Talk:J. K. Rowling

Filmography section?

Would it be suitable for the article? It is normal for many producers to have a filmography section, such as David Heyman. Guy546^(Talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Un-objective Source: Matt Latimer in "Life After Harry Potter" section

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

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

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

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

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

GioiaMia (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Since it's about something that didn't happen, whether it's true or not, I think it can be removed, though I still think it's relevant to Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Serendi^podous 10:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Brucewh, 17 November 2010

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

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

I suggest the sentence above changed as follows:

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

/Bruce/ [aka Slasher]<br/>DPC, USN (ret.) (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the essay says that her mother got no treatment, and says that she died, but doesn't say that she died because she got no treatment. Even if we added medical information explaining that MS is non-fatal, unless we can find a source that explicitly says how Rowling's mother died, we'd be violating WP:SYN. Serendi^podous 09:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Declining the edit semi-protected request as it's been contested. No view on content issue. -Atmoz (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tradition of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien

Within the fantasy genre, there was an informal 'tradition' that authors chose to publish using their initials plus surname. This seems just as plausible an explanation as the 'gender neutral' one that is currently put forward on the page. There is a whole section talking about the 'K', but there does not seem to be a reliable independent source that it was anything to do with gender neutrality. It seems just as plausible to me that JKR was following in the footsteps of male authors Tolkien and Lewis by taking this approach. Better sources would be helpful to resolve it one way or the other. MatthewTStone (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

JK Rowling told Oprah that her publishers wanted her to change her name to appeal to boys. As I recall, Lewis used his initials because he never liked his first name. He called himself "Jack". Serendi^podous 09:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't deal with what's "plausible", we deal with what reliable sources say. On this issue, we have reliable sources that quote her as saying: "...my British publisher, when the first book came out, thought ‘this is a book that will appeal to boys’ but they didn’t want the boys to know a woman had written it. So they said to be ‘could we use your initials’ and I said ‘fine’. I only have one initial. I don’t have a middle name. So I took my favourite grandmother’s name Kathleen..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref added. Now can we finally put the name section to bed? Serendi^podous 10:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A good source is the main thing. However, perhaps this section in the article could still address the question of why more than one initial is the convention in publishing, e.g. H.G Wells, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton etc. After all, JKR could have solved the gender issue by publishing as 'J.Rowling', but the second initial was felt necessary by both her and the publsiher. Just a thought... MatthewTStone (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just irrelevant speculation, so no. Serendi^podous 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The article raises the issue of the name, the 'K', what it stands for etc, but does not give a reason why a second initial was added. It has nothing to do with speculation. MatthewTStone (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because they thought "J. Rowling" didn't sound good? Or perhaps because it sounded like a weird way of crossing the street illegally? Who knows? Unless we locate a transcript of that editorial meeting, we sure won't. This supposed "tradition" is bogus; most fantasy writers don't follow it, and many, such as E. Nesbit or L. Frank Baum, use only one initial. Serendi^podous 11:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm only trying to improve the article. It is just a little odd, for the average Wikipedia user (such as myself when I googled her name) who may know little about the publishing industry or this particular author, to come an article where there is a quite a lengthy section on the author's name, even before the section on her background. In terms of information hierarchy, a lot of emphasis is being placed on it. MatthewTStone (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Go to the top of this talk page and see how many times her name has been brought up. There are ten discussions related to her name, and this is the eleventh. Every aspect of her name, every single one, has been bashed and bludgeoned into submission again and again and again. The reason her name is so important in this article is because it is the one topic everyone seems to care about. Serendi^podous 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Last name

None of the three sources linked to agree with the statement "Following her marriage, she has used the name Joanne Murray when conducting personal business." Only one of them refers to a lawsuit, filed jointly with her husband, in which she is referred to as "Mrs. Joanne Murray" - which is not uncommon, but not evidence that she generally uses this formulation. The template at the top of the talk page conflates this issue, which has not been discussed, with the numerous discussions regarding her middle name. I've rephrased this statement to "has sometimes used", which seems to be the most that can be asserted here. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of her using her married name, particularly when involved in personal litigation. Serendi^podous 08:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to flog a buried horse, but I would think that using those examples as sources would be Original Research. You would need a third-party, reliable source which explicitly states that she uses it for personal business, if you were to keep it in the article. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 22:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rowling as a producer

Please rewrite this article. As I am not registered with Wikipedia, I cannot access the source text!

It has been stated that Rowling is an executive producer of this film (citing a press article from 2000). However, that is untrue. The IMDb does not include Rowling in the crew credit list (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/fullcredits), and in addition to that it is stated on the trivia page of HP and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 that the latter is the first feature for which Rowling received a producer credit (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084/trivia?tr1360473). You can doublecheck this when you look an the credit roll of HP and the Philosopher's Stone. Rowling is not mentioned there as an executive producer. --139.18.5.100 (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As this fact is contested, it can be removed, since it is of little relevance.Serendi^podous 10:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Children's High Level Group

It says at beginning of article that J K Rowling supports this charity - as well as co-founding. However, it has been recently (ish) renamed 'Lumos' and the link should be changed from Children's HIgh Level Group to Lumos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.42.125 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Writing Style

We need more about her writing style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.195.172 (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a biographical article, not a lit-crit article. There is plenty on her writing style in Harry Potter. Serendi^podous 10:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Influences

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

Spelling Correction

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