Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Is this article FA worthy?

If not, what needs to be done? Serendipodous 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

get a Peer review LizzieHarrison 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lead needs to be expanded

Any thoughts on how to do it? Serendipodous 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see this article to reach FA standards, it certainly has the potential. The lead is looking good now, but as a suggestion, we could also add when she first thought of the Harry Potter series, when she started to actually write it (I think it was the same day she came up with the idea), and ultimately when the first book was published. To get this article to a higher standard the citations need to be cleaned up a little; mainly by having one uniform way of retrieval dates in the citations. So far, some of them are 2007-09-05, whilst the others are formed like 5 October 2007. Personally I prefer the later. Since I first got involved with this article I have done quite a bit of tidying to the citations but I'm just so busy now. Hope this helps a little, happy editing. Eagle Owl 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've now tidied the citations and I must say I was left rather cross-eyed! At least it's done now. Eagle Owl 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Place is Wrong!

I have Conversations with J.K. Rowling, by Lindsey Fraser. Wikipedia has the wrong place. It is Chipping Sodbury near Bristol, or just Chipping Sodbury. Rubyandme(not logged in, sorry)

Her birth certificate says she was born in Yate. It's not really an issue. The two towns are right next to each other. It's like saying you were born in New York when in fact you were born in Scarsdale. Serendipodous 13:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
These two places may be very close to one-another, but they are still not the same. Identity in the UK can be very important for the British, more so than "new" countries. Darkieboy236 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

look guys, JK Rowling was born in chipping sodbury- i have Conversations with J.K. Rowling as well, but still, seriously? it says it online EVERYWHERE- even mail her a question if you need to. just send it to her scholastic publishers or something. Zyla rose 19:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The only way to solve this would be to get ahold of Rowling's birth certificate. It would be fairly easy to do, just expensive. If anyone wants to do it, they're welcome. Serendipodous 19:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
She was born in Yate. Says so on her website RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Lawsuit

According to this article, Rowling is sueing the ourganizers of a religious indian event ecause they built a replica of Hogwarts. Should that be included in the article? http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071011/ten-entertainment-india-literature-potte-1dc2b55_1.html

Looneyman 19:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article on Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series.Serendipodous 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rowling talks about her religion and its presence in the books

I already posted this at Talk:Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, but this report should help in regards to Rowling's personal religion and how it's reflected in the books. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influences in infobox

Most other author infoboxes on Wikipedia do not separate each name in the "influences" list with a line break. Doing so here seems like a waste of space. Also, is there a reason the authors are not in alphabetical order? I know Rowling has cited Austen as an influence more frequently than the other listed authors, but quantifying influences is so hard (did Nesbit really influence her more than Tolkien? And less than Lewis?) that I think alphabetizing is the way to go here, to avoid vagueness. Hobbesy3 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Edited the infobox. Also took out Tolkien. Yes it's likely Rowling, like every other modern fantasy writer, lifted a bit from Tolkien but she's never openly credited him as an influence, so adding him is a bit disingenuous. Sheesh. Should have noticed that before, but I never pay attention to infoboxes. I don't see the point of them. If you're not willing to get information by reading an article, what's the point of having an article to begin with? Serendipodous 07:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New series

I originally removed this statement that was added yesterday: In November 2007, Rowling said she was working on "a half-finished book for children that I think will probably be the next thing I publish.", but I mistook this for The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Judging from this source ("Rowling completes first post-Potter book", Associated Press/MSNBC, 1 November 2007. Accessed 1 November 2007.), it is not referring to The Tales, but can someone else please confirm this. Eagle Owl 12:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny; the quote doesn't even appear to have been transcribed by Accio Quote yet. Still, it seems from the context of the article, which is the only place it appears to date, that this is a separate book. I do seem to remember her speaking on Radio 4 about that as well. Serendipodous 14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

jk rowling is quite the auhor..yetr i have not heard any new info n her writing a new book..so umm yeah...if she id\s writing a new book..plezz let me know..user talk:white owl788

Well, I heard she was working on a detective novel, but isn't remotely close yet. I also heard Beedle was scrapped, but due to certain circumstances, I didn't get to see why on the news. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the "detective novel" was a joke by Ian Rankin. Serendipodous 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit I found this in list of fictional books from harry potter: Rowling recently completed a book also entitled "The Tales of Beedle the Bard", featuring the four stories listed above and "The Warlock's Hairy Heart". She wrote this as her "farewell" to the book series.[2] Only seven copies of the book are being printed, and all of which were hand written and illustrated by Rowling. One copy of the book will be auctioned by Sotheby's in December 2007 to raise money for The Children's Voice, a charity that helps vulnerable children across Europe. The other copies of the book have been given away as gifts. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That's in the article, under "philanthropy" Serendipodous 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not British but...

Ok, i'm not even remotely British, English, nor do I even live in Europe, but is she technicaly Dame Joanne Rowling because she is now a member of The Order of The British Empire? I'm not sure, and it does seem like someone would have caught that, but I would like some clarification please. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You only get "Dame" if you get a DBE. She only has an OBE. Serendipodous 08:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks very much for that. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is she really called Murray?

I know she remarried, but I have never seen her referred to as Joanne Murray. Do we have any evidence she took her husband's name? I may have missed something in one of the references... Rachel Pearce 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

She uses her maiden name professionally, but her married name privately. The citation in the "Name" section refers to her seeking a lawsuit under her married name. Also, she frequently arranges private functions and conducts private business under her married name, as reported in an article in the Tatler. This is done, no doubt, to keep her personal and professional lives separate.Serendipodous 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Rowling's religious views

Were you raised religiously?

"I was officially raised in the Church of England, but I was actually more of a freak in my family. We didn't talk about religion in our home. My father didn't believe in anything, neither did my sister. My mother would incidentally visit the church, but mostly during Christmas. And I was immensely curious. From when I was 13, 14 I went to church alone. I found it very interesting what was being said there, and I believed in it.When I went to university, I became more critical. I got more annoyed with the smugness of religious people and I went to church less and less. Now I'm at the point where I started: yes, I believe. And yes, I go to the church. A protestant church here in Edinburgh. My husband is also raised protestant, but he comes from a very strict Scottish group. One where they couldn't sing and talk." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/19/new-interview-with-j-k-rowling-for-release-of-dutch-edition-of-deathly-hallows Maybe a slight reword for the article? Libertycookies (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be better placed in Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Serendipodous 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've removed the Honours section

It's basically a trivia section, and the list of ever more esoteric honours (Jim Henson?) was becoming ever less relevant. Besides, I don't see how we could ever make it comprehensive. Surely we aren't expected to list EVERY SINGLE kudos Rowling has received from absolutely EVERYONE? Serendipodous 17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking dates

I thought I'd better make a note here before I do any radical revert. An edit made by User:TinyMark back on December 1, removed all linking of dates throughout the entire article, citations and all. I'm just a little concerned as I'm sure I've read somewhere that all full dates must be linked, and if so, this un-linking may affect the featured article chances. The article can easily be reverted to the edition on December 1 as not much has changed (the edits since can easily be added again by myself if I revert). What does everyone else think? Eagle Owl 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know the answer to this. Might be a good idea to raise it on the FAC page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! As you can imaguine it was quite a lot of work to do that edit. I don't seee why that date someone accessed a referenced article is a reason for a link. If you click on the day or year link you will get no information pertaining to this article. So what's the point??? There doesn't seem to be specific guideline for this, but IMHO it seems like overlinking to me. TINYMark (Talk) 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You are supposed to link dates in order to let the user preferences show the dates in the user's specified style. See the MOS and the detailed info. The date linkage should be put back. Karanacs 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

My edit changing nationality from English back to British has been reverted, quoting "wiki-consensus". Can you provide a link to this consensus? I still feel it reads oddly in its current version. Rachel Pearce (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the last time it was discussed in detail on this page: Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_07#Scottish.3F, and consensus then was to stick with English. Karanacs (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, though I haven't time at this moment to trawl through the Village Pump to find the consensus statement. But I still feel it is like describing Americans first as "Californian" (or whatever) or Australians as "Victorians" (or whatever) (like the Monty Python skit about "Eminent Victorians"). I would expect their nationality on the lede and details of their heritage, birthplace etc. later on in the article. Just my tuppence/2 cents worth. Rachel Pearce (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw that discussion, but it is not consensus for English over British. It's consensus that it shouldn't say Scottish. There is no such thing as an English passport, her nationality is British. The lead should match the infobox in my opinion, which says British. V-train (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Plus the only thing I have found in the Manual of Style (Biographies - Opening paragraph) says:
Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)
Well she is a British citizen and a British national. Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all very simple: English is her ethnicity, British is her nationality. On Wikipedia, we use a subject's nationality. Therefore, Rowling is a British author. faithless (speak) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But English isn't an ethnicity. I'm actually in favour of saying British here, since I think it gives a more accurate impression than the more narrow English and is more accessible to non-British readers, but don't base this on English being an ethnicity! English is a sort-of nationality. Skittle (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but English is an ethnicity. See English people for more information. Cheers, faithless (speak) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw the article. It doesn't suggest that English is an actual ethnicity, although at one point it could usefully describe people of Angle/Jute/Saxon ancestory. It is actually rather coy about the whole thing, because experience of England and history show what an odd idea English as current ethnicity is. I have never heard anyone who used 'English' to describe themselves intend it as an ethnicity. Skittle (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Also note that the very first sentence of the article says that the English are 'a nation and an ethnic group', so even if you are taking the 'ethnic group' meaning as being currently useful and actually what people occasionally mean, it is by no means the only meaning people use it for. If the English are a nation, as the article says, then her nationality is English as well as British. Again, I am in favour of using 'British' here, but I don't want the reasoning based on misunderstanding. Skittle (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that the only meaning of the word English was for the ethnic group; there are several and at one point it was indeed also a nationality. But the English are an ethnic group, the same as French, German, Irish, Japanese, Arab, Chinese, Hawaiians, aboriginal Australians and the list goes on. An ethnic groupis a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. The most relevant meaning of "English" for our purposes here is the ethnic group definition; had she been born a few hundred years earlier, her nationality and ethnicity would both be English. While her nationality has changed (since the country of England no longer exists), her ethnicity hasn't changed. faithless (speak) 03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
But that's the thing; her nationality is both English and British. Someone can have Jamaican parents and be English. I'm English, but if you're going to go back even as far as my grandparents I couldn't be said to ethnically belong to one group if English is an ethnicity seperate from the other 'groups' in the British Isles. I'm not even 'mostly' English if you take it as an ethnicity. And yet, nobody would deny that I am English. English is currently a nationality (or nationality-like-thing) in that there is an English nation. That this nation does not have self-governance is neither here nor there. It's a bit like the states in America; you surely wouldn't claim that 'Texan' is an ethnicity? And yet it is a very real way of describing people, and it also probably wouldn't be used to describe someone's nationality in the lede of their encyclopedia article. Does that help? Skittle (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course Texan isn't an ethnicity. The US and UK are kind of similar in this respect: Someone can be English (part of the English ethnic group), English in that they live in England and British in that the UK is the country where they live. If such a person has a Wikipedia article, we will only describe them as British (I believe we agree on this point). The vast majority of Americans are part of a European ethnic group (German, Irish and English being the most common), be a Californian because that is where they live and be an American because they live in the US. That person would only be described as an American. I agree with you that you can be English without being ethnically English, but that isn't relevant here. I hope that makes sense. faithless (speak) 04:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
But describing anyone as ethnically English makes as much sense as describing someone as ethnically American or ethnically Texan. This is relevant here because saying J. K. Rowling is an English author is not commenting on her ethnicity, which some people have used as reasoning for not saying she is an English author in the lede. Also, because "English is her ethnicity, British is her nationality" is simply inaccurate and suggests a rather different relationship between English and British than exists. When an English person writes that J. K. Rowling is an English author, they are not trying to comment on her ethnicity. If we use poor reasoning in this decision, people who want to write that she is an English author (rather than British) will use that as support, because as far as they will be able to see the decision will be based on a misunderstanding. To make matters worse, denying the nationality status of 'English' is exactly what a lot of the people who insert 'English' into these articles fear the editors who revert them are doing. Skittle (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course English is an ethnicity. What criteria do you judge ethnicity on? No England-born British national of Indian descent ever calls him/herself English. What makes being English any different (or more special) than being Walloon, Basque or Tuscan? Serendipodous 04:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)(editconflict) But that just isn't accurate. "American" or "Texan" can never be an ethnicity, because there are no such ethnic groups as American or Texan. Conversely, the English people are an ethnic group. Yes, the words "English" and "nationality" can have different meanings, but in the context we're discussing, nationality means citizenship. Therefore, someone from the UK is always referred to as British, regardless of whether they are from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. For our purposes, the idea of an "English nationality" does not exist, as that country no longer exists. So if someone refers to a person as English, the only conceivable way that that could be correct at all is if they are referring to the person's ethnicity. Take the state of Vermont, for instance (since it is comparable to England): it was formerly an independent country (for a short time between independence from Great Britain and joining the Union), so if you lived there at that time you would have been a Vermonter. A WP article on a Vermonter from that time could refer to them as such. Today, even though there are still Vermonters, they are all primarily American, so that's all we care about. Likewise, while there are indeed still non-ethnically English English people (that was tough to type :-)), they are first and foremost British, since they are UK citizens. In my experience, most of the people who go around changing "British" to "English" or "Scottish" or whatever are motivated by a nationalistic, ethnocentric pride rather than making an honest mistake, and this is why I make it a point to tell those people that we go by nationality rather than ethnicity. I think we're getting closer to understanding where the other is coming from. Well at least I think I see what you're saying, and understand where the confusion was coming from. Hopefully I've expressed myself eloquently enough that you understand where I'm coming from, too. It seems silly that we're arguing over something we agree on. :-) Cheers, faithless (speak) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's peculiar, this strange mixup. It only appears to affect the British. For some reason the ethnic groups in Britain feel they are superior to all others in Europe's multitude of patchwork countries, and deserving of special treatment. You don't see French Bretons, Belgian Flemings, or even the Spanish Catalans make these kinds of complaints. Serendipodous 05:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the article you linked to?
In an article for The Guardian, novelist Andrea Levy (born in London to Jamaican parents) calls England a separate country "without any doubt" and asserts that she is "English. Born and bred, as the saying goes. (As far as I can remember, it is born and bred and not born-and-bred-with-a-very-long-line-of-white-ancestors-directly-descended-from-Anglo-Saxons.)" Arguing that "England has never been an exclusive club, but rather a hybrid nation", she writes that "Englishness must never be allowed to attach itself to ethnicity. The majority of English people are white, but some are not ... Let England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland be nations that are plural and inclusive."
"So if someone refers to a person as English, the only conceivable way that that could be correct at all is if they are referring to the person's ethnicity." Then absolutely every single English person I have ever heard use the word to refer to a person cannot be conceivably correct. Nice. In my experience, most of the people who go around changing "British" to "English" or "Scottish" are motivated by nationalistic pride, but would be utterly baffled at the suggestion that ethnicity came into it anywhere. If you started talking about ethnic origins with the average English person who fits the criteria for what I think you are thinking of as 'ethnically English', you might get the phrase 'typically English, you know a bit of everything', you might get people talking about celts and vikings and normans and angles and saxons, you might even get words like 'cornishman' or 'yorkshireman' thrown in, but you wouldn't get people describing their ethnicity as 'English'. The 'ethnic groups in Britain' aren't asking for special treatment, they're baffled that anyone would think they're anything other than mongrels with no clear dividing lines. Skittle (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Your last point is irrelevant. Ethnicity is a phony construct; it has no actual basis in racial or cultural reality. Only nationality has any legal bearing on who you are. Everything else is just what myths you choose to believe. The English are asking for recognition as a group over and above their current legal status. If the English wish to be seen as a nation, why isn't England a separate country? If the English feel they have the right to national recognition, why don't they declare independence like every other nation that has ever felt that way? Serendipodous 13:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Devolution, West Lothian question, Constituent_countries. Britain has always been a bit weird in that the individual constituents were sort-of countries at the same time as the whole was a country. This is how it was taught in schools and was written in the textbooks and discussed by the government. Now, with increasing devolution, the individual constituents will have greater autonomy. Anyway, the point of all this is that the people inserting English are not trying to say anything about ethnicity, and claiming that they are while not understanding the complex feelings and meanings around the word 'English' will lead to no good. Skittle (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I live in the UK. I understand these complexities perfectly well. I just don't understand why they take precedence over the equally if not more complex relationships found in every other country in Europe, be it the Catalans, Gallegos and Basques in Spain, the Bretons and Corsicans in France, the Flemings and Walloons in Belgium, or any one of the dozen or so little countries that make up Italy. Wikipedia calls Justine Henin and Jean-Claude van Damme Belgian, not Flemish or Walloon. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is Spanish, not Castillian. Why should the English be treated any differently? Serendipodous 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying they should be treated differently, I'm saying the word English is not used by the people who use it in that context to imply anything about ethnicity. Indeed Wikipedia should call J. K. Rowling "British", I have never said otherwise, but this decision should not be justified through claiming that saying "English" is commenting on her ethnicity. The reasons given should be accurate and clear, so that those who want to insert "English" will understand the reasoning behind them and not assume that this decision was made based on people attributing motives to them that they do not have. Skittle (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Update: I just checked on the Wiki page for Kinky Friedman, and he's American, not Texan, so however you define English, JK Rowling should be called British. Those who wish to change Rowling's nationality should be aware that the word "English" whether it is meant to or not, has strong ethnic overtones (many dark skinned ethnic minorities in England do not call themselves English, but British for this reason) so it is best to stay away from the confusion. And in any case, England is not an internationally recognised country so we cannot speak of "English nationality" any more than we can speak of "Texan nationality." Can we agree there? Serendipodous 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Her nationality is certainly British (it's on her passport). However it's both common usage, and more accurate, to refer to English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish people by their country of birth. The statement that she's English also reveals her nationality (British) but is not simply a statement of her nationality. The cultures and histories of the four countries that make up the Union, though intertwined, are quite distinct.
The Kinky Friedman article is a different matter (Texas is not part of the UK) . Let's not get drawn into an argument about whether Texans should be described as Texans. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Such is true of many countries in Europe, such as Belgium (which is a composite of two countries, Flanders and Wallonia), Germany, which is a composite of several countries, including Prussia, Bohemia and Bavaria) and Italy (which includes Tuscany, Genoa, Venice and Sicily, all of which were countries until the 19th century and some (San Marino and the Vatican) are still countries now. But Wikipedia still uses the terms "Belgian," "German" and "Italian" to describe people from these regions. Why should the UK be granted special dispensation? It's constituent parts have actually been unified under one government for longer than most other countries in Europe! Serendipodous 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe it's at all true that "Wikipedia" uses only official national terms to describe the subjects of its articles. We have articles describing their subjects as Catalans, Walloons, Sicilian, etc. Even Texans and Californians! When we write biographies in particular we should not bend common usage simply to comply with some misguided concept of consistency. --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Not in the lead. The lead should be kept national. There is enough information in the article outside the lead to clarify her national/ethnic makeup. After the lead, the article then goes on to describe her as having been born in England and now splitting her time between England and Scotland. I don't think this is misguided; in fact, I see it as vital to avoid the kinds of mixups we see here, where words like "English" can mean very different things depending on whether one defines them as geographical, political or ethnic terms. Serendipodous 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
In my description of our other articles above, I am specifically referring to descriptions of the subjects in the lead. There is no reason to omit significant information from the lead, and the distinction between the four nations of the United Kingdom is a very significant one in most cases.
If there is any kind of mixup here, I'm afraid it's not evident to me. Rowling is a well known English author. If she were Welsh, we'd describe her as a well known Welsh author. Both imply British nationality. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The mixup as to whether "English" can apply to anyone, regardless of their ancestry, who lives in England (such as British Indians or Africans) or only to those of English ancestry. The issue I think is whether the person's ethnicity had a bearing on his or her work. In the case of say, Dylan Thomas, it does, since his Weshness was very much a part of his character and writing. In the case of JK Rowling, it doesn't; Rowling doesn't even live in England much anymore. If she was asked, I think she'd describe herself as Scottish these days. Serendipodous 17:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The only mixup appears to be in your understanding of the status of the four nations of the Union. You don't become English by virtue of emigrating to England, any more than you become Scottish by emigrating to Scotland. If and when you have found JK Rowling describe herself as Scottish, then we'll talk about it, but the claim is absurd on the face of it. She is not Scottish. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Not mine. I was simply reporting the argument as it had gone before. You obviously consider English an ethnicity, as indeed I do. Other people on this thread do not. Ergo, a mixup. I would prefer there to be no mixup, so I think it's best to just leave it at "British" and avoid these endless and rather insulting discussions. (I don't think it's anyone's prerogative to decide what groups anyone can or cannot belong to). Serendipodous 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
1)While Tony may well consider English to be an ethnicity, this is not necessary for the statement "You don't become English by virtue of emigrating to England". 2)I completely agree that it's nobody's perogative to decide what groups other people can or cannot belong to in these sort of cases. This was actually a large part of what I was saying. Overall, can we agree that the article should call her British in the lede for the simple reason that this most usefully relates to her work, which is more encompassingly British than English? Can we not use any argument where we define 'English' as being about ethnicity, since that is likely to be contested? And can we leave it at that? Skittle (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how else you could possibly interpret that sentence, unless you have a wildly different definition of ethnicity than I do. Anyway, yes, I agree. Rowling's work is decidedly British in flavour, embracing all ethnic groups equally. It goes against the spirit of her work to label her as English. Serendipodous 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As to how I can interpret the sentence differently, it is also how I was meaning absolutely nothing about ethnicity when I said her work was more encompassingly British than English. It is cultural. You don't become English by moving to Britain, but you can be English with non-English parents. See, for example, the person I quoted earlier with Jamaican parents who considers herself English. If you can't get your head around this, I imagine you're going to be reading all sorts of horrific things into people saying pretty reasonable things. A parallel: is the movement for Scottish devolution based on ethnic lines? In no way does it go against the spirit of her work to label her as English (wtf?), but it doesn't give useful information about the work. Skittle (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You're assuming I believe that ethnicity has anything whatsoever to do with racial makeup, which I do not. Ethnicity has to do with the culture you inherit and the mythos and folk history you chose to accept. The problem I have with defining ethnicity one way or the other is that it is a very fluid concept; Rowling could quite easily be described as ethnically English, but her daughter is half-Portuguese and her younger son and daughter are both half-Scottish. Katie Leung is ethnically almost entirely Scottish, despite being of Asian descent. That's why I feel it's unfair to claim one cannot adopt ethnicity. Of course one can. People do it all the time. Just look at America. Rowling may be ethnically English, but if she decided to adopt the dress, manner, accent and beliefs of a Scot, then by any definition she would be a Scot. In short, ethnicity is such a fluid concept and based on such ephemeral ideas that it seems more logical to me to stick to the rock of nationality. That, whatever your ethnicity, cannot be changed. Serendipodous 04:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is what you meant, and you are using 'ethnicity' to mean 'culture', why on Earth did you say "No England-born British national of Indian descent ever calls him/herself English."? (For I start, I know that isn't true since I know an English-born British national of Indian descent who calls himself English. And he is.) I would also venture that nationality can be changed much more easily than culture, but anyway... I would suggest that if you are going to use the word 'ethnicity' to indicate purely cultural identity, rather than culturally determined racial identity, you define it before using it. Personally, I avoid the word entirely as much as I can as I find it divisive and unhelpful.
J. K. Rowling is English. That is not ephemeral, but it is unhelpful to someone reading the lede who doesn't know who she is. Skittle (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how ethnicity can have anything to do with race, especially in this case, unless we are going to wander back into the eighteenth century and say that the Scots and the English are racially different. Most South Asian/African etc Britons prefer to call themselves British because, ethnically, they still identify strongly with their countries of origin, not to mention the fact that most native born English, particularly those of a Daily Mail persuasion, would never consider them English. Serendipodous 14:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. Of course the English and the Scottish aren't racially different (as I've said, when trying to explain why it's not talking about her ethnicity to call her English), which is why I objected to the term 'ethnicity' to describe what English and Scottish are. You can claim that the word ethnicity has nothing to do with racial ideas, but a) that's not how it gets used generally b) that doesn't fit with how you used it. Finally, you just give one huge smear against all native-born English people on the basis of nothing. Plus, what exactly does 'native-born' mean? Third generation? You say Britons prefer to call themselves British, but a lot of Britons prefer to call themselves Scottish, Welsh, English or Northern Irish. This is not necessarily instead of British, since they are all British citizens. You really are saying some very silly things and I'm not sure why. 79.66.126.95 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you misread the full stop at the end of "etc." as the end of the sentence. I removed it. Read it again. I thought I was pretty clear that I defined ethnicity along purely cultural lines, and did not include race in my definition. YOU were the one who suggested that ethnicity had to have a racial dimension. My point had nothing to do with race, I could have made the same point equally of Irish or Scandinavian people.
Look, before my point gets lost amid the mudslinging, I'd like to state it clearly. Your ethnicity is what you call yourself; it has nothing to do with ancestry, birthplace or skin colour. It is an artificial construct identity that people assume to attach themselves to wider groups. I don't know what ethnicity Rowling considers herself, and I don't care. But whatever it is, it is her choice, and I don't think it is our job to make that choice for her. If she comes out and says what her ethnicity is, that's fine. Otherwise, leave it at nationality. Serendipodous 01:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. The time is gone, the post is over, thought I'h'd something more to say. 24.149.202.97 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English Christians cat?

Rather than risk starting a revert war, I figured I would discuss it here. An editor has added JKR to the "English Christians" category. Unless I'm mistaken, such categories are typically reserved for those whose religion is relevant to their notability (Christian musicians, televangelists, religious figures such as bishops, etc.). Am I incorrect here? Cheers, faithless (speak) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows does contain some Christian material, but I wouldn't describe Rowling as a Christian writer, so maybe the category isn't all that relevant. Serendipodous 23:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right, and the Christian novelists category should be removed too. V-train (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. :) I've removed them. faithless (speak) 00:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage

If I'm reading it right your saying she was married 3 times but when you mention her 3rd husban you say it was their secound marriage? Explain.150.192.26.196 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see that? The article says it was the second marriage for both of them. Earlier in the article, it talks about her first marriage. V-train (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Time Magazine POTY citation to end of lead paragraph...

Looking at the whole paragraph, I can't help but think that the sentence could read better. Anyone have any ideas? Edit Centric (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, change voice from passive to active. Serendipodous 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Added a bit more on the content on the article. Libertycookies (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Submitting the following for consensus to note why she was nominated for person of the year but fell behind non-children book writers like Vladimir Putin and Al Gore. Libertycookies (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine named Rowling as a runner up for their 2007 Person of the Year noting the social, moral, and political themes in her books and her inspired fandom.

If this new information is going to be included in the lead, then new sections of the article will have to be created. The line on literacy already has no corresponding section in the text, so that could probably be expanded into a new section. Serendipodous 22:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Rightly so. We should probably note her advocacy for tolerance, anti-censorship, and a few other causes as well. She gives more than money to those orgs... Libertycookies (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Be very careful here Lib; Politics of Harry Potter is a discussion of what other people assume are JK Rowling's politics. Such things do not belong in a biographical article. If you can find information that she gives money and actively supports such organisations, then that can go in, but simply saying "Person X says Rowling believes/is Y" is not valid for a biography of a living person. Works well in your article, not here. Serendipodous 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, we should limit it to direct quotes from her or links direct from her website. IE: Since she links to Amnesty International and once worked there, then she must support it. Or if she says she was influenced by a certain book or writer, then you should include that. Libertycookies (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a direct quote that you could reword, and many others at Politics of Harry PotterLibertycookies (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC) On her October 2007 book tour, Rowling said, "The Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry, and I think it's one of the reasons some people don't like the books."[1]

[edit] Lead

Rowling has parlayed Harry Potter into a global brand worth an estimated $15 billion (£7 billion).[9]

I'm not sure about the wording of this one. Warner Brothers and Scholastic have done most of the branding work, and Rowling has said her success has been a surprise (ie, not planned). She's also turned down money makers like the "Moaning Myrtle Training Toilet". Maybe reword or move to 'Harry Potter' article? Libertycookies (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt her success has taken her by surprise. It would take anyone by surprise to become the richest author in history in less than a decade. But I also think it's possible to overplay the "damsel in the tower" theme in her folk biography. She's not some fairytale princess whisked off her feet by her imagination into fame and fortune. At the very least she's an astute businesswoman who has evolved what could have been a flash in the pan fad into a brand to rival anything by Disney. She could have left it all to Warner and her publishers, but she didn't and she doesn't. She has ultimate say on what can and cannot be done in her name. Serendipodous 21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, she sold many of her rights (and been well paid). She has regretted the renaming of her first book in the U.S. and had no say in that. And at one point she objected to a theme park, but seems out voted by WB. Just looking for a mild word-smithing of the sentence to give others credit. She may be a smart business woman, but she didn't make Harry Potter worth $15B without a lot of help. She just writes books, others sell and market them. Libertycookies (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How about just saying:

Harry Potter is now a global brand worth an estimated $15 billion (£7 billion).[9]

Thanks Seren. I moved the sentence to the third paragraph which seems to be HP focused, and added the bit on Time POTY. I think it flows into the 2nd para about her philanthropy and the links to politics and fandom should eliminate any need for more copy on either subject in this article. Its a good faith edit, hoping its acceptable. Libertycookies (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)