Talk:J.K. Rowling/Archive 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Good Article Status 2 Fair use images 3 The other image 4 Rant on hallowness of this article. 5 List/contents of works 6 Rowing or rolling 7 Accusing Rowling of copyright infringement without evidence is libel 8 Unreplaceable FU image 9 Dr. JK Rowling 10 CHILDHOOD from steeley 11 Name 12 Ebay Lawsuit Sources 13 Rowlings Current Family section 14 Middle Name 15 Religious beliefs 16 Format 17 Flag is wrong 18 I removed the "Religious beliefs" section 19 JK not J.K. 20 Her Donation 21 Should her full name be "Rowling Murray"? 22 Suggestions 23 JKR's political views 23.1 Current Article: "Politics" 23.2 Draft #1 - Rowling's political views 23.3 Influences 23.3.1 Comments 23.4 Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling 24 Politics again

Good Article Status

I've given this good article status though I am hesitant as there is no free photos (all fair use). Computerjoe's talk 11:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

Can we be a little more careful in using fair use? If you replace the existing photo, please list the original one for deletion. I've just had to hunt back through the history and tagged Image:Jk-rowling.jpg and Image:Rowling.jpg, unused fair use photos. Also, I find it a little ridiculous that we're even using fair use. Rowling is a highly prolific author - it shouldn't be hard to find a free photo of her. Hbdragon88 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, but I have no idea how to locate a public domain image of a living author; most, if not all, images of the author would fall under the copyright of the photographer, correct? And given how Wikipedia's entire Harry Potter domain seems ruled by screenshots from the movies, it seems a bit odd to go against fair use for this article. Serendipodous 14:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be public domain; it just has to be freely licensed. Someone here with a camera can go to a book signing or whatever and take a picture of her. But fair use is discouraged - the philisophy is to use it only when it's necessary. It is inevitable that we must use fair use movie screenshots for the movies, but for its author? - it should be relatively easy to find a freely licensed image of her. Hbdragon88 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a harsh image policy indeed that places fair use below stalking. Serendipodous 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. If Jimbo had his way, he'd probably have deleted the image by now. It would techincally violate criteria one of WP:FUC - FU is supposed to be used if a free imae can't be located. As a living person it shouldn't be hard to find an image. And stalking? Pfft. She's a celebrity and presumably goes out on book signings. It would be stalking if someone got an image while she was at her house or something. Anyway, Flickr turns out nothing, so I suppose that this image will stay for now. Hbdragon88 05:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically, we have a choice between using a picture without the photograper's consent, and taking a picture without Rowling's consent. Which is worse? Serendipodous 07:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Without the photographer's consent is breaking the law (copyrighted image). Without Rowling's consent is at least legal (in a public setting, mind, not in her backyard or anything). And who says it has to be done without permission? See Image:KatarinaWitt_1.jpg and Image:JakeGyllenhaal.jpg for pictures taken with the subject's permission. Hbdragon88 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this discussion because it seems a little absurd this is no photo of Rowling in the article. Since no free alternative can be found, fair use is acceptable here, I think. In that case I'd think something like this, meant for publicity (it's from a book cover), should qualify, no? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No Fair Use image is suitable as a Free image can be created, purely because JKR is a living person and it's neither impossible or difficult to create an image to release under a free licence. I've removed the latest image uploaded as it's one of them "from some website" jobs too. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All this bullshit about images is nonsense. Can't you do something more constructive than policing pages for questionable images. Just forget the rules, this helps nothing. John Reaves 05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagged the image with {{Replaceable fair use}}. Flickr still yields nothing, just idiotic pictures of people who think it's so cool to take a photograph of the books they hvae. 'Till next time. Hbdragon88 05:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is this: anyone who claims that a fair use image of JK Rowling is easily replaced should buy a ticket to Scotland, track JK Rowling down, and ask her permission for a free image to be used for Wikipedia. If such an undertaking is indeed as easy as they claim, then they are free to do so. As none of the officious pedants who have raised this issue seem bothered to follow up with anything requiring such effort, they aren't in a position to complain. Why should they expect anyone else do to something they themselves refuse to do? Serendipodous 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the statement that she makes "regular public appearances" is false; she in fact has only been seen in the recent past at Radio City in August 2006, where photography was not allowed inside the building, and prior to that in July 2005 for the release of HBP where she read an excerpt of the book for children starting at midnight. And, as we have said, no free images have been found. Just because she's living doesn't make her an easy subject to photograph. Besides, the pictures on the back of the books are meant for promotion and certainly, if the photos we've found recently don't work, the "About the Author" qualifies for FU. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Go find a Harry Potter forum or two, and post a request! Someone there will have a photo they took at a book-signing. Another idea - is it possible to find a list/forum of Scottish wikipedia users/admins? Maybe go post a request on the "Scotland" discussion page. CraigWyllie 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The other image

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

Rant on hallowness of this article.

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

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

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

List/contents of works

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

The fantasy world is described in great detail in the Harry Potter article. This is an article about Rowling, not about Harry Potter, and it focuses on her specifically. Serendipodous 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rowing or rolling

According to the The Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation[1], Rowling is pronounced as "rowing". But others said it should pronounced as "rolling". Which one is correct? 203.83.115.130 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's "Rowling like bowling." See [2]. In addition, when Rowling was at Radio City Music Hall this summer, she was introduced by Jon Stewart who said he joked with her backstage how he would say Rowling (like howling) and she said to go ahead, but that her entire fan base would yell out "Rolling." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusing Rowling of copyright infringement without evidence is libel

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

Unreplaceable FU image

We now have a source that confirms Rowling does not make regular public appearances. The article reads "But while Edinburgh residents may respect her privacy, book collectors are not so polite. It has become increasingly difficult for her to be anywhere in public." I would say we should upload another photo of her under FUC. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Well, thanks for your responses. I have found this image which I think is the best image I can find that is in fine quality, with a picture of her, with a licensing that I believe is owned by The Leaky Cauldron. I've sent them an email using some text from WP:ERFP and I hope they respond! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it doesn't matter, and it's probably not too good a source since it's six and a half years old, but The Times did once call her a "recluse"… Anyway, I'm still waiting for a response from Leaky. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. JK Rowling

She does have an honorary doctorate from the U of A, so should her name be changed to have a Dr. in front?

Instead of adding the "Dr." I've added "LL.D" after her name in the lead. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

CHILDHOOD from steeley

216.105.208.2 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Italic textwhen did jk write her first book? how old was she? what was the book called?

Rowling has only had eight books published (six in the HP series, two as supplements to the series). Thus her first book was Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, published in 1997 but written across seven years or so; she was 25 in 1990. For questions about content, you might want to try WP:RD next time. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Name

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

Ebay Lawsuit Sources

This edit deleted mention of a lawsuit filed by Rowling against Ebay for selling counterfeit books, saying simply please cite a source. While I think it is appropriate to delete unsourced and unverifiable comments, we need to also be careful to at least make an effort to check the facts and see if there are reliable sources first. There is a better way to request a citation, and that is to use the "citation needed" {{Fact}} template, so interested editors can have a chance to get the requested reliable source and post it. The deleting editor could also have assisted the anonymous/newbie editor, by doing a simple google or yahoo search for any news articles involving Rowling and Ebay. This is not a difficult task, and here are some sources: [3] and [4] and [5] and [6] and [7] and [8]. My point is, we the experienced editors need to moderate our actions and help the newbies, not bite them. If you need a source, ask for it. If no source can be found, then after a suitable time, then delete the claim. See Tagging unsourced material for more information and guidelines. Thanks. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rowlings Current Family section

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

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

Middle Name

The cover of Deathly Hallows was just released and the back flap[9][10] reads "J.K. (Joanne Kathleen) Rowling"... I think this needs to be brought back up for discussion. Shall we add Kathleen? I think we should... --Valley2city^₪‽ 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the (Joanne Kathleen) is saying what the J. K. stands for; we know that J.=Joanne and K.=Kathleen. It doesn't mean it's her name: in fact, she explicitly states her name is "Joanne Rowling." I think this is closed. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Religious beliefs

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

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

Format

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

Flag is wrong

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

67.162.215.20 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed England's flag. You are perhaps thinking of the UK's flag, which is . --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I was.

67.162.215.20 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Religious beliefs" section

They are already covered in the controversy over Harry Potter page, so there was little point in retaining a single sentence that basically described her as a Satanist. Serendipodous 12:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was trying to do this the other day, but it was constantly reverted. 212.139.121.149 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JK not J.K.

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

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

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

In addition, please refrain from your personal attacks on the people and grammar of the USA. All variants of English are "correct"; please do not try to instate American English as "wrong" or less accepted. As an American, I acknowledge the British and do not go around insulting how they spell "neighbour" or put the punctuation on the outside of the quotation marks "like so". Your use of the words "obsessive," "fetish," "manical," "less sophisticated," "thankfully" and "international arrogance and clumsiness" are extremely unwarranted. All that was needed to be said was, "In Britain we do not put full-stops"—or periods, as I would say—"after initials, as some may do in American or other varieties of English." Thank you. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Her Donation

She recently donated money over the equivalent of $495000 USD as a reward for a missing child.[11] I think this deserves a mentioning, but the page is protected. Does anyone else think it should be here? 72.200.27.179 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Should her full name be "Rowling Murray"?

I know she uses her married name for anonymity in personal business, and that both her children with Neil are named "Rowling Murray", but I don't know whether she is legally named Murray. Serendipodous 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, she did marry him, doesn't that mean that your new name automatially becomes Rowling Murray? Intriguingly, there are no Google results for "Joanne Rowling Murray." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay two things even though her middle name isn't Kathleen many people believe it to be Joanne Kathleen Rowling Murray brings three google results. Two marraige doesnt nessasarily change the womans last name here you still need govt. permission to change to the spouces (though its almost gaurenteed) so I don't see why it would be forced on the woman in the UK so I am unsure as to her name.. however as far as the article name i doubt anyone would expect it to be anything but what it is at present and for full names listed in the article I feel putting Murray may fit WP:OR even though it is a logical conclusion My $0.02 or maybe I should say 1p--Shimonnyman 09:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'm not a regular contributor to this page, so I don't want to make radical changes. I would suggest, however, that the controversy section be expanded into a larger summary of the controversy article, and that the television section be removed. The television section is primarily trivia and doesn't add much to knowledge about her. I think with those changes, some work on the citation formatting, and a little polishing of the text, this might be ready for an FA review. Karanacs 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section removed. Citations fixed. Controversy section expanded. Main problem is finding images, since every image this page has ever had has been taken down for copyright reasons. Serendipodous 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought about posting on Mugglenet or The Leaky Cauldron? Someone there may have any image they'd be willing to release. Good luck!Karanacs 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

JKR's political views

In this case, I think user:libertycookies has a point about including information about JKR's political views. However, this would have to be presented very carefully and be more balanced. Rather than just statements from conservative political leaders, it would need if possible to have information from either a neutral party or JKR herself. I think she has talked about Jessica Mitford in interviews before, although I don't think that she goes very in-depth into why she respects Mitford. If you can make this information more balanced, I'd recommend that it be included under a separate section, not under controversy/criticism. Karanacs 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed a lot of it. Rowling's admiration for Jessica Mitford is not necessarily political, whatever the rightwing loonies at the John Birch Society (the very definition of a "fringe group") may think. I think Libertycookies has gone a bit too far in pushing this single issue. Obviously he has a bee in his bonnet about it, but really it isn't that important, either to the understanding of Rowling or the understanding of Harry Potter. Personally I think that his additions as they are have completely overbalanced the criticism section (why should an obscure rightwing group like the John Birch society get more space than either AS Byatt or Stephen King?) and should be trimmed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to push single issues. If Libertycookies continues to press his case in other articles, I may request to have him banned.Serendipodous 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Current Article: "Politics"

Although Rowling guards her privacy closely, she has spoken about some of her political views and causes.

Rowling worked for Amnesty International prior to publishing her first book, and wrote some of Harry Potter on her lunch breaks. A connection between the "three unforgivable spells" of killing, torture, and enslavery, and Amnesty International's mission has been suggested in an article by John Rose.[12] Rowling maintains a link to AI on her very popular website.

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

Draft #1 - Rowling's political views

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

Influences

Rowling says her heroine is life-long socialist Jessica Mitford, and claims to have read everything she has ever written. In 2006, Rowling wrote a review of Decca. The Letters of Jessica Mitford for the London Times saying, "I finished reading feeling even fonder and more admiring of her than before."^[1] Rowling's article generated a negative response from a Conservative MP.^[2] She also named her daughter Jessica, and gave her a copy of Hons and Rebels on her christening day in homage to Mitford.^[3] A writer for the liberal North Bay Bohemian has suggested that Dobby is named after the person who introduced Mitford to the Communist Party USA, and that Hermoine's formation of SPEW parallels Mitford's support for worker rights." [[13]]

Rowling also has read Emma by Jane Austen "over 20 times,"[[14]] and was reading J.R.R. Tolkein shortly before coming up with the Harry Potter story. The first story J.K. Rowling wrote in her childhood, 'Rabbit', was heavily influenced by Richard Scarry. According to the Scotsman, Rowling believes her love for literature was due to a bout of measles at the age of four "when her father raised her spirits by reading aloud to his bed-bound daughter the adventures of Toad of Toad Hall, from The Wind in the Willows" by Kenneth Grahame. [[15]]

A writer for the Republican/conservative magazine, the National Review, Dave Kopel has suggested that Rowling is an Inkling, "originally a group of Oxford dons who wrote Christian fiction. The most famous of them are J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis." Many commentators have noted the influence of these early writers of fantasy with moral tales, though Rowling humbly says that she isn't in their league. [[16]]

Rowling was quoted on her favorite books in 'The Australian':

"Fantasy is not my favourite genre. Although I love C. S. Lewis, I have a problem with his imitators." At 33, Rowling still re-reads The Chronicles of Narnia, famous for The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (she likes The Voyage of the Dawn Treader best), along with other childhood favourites, E. Nesbit, Paul Gallico and Noel Streatfield. "I try to do what they did in the sense of getting a good story and telling it as well as possible," she says. [[17]]

A transcript of Rowling discussing all her favorite books and influences can be found at [[18]]

Comments

Thanks for moderating, and please lets all try not to take any of this personally. Apologies for being assertive on what I see as a neglected subject. Libertycookies 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That was surprisingly NPOV. I'll give a more detailed critique when I've had some time to think about it. Serendipodous 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was actually easier to write this than to go for the Controversy angle. I've added some more background from writers on both sides and fixed the links. Libertycookies 17:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Woah. Now it's way too long. It was fine the way it was. Rowling's influences are covered in depth in Works analogous to Harry Potter; no more than a cursory examination is needed here. Serendipodous 18:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll step back. Can you pare it back as the draft#2, and lets let a jury decide, but you're probably right. Thanks. Libertycookies 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2002/1102-fraser-scotsman.html

Politics again

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

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

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

I'd appreciate anybody's advice as to how we can clear these two points up further. AulaTPN 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

For the record, I think Rowling has socialist sympathies, but she isn't a Socialist. Personally I think she is a change agent with anarchist attitudes, hence her reference to Guy Fawkes, and the underground group the Order of the Phoenix. Book 7 will probably deal more with these issues, so leaving as much reference for readers as possible is a good idea. Book 7 might be a Mind Bomb unless there is a channel like wikipedia for diffusion of the force of her ideas. Keeping these incendiary ideas tightly contained is a horribly bad idea. Libertycookies 15:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. But find some other forum to disseminate your views. Wikipedia has to remain objective and to maintain a neutral point of view, especially as regards living people. It is not the right place to make such statements. Blogs, personal sites, forums, magazines, these are the venues to express your opinion. Not Wikipedia. Serendipodous 15:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly fine, however posting others opinions from legitiamate groups should be allowable. Burying the information so that it cannot be found should be unacceptable. Libertycookies 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends on notability. Wikipedia is not a forum where every crackpot gets to air their views on anything; unless it's notable in that it has had some kind of impact outside its own sphere, then it's not permissable. Regardless, there is nothing in any of the sources you have supplied that says the Rowling is a socialist or even has socialist leanings. Serendipodous 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I know that the Fawkes thing isn't obvious enough for wikipedia, she's only mentioned it once. Feel free to challenge any of the current entries and quotes. I'd be glad to put quotes that show she is a conservative, but they don't exist. The only thing from conservatives are the criticisms for her socialist attidudes that S. derides. Libertycookies 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's all about me, even when someone else says exactly the same thing I've been saying since minute one, this is all because I hate socialism (?!). Your attitude is bordering on personal attack here Liberty.Serendipodous 05:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

S., I don't even know who you are, but you have derided the criticism for her socialist attitudes. I'll take you at your word that you don't hate socialism, but your views only matter to me because you continuously want to keep valid quotes from Rowling buried.

The Fawkes thing isn't obvious enough for wikipedia? I'm sorry is that meant to be a personal attack? I notice you conveniently glossed over the fact that you tried to use Fawkes to argue your point using the exact opposite meaning of the real connection. Here's the thing - we don't need to challenge any of your points - they're pure fantasy. It is your obligation to prove your points when adding them by citing references that actually back them up. AulaTPN 09:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are wikipedia. But you are criticizing me for being far of the mark...which mark is that? I don't think anyone but Rowling knows for sure where the books are going, but we should include the quotes that she has made. Also your viewpoint on Guy Fawkes is clearly not as sympathetic as that of other citizens like Morrissey, Alan Moore, and members of SPEW. He is a fairly complex figure, but this is not to suggest anyone should blow up Parliament or that his actions were not unacceptably violent. Libertycookies 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are far off the mark in terms of trying to assert that Rowling is a Socialist/Anarchist because of the Fawkes reference - I don't know how many ways I can say this but you implied a rationale behind the link that just doesn't stack up. I haven't expressed any viewpoint on Guy Fawkes whatsoever. I simply stated the well established fact that all around Britain he is burned in effigy every Nov 5th to celebrate the fact that he was unsuccessful. And you can't use Morrisey as a prop for your argument either - he's so massively anti-establishment that he can't be considered an unbiased, impartial critic. AulaTPN 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Rowling loves Morrissey, and was interviewed in The Importance of being Morrissey. Perhaps she is anti-establishment as well? Nah...too rich. Libertycookies 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And Morrisey is poor? SqueakBox 17:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but there is rich and then there is RICH. Far be it for me to guess what Rowling really believes on a day to day basis.... Libertycookies 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly what you're doing!!! You take little bits of unrelated quote and citation and then glue them together in an attempt to prove your point! AulaTPN 16:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This is getting us nowhere. I think arbitration is the only way forward. Serendipodous 13:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. AulaTPN 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Rowling a socialist? Lol, SqueakBox 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I'm here from the RfC -- in my opinion, the politics section is absurd in the extreme. It's basically a collection of random vaguely-political statements and stances she's made, held together by a bunch of second-hand gossip and tabloid supposition. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and it's certainly not a dumping ground for attempting semantic necromancy on a heap of largely unrelated information in a thinly veiled attempt to insert original research into this article. It's totally unreliable, mostly supposition, and patently unbiographical. Delete it all until there's something of real merit to write about. --Haemo 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, Libertycookies is determined to push his agenda and will not allow any content he places in this article to be deleted. It is currently impossible to edit this article without fending off Liberty's OR and essay writing. I have put my neck out repeatedly to draw attention to his edits, but so far no admin has seen fit to punish him. Serendipodous 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct Seren, I won't tolerate mass deletes based on a minority viewpoint. I've apoligized because I know you take pride in this page. Libertycookies 01:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that you are the minority viewpoint Liberty. Every independent editor and admin who has looked at this has determined that your content is completely unsupported. However, ArbCom seem to have no guts whatsoever so I suspect they'll let you get away with this nonsense. AulaTPN 09:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So you say, but you have yet to show anything in the current article that isn't sourced. Please refrain from insulting ArbCom or minorities. Libertycookies 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia guidelines, and the previous deletion debate to understand why your material is inappropriate. --Haemo 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)