Talk:J. K. Rowling

Archives
Archive 01 (46k - 2003 to April 2006) Archive 02 (46k - April to December 2006) Archive 03 (50k - January to June 2007) Archive 04 (53k - June 2007) Archive 05 (66k - June to July 2007) Archive 06 (46k - July 2007) Archive 07 (38k - September 2007) Archive 08 (53k - January 2008)

Where is the mention of PLAGIARISM?

Nancy Stouffer, a Pennsylvania woman who wrote about a boy named "Larry Potter" in the 1980s. Stouffer says Rowling lifted character names, including the "muggles", from her.

Rowling's fortune at £545 million: "Bollocks" According to Jo herself!

In a recent documentary: "A Year With J.K. Rowling" (Which can be viewed in seven parts on YouTube), Jo says that her estimated fortune of £545m pounds is (And I quote!) "Bollix!" She does say that she has "many millions" but not anything like the figure stated. Consider changing or perhaps removing from opening paragraph at least? [Anonymous user]

Mc8755 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That Rowling disputes the claim is mentioned in the Personal Life section, but since she doesn't give another number to counter it (and doesn't really seem to care how much money she has), I think the estimate can stay (after all, it is just an estimate). Serendi^podous 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would be amazed if she had any idea how much money she has. When you have that much, you don't keep track of every last dollar; that's for her accountant to worry about. I'm sure the Sunday Times would put in the time to ensure that their reporting is accurate. I think this is just Rowling being modest. faithless (^speak) 23:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rowling to speak at Harvard commencement

According to this article. Not sure if this is notable or not, nor where this would fit in the Wiki article, so I'm pasting it here for those who maintain the article to decide. BuddingJournalist 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was about to add this to the discussion when someone beat me to it. The Crimson covered it on the front page today as well. Does anyone know if this is the first time Rowling has been asked to speak or if this is her first honorary degree? I noticed that some biographies have a "honorary degrees" section and this information would fit nicely there.

Don't really see the point of an "Honorary degrees" section; it would border on trivia. And no, this isn't her first honorary degree. She has two more, as far as I'm aware. Serendi^podous 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rowling and politics in her books

Rowling recently denied any influence of 9/11 on her books, but confirmed Neville Chamberlain was her inspiration for Cornelius Fudge. Should we include a bit on this in here and point to Politics of Harry Potter for details? Libertycookies (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't have anything to do with her biography, though the politics article certainly would benefit. Serendi^podous 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's one that doesn't fit in Politics of Harry Potter, since it is politics of JK Rowling. Can we word smith a bit to add here? I've read before of her interest in the Kennedys and her politics being "on the left", so this doesn't seem at all out of character for her. Libertycookies (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Rowling confessed she was "obsessed" with the US elections because of the negative influence US foreign policy has had in other countries, including Britain and Spain.

"I find it a pity that Clinton and Obama have to be rivals because both of them are extraordinary," Rowling said.

Asked whether Harry Potter was her hero, the author said her real-life hero was the late Robert Kennedy.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/184525,jk-rowling-wants-to-see-a-democrat-in-the-white.html

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Ser/invisible/seria/elpepicul/20080208elpepicul_1/Tes

You already have a section of the article on "politics of JK Rowling," so it can go there. Still, I think there might be room for it here as well, as long as we don't draw any conclusions from it. Serendi^podous 18:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

How about something like this? Libertycookies (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rowling recently said "the international political stance of the United States has been wrong in previous years" and that she wants a Democrat in the White House. Rowling said that Obama and Clinton are both great Presidential candidates, and that her hero was not Harry Potter, but the late Robert F. Kennedy.”

It's already been added to the article. Serendi^podous 11:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Influences

It is noted in the article for A Wizard of Earthsea how the concept of "a boarding school for fledgling wizards" in the said publication is very similar to Harry Potter. Now, given the classic nature and huge influence A Wizard of Earthsea has, and the similarity between the two works, do we know if Ursula K. Le Guin could be counted as an influence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.248.196 (talk • contribs)

Rowling has never acknowledged Le Guin as an influence. See : Harry Potter influences and analogues. Serendi^podous 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"worth an estimated $15 billion"

what? USD? CAD? what currency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.218.172 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 88.111.25.239 (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

The opposition should be noted as there is quite a large bit of opposition to her works. JK Rowling is a very controversial writer and that criticism/ opposition should not be ommited.

--216.229.227.141 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already noted at the controversy section of the Harry Potter article, which is where it belongs. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is hardly worthy of being a featured article. Who's the fucking moron who decided this would be a good idea?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.0.156 (talk • contribs)

• Anyone can check the records of any FA nominations. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep this on topic.

--216.229.227.141 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some sort of criticism section. There has been a lot of criticism leveled at JK Rowling, her character, her motives for writing, etc. It should be mentioned. Be impartial here NeoChaos. --DiamondElusive (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a reputable, established source that criticises JK Rowling as a person (actually, for your claim to be notable, you'd have to find several), then fine. But most of the criticisms I've seen of her have been your basic message board bitching. Hardly encyclopedic. Truth be told, I don't think this article goes out of its way to say anything nice about her either. Only that she's done a lot of philanthropic work and that's a fact, not an opinion.Serendi^podous 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't start with her sales!

Why does this article start up with her sale numbers, her "power-rating", and how big she? I think it's ufair to the writer, and to writers in general; like whats important and whats IT ALL ABOUT is her sale numbers? Why not start thoroughly with her genre, background, prose-style...? Other big-selling authors like Stephen King does not get this bad treatment that pushes the authors prose in the background and acts like what she is worth is measured in sales, so why give it to J.K. Rowling? Andy McDandy (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbers are verifiable. Things like prose style, literary quality and genre are quite subjective and difficult to state absolutely. Serendi^podous 09:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here to make a similar comment. This fascination for her earnings is incredibly vulgar. Morana (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's understandable that they would focus on her sales, seeing as how extraordinary they are, but it's a little weird that the main page blurb doesn't talk about her life story like other bio articles do. Brutannica (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Andy is right. The first thing I noticed in this article were the book sales. Then, that made me want to look up Harry Potter, instead of reading the story of his creator. I think that the book sales, etc... need to be put near to the middle, or the end of the article. And, as always,Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if people agree with me, how about someone changes it? Because it is really vulgar. And it's a bad focus. I'd prefer not to do the changes myself, since I know I'm not too good with article writing to start messing around with the ingress of a featured one. I agree with Serendipodous that the numbers are verifiable, and see the prose argument too; but most writers on Wikipedia get a description of prose style and life, and Rowling should be entitled to that too, don't you all agree?? Andy McDandy (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that her book sales and estimated worth should be in the article's lead, as these are things which are talked about a lot - but this also demonstrates her success. However, I do agree with the argument that there should be a lot more about her background - her possible influences from her past experiences perhaps - and literary style? Because of this, I moved some information about her rankings etc from the lead to her personal life so it's not too overwhelming, and I added where she first thought of the idea for Harry Potter as that's important. Any more suggestions? Eagle Owl (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be vulgar and people may not agree with it but the fact of the matter is that JK Rowling is famous for one reason and one reason only: because Harry Potter is one hell of a profitable book. She has, effectively and in comparison, done nothing except write Harry Potter and get super rich and, infact, one of the defining characteristics of the Harry Potter series is how successful it is. It is for these reasons that I believe the success of the series should be in the lead - I agree with Serendi and Brutannica. RaseaC (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Early Life

Is there a reason why the Early life section goes from 1965-1994 do your 20s count as your early life? Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've re-named the heading to Background. Maybe that will be more appropriate. Eagle Owl (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

I thought it was considered bad policy to protect the article of the day? Even if there's a lot of vandalism by IPs, it's dealt with. Protecting a page just alienates potential new editors. I really thinks it needs unprotecting. Any passing admins around who agree? GDallimore (Talk) 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Book?

I noticed that in the Harry Potter section, there is no mention of the title or release of the second Harry Potter book Wezelboy (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because it's the least important, the first and final book is what should be really noted. The second book is noted however in the list of the Harry Potter series. Jammy (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this

"she will most likely not use a new pen name as the press would quickly discover her identity." What, Rowling's identity? Buc (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

She was asked if she would write under a pen name, and said she had thought about it, but decided not to, since if she did, the tabloids would figure out who she was anyway. Serendi^podous 18:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Currency

moved from [{Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors]] with some minor changes to indenting [1] Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC) It notes how much the Harry Potter brand is worth in dollars not pounds whilst in the article pounds comes first. Whilst you may say this is because that more Americans read the main menu I will disagree with that and my reason is because if we use pounds with the dollars in brackets it is showing that J.K Rowling uses pounds as her actual currency and then the dollars in brackets tells the readers how much that is in dollars. Pounds come first as that is what J.K Rowling uses, whoever made that one difference between the article and the main page needs to know that fact. Jammy (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the reason why it differs is because someone changed it in the article [2], but no one has brought it here before you. It's rare that there's an intentional difference between the article intro and the main page beyond extra summarisation. I agree that the change was proper and there has been no reversion as yet or discussion on the talk page suggestion there is consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is in dollars because the source of that information is in dollars. I believe that is standard practice is to show the sourced amount and convert to the other, otherwise you risk assuming too much. It does look strange in this case though. --Siradia (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Originally I agreed with you and was going to make the reversion myself. But on second thoughts, I'm not so sure. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Currencies seems to suggest we should indeed stick with GBP although it's somewhat conflicting since it also says conversion in parenthesis after original currency (but doesn't say what original currency means) For measurement and units, I would agree with you and I believe there is clear consensus for the practice. For example, if our primary source says the size of the chunk of ice that broke away from Wilkins Sound is 405 square kilometres then clearly that's what we should say since that's the original unit that they estimated. The thing is with currencies it's a little more complex since estimates of this sort tend to involve a lot more 'guess work' and exchange rates vary so whether the figure in the original currency is more meaningful or accurate is IMHO debatable. In the case of a country, I think it's more clear cut no since although all countries depend on the US$ to a fairly great extent, they are usally tied more to their own currency so in other words if an exhange rate drops (or gains) a lot, their GDP (or whatever) is not still going to be worth US$100 billion but would remain closer to whatever it always was in their currency (these things are all interconnected though so it's never a simple matter). In the case of this figure (as opposed to say her net worth) it's a little complicated since the worth of the brand is probably going to depend more on the US$ then the GBP (her net worth may depend more on the GBP then the US$ since although this is complete speculation, it's reasonable to presume a fair amount of it is more tied to the GBP). But ultimately I think we should just stick with the GBP (but I won't bother to disagree if anyone wants to revert) Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the current source is dead, this appears to be the same thing [3] it would be good if someone could replace it Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I made the change in the original article this morning (I completely forgot about changing the Main Page summary also, but see no point now, we'll have a new FA in a few hours). I did make the change based on my interpretation of the MoS, I was under the impression that a British article should use the British currency, though I will say that I was in two minds because of the source. However, I see no real reason to change it back to '$ (£)'; I think it just looks a bit strange if we keep chopping and changing currency. RaseaC (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

May I just add, being a Briton living for almost two years in the US - the dollar is the most widely used currency in the world and so its natural to place a value on such capital in terms of the dollar, which constitutes at least 60% of the worlds reserve currency. Tourskin (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, I'm not sure you have to be a Briton living for almost two years in the US to realise that the USD is the most widely used currency in the world, anyone with half a brain cell knows that it is. The fact is, according to the Manual of Style an article about a British subject uses the British currency, an article about an American subject uses the American currency, an article about a Swiss subject uses the Swiss currency etc. etc.RaseaC (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Writer/author

I suggest "British writer" be changed to "British author" as that is what she is- by someone else- as Today's featured article is semi-protected.

Well both 'author' and 'writer' are correct. I think the reason why writer is chosen is because 'British writer and author of the Harry Potter fantasy series' is better then 'British author and writer of the Harry Potter fantasy series' or 'British author and author of the Harry Potter fantasy series'. Of course, there may be a wording which is even better, but the current one seems fine to me Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Note also she has written some (admitedly only 3) articles, and although she may be the author of these articles, I think calling her a writer more accurately conveys that she also writes articles as opposed to calling her an author Nil Einne (talk)

MOS

Shouldn't the lead be two or three paragraphs? I'm hesitant to change it as I would have thought that the FAC would have covered it, and that there might be a reason for the one-paragraph lead. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was three paragraphs, but complaints demanded that it focus on Rowling, rather than the books, so the extra information was shifted into the books section. Serendi^podous 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The current lawsuit

Anyone who wishes to add any information regarding the lawsuit between Rowling and RDR books can do so at Legal disputes over Harry Potter#RDR Books. Serendi^podous 06:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rowling/Murray

This article starts as "Joanne 'Jo' Murray" and cites this Guardian article as proof that her legal surname is "Murray" and no longer "Rowling." Though I would otherwise consider The Guardian a reliable source, I can't find anything else that refers to her as Murray -- it seems that one piece of evidence in an ocean of information to the contrary can be readily ignored or discredited. I move that we remove the reference to her surname being Murray, at the very least in the opening sentence. Objections? Thoughts? Sean Hayford O'Leary (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was ready to dismiss this out of hand, but you may have a point. Her children with her current husband have both Rowling and Murray as their names; not hyphenated, but it would seem odd to give them the name Rowling if it wasn't still JKR's name. Furthermore, her lawsuit concerning the HP Lexicon book evidently was filed under the name Joanne Rowling, which would be quite odd if that wasn't her name. On the other hand, I certainly remember a lot of discussion about how she continued to write under the name Rowling following her marriage. Regardless of her legal name, the press will always refer to her as Rowling, so I don't think that means anything, but does anyone have a more authoritative source? faithless (^speak) 04:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rowling uses her married name for private transactions, when she doesn't want to be identified. When she's engaging in public, she uses her maiden name. See this Tatler article. Serendi^podous 05:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the Tatler article it sounds as though she uses it as a pseudonym to protect her privacy when shopping or making reservations. However, I thought she filed a lawsuit in Scotland under the name Joanne R. Murray? Ariadne55 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Adriadne55's conclusion, that it seems to be used as pseudonym. I think the lawsuit linked to by Faithlessthewonderboy is sufficient evidence that Rowling is indeed still Rowling. Sean Hayford O'Leary (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the opening sentence and name section to reflect the information in this discussion. Sean Hayford O'Leary (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This article, while not particularly flattering, does seem to suggest that, technically at least, she is Mrs. Murray. Serendi^podous 06:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Record Formatting

In the "influences" section of the top portion of the record (see source code) - the formatting is off and causing issues with the mediawiki API. The line should read "| influences ..." it currently reads "|influences ..." notice the space before "influences".

I would fix this, but I am a new member and do not have access to edit this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asnagy (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)