Talk:J.K. Rowling/Archive 04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

More politics: antimetrication

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

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

Blaise 22:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I've removed the Jessica Mitford and John Bull paragraphs

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

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

Who was her youngest child?

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

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

Yes? Jessica is her oldest child. Serendipodous 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Removal

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, you should bow to the fact that you're the only person who thinks the inclusion of this material is appropriate. Community consensus is clear on this point; this material is inappropriate; it was inappropriate as an article (above), and it's just as inappropriate as a section. --Haemo 00:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of what the community whom Seren has invited personally thinks. I'm willing to see what others think. Libertycookies 00:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If you think the request for comment section is a "personal invitation" by Seren, you've seriously misunderstood what's going on here. --Haemo 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant the request on your personal talk page. Sorry that you misunderstood me. Libertycookies 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That happened after I arrived here from the Request page. Check the timestamps. --Haemo 20:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you are here today because he found you sympathetic to his views. But regardless why you are here now, why do you feel the article is improved by not including what Rowling describes as "autobiographical" and her interviewer describes as "obvious"? Libertycookies 13:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Politics themes and influences (Compromise)

Request for productive comment on improving the Politics, themes, and influence section.

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

Draft#1

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

Also, should the theme of Nazism be included (deleted because it wasn't politics)? Note to Seren, please accept my apology and lets go forward for the interest of all other parties. Libertycookies 18:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I deleted it because it was hearsay. I have run out of ways to tell you this. This article is not about the books. It's about JK Rowling. The only person who can tell us JK Rowling's political beliefs is JK Rowling. Unless JK Rowling says, "I love Jessica Mitford because she's a socialist" then any claim that she does does not belong here. Or on Wikipedia. JK Rowling is a living person. Wikipedia has very strict rules about making assumptions about living people that can't be backed up. And citing the opinions of others is not backing it up. If you do, then you will be blocked. Serendipodous 19:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
My confusion stems from your Controversy section, which is all about assumptions and defamation of Rowling's beliefs because of the content of her books. Regardless, is your lack of criticism of the Draft#1 above mean that its okay? Libertycookies 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
That draft is an excellent example of ... WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
To avoid OR, you can just say: Rowling says that her heroine is Jessica Mitford and gave her book Hons and Rebels to her daughter, who was named Jessica in homage to Mitford. and leave it at that. Needless to say, you need a source for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The Controversy over Harry Potter page cites people's opinions but does not claim that they represent reality. Just because a number of people say Rowling is a Satanist, that doesn't mean that she is one. The page makes only one statement concerning Rowling's actual religious beliefs, and that statement is from Rowling herself. Conversely, just because some people say Rowling is a socialist or has socialist leanings, that doesn't mean that she is one. The only direct proof of this must come from Rowling herself. And yes, perhaps the CoHP page should have a mention that she belongs to the Church of Scotland. Serendipodous 12:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I never say that she is a socialist. I merely say her favorite author is a socialist. You are the one making the leap that this means Rowling must be a socialist. Libertycookies 13:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh please. You've been trying for over a month to insinuate that Rowling must a socialist, even to the point of telling me that I'm some kind of authoritarian uberconservative for not allowing you to say so, and now you're accusing me of doing what you've been doing nonstop all these weeks? If not to claim that Rowling is a socialist, what point are you making with that section? Because right now it's just a random collection of quotes. Serendipodous 14:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to allow any third-party interpretations of her politics (much as you've allowed for religion)? The only thing you allow to stay is a direct quote, and although you claim to have some experience editing, you have yet to try to enhance the section in a productive way. You've stated that you see no themes, politics, or influences in the books, and I think that nothing could ever convince you that you may be wrong. Not even direct quotes. Why don't you edit the constructive criticism section for a while. It needs some help. Libertycookies 14:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason I haven't tried to enhance the section is because I know it would be pointless. Any revisions I make would simply be reverted by you. Third party interpretations of her politics are only valid if you are, to use the IDers' phrase, "teaching the controversy." There is a genuine (if rather idiotic) controversy surrounding the books' supposed Satanic themes, so giving both sides of the argument in that case is a valid form of reportage. There is no controversy about JKR's politics, so it doesn't really matter who thinks she is a socialist, a libertarian, a Neocon, a Nazi or a Monster Raving Loony. Which brings us right back where we started. You could collect a hundred different quotes from a hundred different critics saying that Rowling's politics must lie one way or the other across the political spectrum (as you may remember in the Harry Potter article, the books have been criticised for being both socialist and conservative), but the only truly valid source of information regarding her political stance is her and her alone. Now if a substantial portion of the world's population started burning the books because they believed her to be a closet Communist bent on subverting the minds of their children, then you'd have a case for bringing in third party interpretations. Serendipodous 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
re: fact, here are two of your quotes from this very page:

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

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

So you are claiming that saying "she isn't a Socialist" and "her socialist atti[t]udes" insinuate "Rowling must be a socialist?" Is that correct? Libertycookies 22:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
btw, if you're updating the CoHP page, some claim she belongs to the Scottish Episcopal Church Rowling says, "like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes about if my faith will return. It's important to me." [1]. But she did baptized her daughter in the Church of Scotland.

Here, Liberty, is the full text of Rowling's review

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

Here it is

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

Concerns about "Politics, influences, and themes"

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

Please be more specific with your concern and how it equates to quote mining. The only point seems to be that Rowling actually has some politics, influences, and themes. Or are you reading something into it? Libertycookies 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure she has. But these what is called quote mining: choosing only specific quotes to forward a specific viewpoint, the one that you have been trying to forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There just aren't any quotes where she says that she is a right-wing conservative and loves Thatcher, just as there aren't any saying that she is a witch and worships satan. In fact, there are just more and more quotes that bolster the position that she has written a moral tale which leans to the left. I could add a third party saying how conservative the world of Harry Potter is, but I thought that was out. Please help me understand how I can possibly balance this out. And the only viewpoint I am putting forward is that of Rowling's writing having meaning. As I told Seren, I think she is more of an anarchist (in terms of challenging authority, not in setting off bombs) than a socialist, but I'm not trying to make that point in the article. Libertycookies 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (Did I equate loving Thatcher to worshiping satan back there? Oops, sorry.)
I do not think you are understanding what me and others are saying. These are indeed mined quotes, from some interviews. Selectively citing is not a good thing in biographical articles. If you can develop a section about "Interviews with Rowling" that will work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you are correct that I'm not understanding. Considering that her books are so extremely popular, shouldn't there be a section dealing with any message or themes behind the work? Should we add some of the criticism of her work that had Seren convinced I was a Right Wing Libertarian to make it more balanced? RE: the tags on the article, is there anyone who is contending that these are not properly sourced? Should we all declare our politics before commenting? Libertycookies 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
shouldn't there be a section dealing with any message or themes behind the work? The answer is "yes", as long as you can find multiple reliable sources that analyzed her books and describes these messages and themes as a topic. If there is no such multiple reliable sources, then the answer is "no". Given the popularity of her books, I am sure that if this subject is important, then there will be multiple reliable, reputable, and published sources that discuss it, from different viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As for you last question, the answer is no. Just note that after a while, our biases become quite obvious. See WP:AKASHA. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for last post. I'm going to try to make this inclusive again and not be as hostile. Hopefully everyone will respond favorable to this, forgive the past, and we can continue that way. Could someone edit the following for an intro? I can put more citations if it reads neutral. And if this is getting too long, can we spin off to a seperate article? Libertycookies 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Draft of Intro

Rowling has long been politically active, having worked for Amnesty International prior to becoming a successful writer. Some commentators have compared her writing to that of the Inklings, a group of Oxford dons that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books. In contrast, a few commentators have accused her of promoting witchcraft and worshiping Satan, which Rowling and her many supporters refute. Rowling gives often to charities and is close friends with incoming British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah Macaulay. Rowling collaborated with Macaulay to support One Parent Families by producing a book of short stories by Scottish authors called Magic. [[2]]

Some commentators, Who?; In contrast See WP:WEASEL; A few commentators, Who? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Rowling worked for Amnesty International prior to becoming a successful writer. X, Y and Z have compared her writing to that of the Inklings, such as C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books. N. M and have accused her of promoting witchcraft and worshiping Satan, a claim which Rowling refutes.
You need, of course, sources for these. The last sentence is OR, and I have excluded it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
On the Inklings, the main supporter who says she 'is' an Inkling is John Granger, but many have responded favorably to his thesis and more often the comparison is to Tolkein and Lewis and the moral themes in their fantasy writings. Can we say "some people compare her to the Inklings" and provide multiple links supporting the statement? [3][4][5][6] [7]
On many supporters, I meant like Judy Bloom and the many other notable figures who defended Rowling against the onslaught of a very very small minority of people who have gotten way more press than they deserve for accusing Rowling of leading children to Satan.[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertycookies (talk • contribs)
These multiple sources all refer to either John Granger, or are Christian-related sources. That is wht attribution is so important to maintain NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Would something like this work then? Just want to show that the books are considered on moral issues (most see them as good, some see them as evil). Libertycookies 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Several Christian writers have compared Rowling to the Inklings, a group that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books. In contrast, a few Christians have accused her of promoting witchcraft and devil worshiping, a charge which Rowling, who is a Christian herself, refutes. Rowling said that to her, the moral significance of the tales seems obvious. The key for her was the choice between what is right and what is easy, because that, that is how tyranny is started, with people being apathetic and taking the easy route and suddenly finding themselves in deep trouble. [9]

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

Several Christian writers have compared Rowling to the Inklings, a group that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books.[10][11][12] In contrast, a minority of Christian conservatives have accused her of promoting witchcraft and devil worshiping, a charge which Rowling, who is a Christian herself, refutes.[13] Rowling said that to her, the moral significance of the tales seems obvious. The key for her was the choice between what is right and what is easy, because that, that is how tyranny is started, with people being apathetic and taking the easy route and suddenly finding themselves in deep trouble. [14]

Good enough? Libertycookies 20:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This may be good enough:
Several Christian writers have compared Rowling to the Inklings, a group that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books.[15][16][17] A minority of Christian conservatives have accused her of promoting witchcraft and devil worshiping in her books, a charge which Rowling, who is a Christian herself, refutes.[18] Rowling said that to her, the moral significance of the tales seems obvious. The key for her was the choice between what is right and what is easy, because that, that is how tyranny is started, with people being apathetic and taking the easy route and suddenly finding themselves in deep trouble.[19]
You will also need to replace the URLs to accio-quote.org with info on the original sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From Jossi talk page:

Politics of JK Rowling

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

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

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

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

Draft of Politics

with multiple sources, and Rowling quotes. Please mark with specific objections. Libertycookies 07:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but for all the reasons already explained the text you want is not compliant with WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is that? If she says she is left-wing, and reliable, credible sources are stating all of the bottom, how can it be construed as WP:OR? -AgentFade2Black 21:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You may have missed the fact that an article with that name was AFded, and that the cherry picking of quotes is indeed OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
And for anybody who can't see what harm would be done by adding this content then paring it down, there are concrete legal reasons why this kind of stuff cannot be posted without cast-iron sources. WP:OR and WP:BLP don't exist to piss off a few editors, they exist to try and make sure that the wikimedia foundation and responsible editors are not exposed to law suits and damages due to issues of defamation. All caps time - DO NOT ADD THIS STUFF BACK until all statements have been adequately cited to the consensus of the involved parties here - wiki is very protective of legal rights and will not hesitate in banning people if they are seen to represent a real, legal risk. AulaTPN 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Time Magazine isn't a cast-iron source? Even Seren admitted that the Telegraph that Rowling published her First It Girl review of Mitford is a highly Conservative Paper. Rowling has said it again and again, she is on the left. Just because you don't like it isn't enough reason to bury it and delete it.
Btw, the article that Jossi says was AFded, was done so with a minimum of comment, and definately had some OR in it (which I admitted was put there to annoy Seren). The below content is solid fact and straight from the mouth of the Rowling. Tag it as controversial, but extreme acts like deletion of the entire section, without comment or editing, makes it look like you are pursuing a campaign of burying and delaying the inclusion of well publicized information about Rowling's political views and beliefs. Reposted with OR sign. No one has shown any interest in rewriting or finding additional citations, only deleting. Libertycookies 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't that tell you something? This speculative content is not wanted, if anybody other than you had any interest in seeing it in the article then they would contribute to making it post-worthy and not in violation of so many policies. I think you need to concede that it's time to drop this particular dead donkey. AulaTPN 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This approach, re-adding the material again and again, will only result in temporarily loosing your editing privileges. See also WP:CONSENSUS. If you have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, you can post a notice at WP:AN, until then, please avoid misusing edit summaries as you did here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If Rowling had any bones to pick over the past articles, you would find them on her website where she dispells all the rumors: [[20]].
That's not the point, you can't break the rules just because it suits you. And making highly charged personal comment such as the one you inappropriately placed in the edit summary will earn you a one-way ticket to a ban. Threatening admins is never a wise sport. AulaTPN 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm following the rules, you are the one who keeps deleting without participating in the discussions. Its pretty clear that Jossi already has his bias and would ban me if he could find a justifiable excuse. I would ask that you quit trying to bait me and trying to defame my user id. Your own bias is quite clear. Scaring people with legal concerns when Rowling's web page has SO much more traffic than this little site is patently absurd. She is more than capable of defending her own reputation, as if having Left wing sympathies makes her evil...it doesn't you know. Libertycookies 00:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You cannot assume anything about me, I am afraid. You cannot read my thought,s nor you can assess my motives. I came to this article in my duties of a BLP patroller and admin of this project, and my actions are related to that capacity. Revert once more, and you will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I can assess your actions, and I'm giving you fair warning that you had better play by the rules too. Libertycookies 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've had enough and you need to get a clue. Nobody is breaking the rules but you - read WP:BLP and tell me you're not! Jossi is entirely correct and nobody is scaring with legal concerns, I'm trying in vain to explain to you why policies such as WP:BLP have to be rigorously enforced. Just because Jo has yet to sue anybody doesn't mean that it's ok for you to post this stuff. And nobody is baiting or defaming you - the only person behaving poorly and leaving unpleasant personal attacks/slurs is you - I've seen the unpleasant things you've posted on Serendipodous and Jossi's talk pages... AulaTPN 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you haven't had enough since you keep insulting me because we disagree. Perhaps you should read this Rowling article:You can lead a fool to a book but you can't make them think. I've apologized for the unpleasant comment on Seren's page, and while it may be unpleasant for Jossi to consider that his account is in risk if he pursues a personal agenda, I haven't resorted to the personal comments that you have. Libertycookies 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Relevant parts from WP:BLP for User:Libertycookies' contemplation ...
  1. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles
Material from Time Magazine, The Telegraph, and published books on Rowling are not unsourced or poorly sourced despite how much you claim otherwise.
  1. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
Were you on O.J.'s jury? How much evidence do you need?
  1. The Foundation and Jimbo Wales get well-founded complaints about biographical content on living people every day — people justifiably upset at inaccurate or distorted articles.
Which is why only quotes from Rowling in highly crediable sources have been used.
  1. The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
Yep, yep and yep. Sorry but if you are writing about someone who is left-wing, you have to mention left wing politics
  1. Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.
Well sourced, and multiple sourced.
  1. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.
Editors SHOULDN'T remove sourced material just because they don't agree with the content.
  1. Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply.

Sourced and only derogatory to someone who thinks not being right wing is evil.

  1. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
  2. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

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

AulaTPN 00:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Telling you to get a clue is hardly uncivil and I would assert that I have never been uncivil to you and have, in fact, shown tremendous restraint and patience where other editors might not have. As I recall you're the only one running around making threats against others and making ad-hominem attacks but that's beside the point. Your answers are clearly incorrect as Jossi points out below plus accio-quote is hardly a reliable, first-hand source. AulaTPN 10:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Gee, it hardly sounded friendly. Neither have your threats to have me blocked. Oh, and as an administrator you may want to rethink defaming and discrediting accio-quote as being unreliable. They could hold wikipedia liable for your actions. I have yet to find any of their quotes not be word for word of the cited articles. Do you have any examples of their unreliability from personal experience or was this another attempt to discredit me? Libertycookies 14:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Take it easy, no one is here to "get you", just listen to more experienced editors, would you? See the edit I made to your last edit. That is NPOV/ NOR writing 101: stay close to the source, do not interpret the source, do not extend the meaning of the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You've just made my point for me Liberty. I'm not defaming/discrediting accio-quote at all but for our purposes so-called news aggregators are unsuitable. If a particular link on accio-quote is, say, an article from the Times then you should be citing the original article from the Times. In the case of biographies, no other copy can be considered an acceptable/reliable source - now I quite agree you could possibly get away with it in any other type of article but I wouldn't like to try it myself. As far as getting you blocked goes, you may not believe it but nobody actually wants to do that and nobody is threatening to do that - it's not like some kind of sport we derive pleasure from - but you must accept that under the current policies that is the standard method for dealing with people who habitually break the rules and we're trying to draw your attention to it. In this case, which is a fairly moderate violation compared to some we've all seen, it's more about protecting Wiki and it's articles and not about punishing people. I, and I'm sure the others, would love nothing more than for you to continue contributing but you must do it the right way. Again, biographies have much more rigorous requirements than other articles and for good reasons. AulaTPN 17:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So say what you mean, accio-quote is accurate but someone has to go to the original source to cite properly. I'm somewhat lazy and feel that if I point you in the right direction, cleaning up could easily be done by someone else. My strengths are in research and persistance (my weaknesses are being too blunt, impolite, and not overly conserned with rules). Seems like the idea of wikipedia is to leverage the community for their various skills. Libertycookies 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I did! And nobody has ever tested the accuracy of accio-quote but that's not the issue. The accuracy of a news aggregator can never be verified, which is why you have to go back to the original source. Policy states that if you cannot find an acceptable quote yourself then you don't add the material. Relying on others to source your content is not acceptable. AulaTPN 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics, influences, and themes

Rowling says she is Left-wing and that there are a certain amount of politics in her books. [21]. Time Magazine noted that Rowling adapts the "politically, culturally, and psychologically" conservative genre of fantasy for her own progressive purposes. The fantasy world of Hogwarts is secular, sexual, multicultural, and multiracial and the books present very real problems--embarrassment, prejudice, depression, anger, poverty, death. "I was trying to subvert the genre." Rowling explained. [22] When an interviewer from the Guardian suggested her books portrayed a conservative world, she replied, "So I'm told repeatedly. The two groups of people who are constantly thanking me are wiccans (white witches) and boarding schools. And really, don't thank me. I'm not with either of them." [23]

Several Christian writers have compared Rowling to the Inklings, a group that included C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein, who explored Christian themes and morality in their books.[24][25][26] A minority of Christian conservatives have accused her of promoting witchcraft and devil worshiping in her books, a charge which Rowling, who is a Christian herself, refutes.[27] Rowling said that to her, the moral significance of the tales seems obvious. The key for her was the choice between what is right and what is easy, because that, that is how tyranny is started, with people being apathetic and taking the easy route and suddenly finding themselves in deep trouble.[28]

In an interview in 2000, Evan Solomon observed to Rowling that civil rights becomes a theme in Goblet of Fire with Hermione and the rights of elves. Rowling confirmed this saying, "that was fairly autobiographical. My sister and I both, we were that kind of teenager." [29]. When Solomon said that issues about race relations and civil rights were obviously crucial in Rowling's life, she replied that she thought children were interested those issues too. [30]

On Nazism, Rowling says Voldemort "takes what he perceives to be a defect in himself, in other words the non-purity of his blood, and he projects it onto others. It's like Hitler and the Arian ideal, to which he did not conform at all, himself. And so Voldemort is doing this also. He takes his own inferiority, and turns it back on other people and attempts to exterminate in them what he hates in himself." [31] Rowling said she had invented the idea that some wizards were not considered to be “pure”, and realised the similarities with the Nazis beliefs only afterwards. Her decision to talk about such a sensitive issue was welcomed by an education officer at The Jewish Museum in London, who said the stories could be used to help children deal with racism in the playground. [32]

Rowling says her most influential writer is civil rights activist Jessica Mitford[33]: "When my great-aunt gave me Hons and Rebels when I was 14, she instantly became my heroine. She ran away from home to fight in the Spanish Civil War, taking with her a camera that she had charged to her father's account. I wished I'd had the nerve to do something like that. I love the way she never outgrew some of her adolescent traits, remaining true to her politics - she was a self-taught socialist - throughout her life. I think I've read everything she wrote. I even called my daughter after her." [34] In a review in the Telegraph, Rowling praised a book of Mitford's letters[35], dgeting a negative response from a Conservative Party MP.[36]

Resolution

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

The issue is one of balance. For NPOV, we need to describe significant viewpoints made by reliable sources, and we need to apply good editorial judgement in particular as this is a WP:BLP. Selectively citing from a couple of interviews and declare "These are Rowling's political views", is a bit preposterous. I would love to have a section on this subject, if indeed interested editors can find substantial sources to describe these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome!! I'm glad you agree that we should start the section and tag it OR so that people know that it could be improved. And I'll keep watching the live article for your tags on citation where you feel one citation isn't sufficient. Thanks, Libertycookies 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that is not the way it works. Add material without having the need to add a dispute tag, and given the lack of consensus., propose the changes in talk first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, the only thing in dispute is the interpretation of Wiki policy. Everyone allowed this material while you and I were fine tuning the religion component. The quotes are from rock solid sources. There was even some concern of liability for quoting a little too direct. Is it preposterous to say that Rowling is "left wing" when she says she is left wing? The other components of the section being on civil rights and racism happen to be positions typically taken by someone with progressive values. Seeing as there was no discussion of these issues from anyone other than you, I have to assume no issues with the content until someone gets specific. It hardly needs a dispute tag in my opinion, since none of it is OR, but I wanted to try to help you in your quest to develop the article further. I guess that is the nice thing about wikipedia, someone will read it and edit it if they have more sources. Deleting it makes it too hard for them to contribute. Libertycookies 09:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
How is it that you continually read comments from editors who clearly disagree with you as ringing endorsements of your actions? Consensus is not with you and it never has been. To be clear - nobody has any vendetta against a section on politics - it would certainly be a good idea - but it has to be fair, balanced, sourced without quote-mining and above all else it must be done the right way in accordance with all applicable policies. AulaTPN 10:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So why is it that no one has thought to simply start the section and ask users to expand it. You seem to have only one tool in your arsenal: delete. And I'm just a perennial optimist, which why I keep hoping that other editors will come around if they are allowed to know that there is a topic of J.K. Rowling politics. Ever notice that there is always a conflict between those who create content and those who maintain content? Some people just love change, and some people prefer the status quo. It doesn't matter what your political affiliation is, sooner or later you'll fall into either a conservative mindset or liberal mindset. Libertycookies 14:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
We delete because that is the absolute requirement of the policy. It's got nothing to do with change/stagnation or anyone's political mindset. Frankly that's just insulting - I like to think I'm educated and mature enough to edit articles in a fair and responsible manner. AulaTPN 17:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I invite you to read these two essays: User:Durova/The_dark_side, and WP:WIW ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping the content on "Charities and Donations", although I think the category should be expanded with "Values" or "Influences" or something that better describes her general support and endorsement of liberal values and causes....where she puts her money is almost more telling than where she puts her mouth, and I think there may just be a bit of politics in her choices.
Re: the essays, they are good and I understand what you are trying to say, but I'm merely suggesting that some people know where the boundaries are and never cross them, and some people are incapable of knowing where the boundaries are without crossing them. Self censorship is probably the worst form of censorship. Libertycookies 15:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
As said above, you are welcome to research material for a "Influences" section. But please avoid making the same mistakes you did in the previous edits, and make sure that the material is not designed to push a certain point of view. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Libertycookies: You keep pushing your POV. Please exercise caution and stay close to the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And quite simply put, we delete because it is the biography of a living person. The process would not be the same if we were writing about a country, the moon, or a cat for that matter. Wikipedia has strict policies on the biography of a living person, which a few editors have linked here for you to read on many occasions. In other words, we delete because it is policy to do so when dealing with the biography of a living person. Here is the exact wording taken from the WP:BLP policy:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
Now I know you are going to head in the, "But the material was properly sourced." direction. To which my response is, "No it wasn't." as Jossi and others have pointed out for you many times before, what you were doing is quote-mining to protray J.K. Rowling under one point of view. When dealing with the biography of a living person, quote-mining is not proper sourcing.
Lastly, you can get your Politics and Influences section back by simply following Jossi's suggestions above. You are not going to garner support for the re-addition of the section by unilaterally deciding to re-add the material, and then posting empty threats on user talk pages or in edit summaries. You've stated a couple times that you are now willing to follow the rules, well how about you start doing just that so we can finally conclude this dispute and move on. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Social and political influence?

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

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

There is no opinion stated in "social and political influence." Her influence on social and political matters clearly exists. She has been praised for her contributions to world wide literacy. The cage bed example is a clear political action. She also is influential to politicians as cited. If you demand more to the section I think there is a way to call for entry. And who says you have to clean up after me every 2 seconds? One could make the same point about any editor that constantly contributes. Libertycookies 18:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. That does not cut it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want the material I deleted back, you will need to find ways to incorporate it into the prose of the article. The fact that she met with Gorbachev, or that she wrote an intro to a book, or that shed did an Easter reading to the Clintons, does not amount to "social and political influence", which is, by the look of it your opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[This is the way it is done. If you cannot edit in that manner, you can suggest content in talk and others will edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That really made Amnesty International look like a questionable source. I added more quotes to show that her involvement was more of a leadership role....more than likely she pulled AI into the fray rather than the other way around. But that's just my opinion based on a detailed understanding of the facts. Libertycookies 14:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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