Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: The other image

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rant on hallowness of this article. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List/contents of works 

message: According to the The Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation, 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)
replies: text: It's "Rowling like bowling." See . 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)
thread_title:  Rowing or rolling 

message: 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)
thread_title: Accusing Rowling of copyright infringement without evidence is libel

message: 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)
replies: text: But she is not a recluse.  She may not make regular appearances, I will concede, but she is not a recluse.   argued the same for Robert Post, but it was deleted per .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unreplaceable FU image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dr. JK Rowling 

message: 216.105.208.2 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  CHILDHOOD from steeley 

message: 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"  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:   and  and  and  and  and .  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)
thread_title:  Ebay Lawsuit Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rowlings Current Family section  

message: The cover of Deathly Hallows was just released and the back flap 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Middle Name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religious beliefs 

message: 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)
thread_title: Format

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Flag is wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I removed the "Religious beliefs" section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: JK not J.K.

message: She recently donated money over the equivalent of $495000 USD as a reward for a missing child.  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)
thread_title: Her Donation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Should her full name be "Rowling Murray"?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: JKR's political views

message: 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."  Rowling's article generated a negative response from a Conservative MP.  She also named her daughter Jessica, and gave her a copy of Hons and Rebels on her christening day in homage to Mitford.  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." []
Rowling also has read Emma by Jane Austen "over 20 times,"[] 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. []
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. []
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.
[] 
A transcript of Rowling discussing all her favorite books and influences can be found at []
 
====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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Influences

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: Rowling should mind her pints and quarts. ;) Libertycookies 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More politics: antimetrication 

message: 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)
thread_title: I've removed the Jessica Mitford and John Bull paragraphs

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes? Jessica is her oldest child. Serendipodous 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was her youngest child? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, I meant the request on your personal talk page.  Sorry that you misunderstood me. Libertycookies 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That happened after I arrived here from the Request page. Check the timestamps.  --Haemo 20:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Here, Liberty, is the full text of Rowling's review

message: 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)
replies: text: No, sorry. That does not cut it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: [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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Social and political influence?