:Libertycookies 18:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"At first Exeter [University] was a bit of a shock. I was expecting to be amongst lots of similar people-- thinking radical thoughts. But it wasn't like that. However, once I'd made friends with some like-minded people I began to enjoy myself." JK Rowling, pg 34 Conversations with JK Rowling Scholastic.

[edit] Citations for the development of the Harry Potter books

I'm not quite sure where to add this and how so if anyone can, please do. I've also posted this in the talk pages of Harry Potter and the seventh book. Berserkerz Crit 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caravaggio

Her favorite artist is Caravaggio, but other than the generally Christian motifs of his work this is possibly too trivial to mention in the article? [5] Libertycookies 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Relief donations

According to this, her two charity books have raised £15.7 million ($30 million US) for Comic Relief and she has personally given £22 million. That adds up to £37.7 million (about $75 million US). Comic Relief's webpage says that they have raised £67 million so far. If the figures here are true, she has generated more than half of their total earnings ever. I don't doubt that she's charitable, but that doesn't sound realistic. Ninquerinquar 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recurring Themes

In response to someone's suggestion yesterday, I've created a new talk page template for highlighting recurring themes and added it to the top of this page. Any thoughts? AulaTPN 09:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Aula, you've summarized the themes pretty well. Now the only question is how to force people to read it (see below). Karanacs 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It only counts as a family if you're rich...?

Why is "Family Life" only talking about when she's rich? Shouldn't that have mention of all the stuff that happened before? (I bring it up because it makes it awkward to find, at a glance, what age her oldest child is) Darien Shields 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage

"This was a second marriage for both Rowling and Murray, as Murray had previously been married to Dr. Fiona Duncan in 1996. They separated in 1999 and divorced in the summer of 2001." The wording here is a little iffy -- at first glance, if you don't look too closely at the numbers, it sounds like Rowling and Murray were divorced as well. Fix?--Yubishines 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC) WOW that was alot!