Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 4

message: Why does the introduction talk mostly about how much money Rowling made?  Doesn't that demean her achievements as a writer?  OK, mention that she made a ton of money, but that more than 2/3 of the intro should be about money is too much, inho.--345Kai 02:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  money, money, money??? 

message: This section contains the view of only a single critic, which makes it seriously misleading. There is a wide range of opinion about the quality of her books amongst literary critics, and this ought to be reflected in the section. JH (talk page) 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Discussion of the books doesn't belong in a biographical article. Serendipodous 20:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical response 

message: I noticed the article Nicolson's Cafe was deleted and we now have a red link.  It seems like a wiki-worthy article since it is a site of pilgrimage for Potterheads, and maybe a photo and address would be interesting.  I never read the deleted article, so maybe it was deleted for good cause.  Should the hyperlink be eliminated or a new Nicolson's Cafe article posted? Libertycookies 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Nicholson's exists anymore. Last I heard it was a Chinese takeaway. Serendipodous 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still think it's a notable and worthy article. AulaTPN 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't exist anymore, all the better for us to have an article.  No one can claim it is a commercial advertisement for Nicholson's, and we can (hopefully) find a vintage photo. Libertycookies 16:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicolson's Cafe 

message: The article reads, "Rowling read for a BA in French and Classics at the University of Exeter."  The biography on her official website reads, "I left school in 1983 and went to study at the University of Exeter, on the south coast of England. I studied French, which was a mistake; I had succumbed to parental pressure to study 'useful' modern languages as opposed to 'but-where-will-it-lead?' English and really should have stood my ground. On the plus side, studying French meant that I had a year living in Paris as part of my course.  After leaving university I worked in London."
So, she read for a degree, and then she left university.  But neither source states definitively whether she, in fact, completed the course of study.  Did she graduate with her BA? Poldy Bloom 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: * Rowling regrets keeping Harry Potter a secret from mum - tells how originally Harry Potter's parents didn't figure much in the story, that their deaths were just plain side story
* 'Radcliffe was desperate to know Potter's fate', reveals Rowling, Y! India Movies
I'm not quite sure where to add this and how so if anyone can, please do. I've also posted this in the talk pages of Harry Potter and the seventh book. Berserkerz Crit 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations for the development of the Harry Potter books

message: Her favorite artist is Caravaggio, but other than the generally Christian motifs of his work this is possibly too trivial to mention in the article?  Libertycookies 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caravaggio

message: According to this, her two charity books have raised £15.7 million ($30 million US) for Comic Relief and she has personally given £22 million. That adds up to £37.7 million (about $75 million US). Comic Relief's webpage says that they have raised £67 million so far. If the figures here are true, she has generated more than half of their total earnings ever. I don't doubt that she's charitable, but that doesn't sound realistic. Ninquerinquar 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic Relief donations

message: In response to someone's suggestion yesterday, I've created a new talk page template for highlighting recurring themes and added it to the top of this page. Any thoughts? AulaTPN 09:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, Aula, you've summarized the themes pretty well.  Now the only question is how to force people to read it (see below). Karanacs 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recurring Themes

message: Why is "Family Life" only talking about when she's rich? Shouldn't that have mention of all the stuff that happened before? (I bring it up because it makes it awkward to find, at a glance, what age her oldest child is) Darien Shields 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It only counts as a family if you're rich...? 

message: "This was a second marriage for both Rowling and Murray, as Murray had previously been married to Dr. Fiona Duncan in 1996. They separated in 1999 and divorced in the summer of 2001." The wording here is a little iffy -- at first glance, if you don't look too closely at the numbers, it sounds like Rowling and Murray were divorced as well. Fix?--Yubishines 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage 

message: If not, what needs to be done? Serendipodous 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: get a Peer review LizzieHarrison 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article FA worthy?

message: Any thoughts on how to do it? Serendipodous 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see this article to reach FA standards, it certainly has the potential. The lead is looking good now, but as a suggestion, we could also add when she first thought of the Harry Potter series, when she started to actually write it (I think it was the same day she came up with the idea), and ultimately when the first book was published. To get this article to a higher standard the citations need to be cleaned up a little; mainly by having one uniform way of retrieval dates in the citations. So far, some of them are 2007-09-05, whilst the others are formed like 5 October 2007. Personally I prefer the later. Since I first got involved with this article I have done quite a bit of tidying to the citations but I'm just so busy now. Hope this helps a little, happy editing. Eagle Owl 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now tidied the citations and I must say I was left rather cross-eyed! At least it's done now. Eagle Owl 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead needs to be expanded

message: I have Conversations with J.K. Rowling, by Lindsey Fraser.
Wikipedia has the wrong place. It is Chipping Sodbury near Bristol, or just Chipping Sodbury.
Rubyandme(not logged in, sorry)
:Her birth certificate says she was born in Yate. It's not really an issue. The two towns are right next to each other. It's like saying you were born in New York when in fact you were born in Scarsdale. Serendipodous 13:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These two places may be very close to one-another, but they are still not the same.  Identity in the UK can be very important for the British, more so than "new" countries.  Darkieboy236 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The only way to solve this would be to get ahold of Rowling's birth certificate. It would be fairly easy to do, just expensive. If anyone wants to do it, they're welcome. Serendipodous 19:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She was born in Yate. Says so on her website RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Place is Wrong! 

message: According to this article, Rowling is sueing the ourganizers of a religious indian event ecause they built a replica of Hogwarts.  Should that be included in the article?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071011/ten-entertainment-india-literature-potte-1dc2b55_1.html
Looneyman 19:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already an article on Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series.Serendipodous 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Lawsuit 

message: I already posted this at Talk:Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, but this report should help in regards to Rowling's personal religion and how it's reflected in the books. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rowling talks about her religion and its presence in the books 

message: Most other author infoboxes on Wikipedia do not separate each name in the "influences" list with a line break.  Doing so here seems like a waste of space.  Also, is there a reason the authors are not in alphabetical order?  I know Rowling has cited Austen as an influence more frequently than the other listed authors, but quantifying influences is so hard (did Nesbit really influence her more than Tolkien?  And less than Lewis?) that I think alphabetizing is the way to go here, to avoid vagueness. Hobbesy3 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited the infobox. Also took out Tolkien. Yes it's likely Rowling, like every other modern fantasy writer, lifted a bit from Tolkien but she's never openly credited him as an influence, so adding him is a bit disingenuous. Sheesh. Should have noticed that before, but I never pay attention to infoboxes. I don't see the point of them. If you're not willing to get information by reading an article, what's the point of having an article to begin with? Serendipodous 07:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences in infobox

message: I originally removed this statement that was added yesterday: In November 2007, Rowling said she was working on "a half-finished book for children that I think will probably be the next thing I publish.", but I mistook this for The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Judging from this source ("Rowling completes first post-Potter book", Associated Press/MSNBC, 1 November 2007. Accessed 1 November 2007.), it is not referring to The Tales, but can someone else please confirm this. Eagle Owl 12:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny; the quote doesn't even appear to have been transcribed by Accio Quote yet. Still, it seems from the context of the article, which is the only place it appears to date, that this is a separate book. I do seem to remember her speaking on Radio 4 about that as well. Serendipodous 14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I heard she was working on a detective novel, but isn't remotely close yet. I also heard Beedle was scrapped, but due to certain circumstances, I didn't get to see why on the news. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the "detective novel" was a joke by Ian Rankin. Serendipodous 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Edit I found this in list of fictional books from harry potter: Rowling recently completed a book also entitled "The Tales of Beedle the Bard", featuring the four stories listed above and "The Warlock's Hairy Heart". She wrote this as her "farewell" to the book series.[2] Only seven copies of the book are being printed, and all of which were hand written and illustrated by Rowling. One copy of the book will be auctioned by Sotheby's in December 2007 to raise money for The Children's Voice, a charity that helps vulnerable children across Europe. The other copies of the book have been given away as gifts. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in the article, under "philanthropy" Serendipodous 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New series

message: Ok, i'm not even remotely British, English, nor do I even live in Europe, but is she technicaly Dame Joanne Rowling because she is now a member of The Order of The British Empire? I'm not sure, and it does seem like someone would have caught that, but I would like some clarification please. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You only get "Dame" if you get a DBE. She only has an OBE. Serendipodous 08:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks very much for that. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not British but... 

message: I know she remarried, but I have never seen her referred to as Joanne Murray. Do we have any evidence she took her husband's name? I may have missed something in one of the references... Rachel Pearce 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She uses her maiden name professionally, but her married name privately. The citation in the "Name" section refers to her seeking a lawsuit under her married name. Also, she frequently arranges private functions and conducts private business under her married name, as reported in an article in the Tatler. This is done, no doubt, to keep her personal and professional lives separate.Serendipodous 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is she really called Murray? 

message: Were you raised religiously?
"I was officially raised in the Church of England, but I was actually more of a freak in my family. We didn't talk about religion in our home. My father didn't believe in anything, neither did my sister. My mother would incidentally visit the church, but mostly during Christmas. And I was immensely curious. From when I was 13, 14 I went to church alone. I found it very interesting what was being said there, and I believed in it.When I went to university, I became more critical. I got more annoyed with the smugness of religious people and I went to church less and less. Now I'm at the point where I started: yes, I believe. And yes, I go to the church. A protestant church here in Edinburgh. My husband is also raised protestant, but he comes from a very strict Scottish group. One where they couldn't sing and talk." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/19/new-interview-with-j-k-rowling-for-release-of-dutch-edition-of-deathly-hallows  
Maybe a slight reword for the article? Libertycookies (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better placed in Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Serendipodous 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Rowling's religious views 

message: It's basically a trivia section, and the list of ever more esoteric honours (Jim Henson?) was becoming ever less relevant. Besides, I don't see how we could ever make it comprehensive. Surely we aren't expected to list EVERY SINGLE kudos Rowling has received from absolutely EVERYONE?  Serendipodous 17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I've removed the Honours section

message: I thought I'd better make a note here before I do any radical revert. An edit made by User:TinyMark back on December 1, removed all linking of dates throughout the entire article, citations and all. I'm just a little concerned as I'm sure I've read somewhere that all full dates must be linked, and if so, this un-linking may affect the featured article chances. The article can easily be reverted to the edition on December 1 as not much has changed (the edits since can easily be added again by myself if I revert). What does everyone else think? Eagle Owl 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know the answer to this. Might be a good idea to raise it on the FAC page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! As you can imaguine it was quite a lot of work to do that edit. I don't seee why that date someone accessed a referenced article is a reason for a link. If you click on the day or year link you will get no information pertaining to this article. So what's the point??? There doesn't seem to be specific guideline for this, but IMHO it seems like overlinking to me. TINYMark (Talk) 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are supposed to link dates in order to let the user preferences show the dates in the user's specified style.  See the MOS and the detailed info.  The date linkage should be put back.  Karanacs 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking dates

message: Rather than risk starting a revert war, I figured I would discuss it here. An editor has added JKR to the "English Christians" category. Unless I'm mistaken, such categories are typically reserved for those whose religion is relevant to their notability (Christian musicians, televangelists, religious figures such as bishops, etc.). Am I incorrect here?  Cheers, faithless (speak) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deathly Hallows does contain some Christian material, but I wouldn't describe Rowling as a Christian writer, so maybe the category isn't all that relevant. Serendipodous 23:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you're right, and the Christian novelists category should be removed too.  V-train (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. :) I've removed them. faithless (speak) 00:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Christians cat? 

message: If I'm reading it right your saying she was married 3 times but when you mention her 3rd husban you say it was their secound marriage?  Explain.150.192.26.196 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see that?  The article says it was the second marriage for both of them.  Earlier in the article, it talks about her first marriage.  V-train (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage 

message: Looking at the whole paragraph, I can't help but think that the sentence could read better. Anyone have any ideas? Edit Centric (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When in doubt, change voice from passive to active. Serendipodous 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a bit more on the content on the article.  Libertycookies (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Submitting the following for consensus to note why she was nominated for person of the year but fell behind non-children book writers like Vladimir Putin and Al Gore. Libertycookies (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Rightly so.  We should probably note her advocacy for tolerance, anti-censorship, and a few other causes as well.  She gives more than money to those orgs...  Libertycookies (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be very careful here Lib; Politics of Harry Potter is a discussion of what other people assume are JK Rowling's politics. Such things do not belong in a biographical article. If you can find information that she gives money and actively supports such organisations, then that can go in, but simply saying "Person X says Rowling believes/is Y" is not valid for a biography of a living person. Works well in your article, not here. Serendipodous 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, we should limit it to direct quotes from her or links direct from her website.  IE: Since she links to Amnesty International and once worked there, then she must support it.  Or if she says she was influenced by a certain book or writer, then you should include that. Libertycookies (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Time Magazine POTY citation to end of lead paragraph... 

message: Rowling has parlayed Harry Potter into a global brand worth an estimated $15 billion (£7 billion).[9] 
:I'm not sure about the wording of this one.  Warner Brothers and Scholastic have done most of the branding work, and Rowling has said her success has been a surprise (ie, not planned).  She's also turned down money makers like the "Moaning Myrtle Training Toilet".  Maybe reword or move to 'Harry Potter' article? Libertycookies (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no doubt her success has taken her by surprise. It would take anyone by surprise to become the richest author in history in less than a decade. But I also think it's possible to overplay the "damsel in the tower" theme in her folk biography. She's not some fairytale princess whisked off her feet by her imagination into fame and fortune. At the very least she's an astute businesswoman who has evolved what could have been a flash in the pan fad into a brand to rival anything by Disney. She could have left it all to Warner and her publishers, but she didn't and she doesn't. She has ultimate say on what can and cannot be done in her name. Serendipodous 21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, she sold many of her rights (and been well paid).  She has regretted the renaming of her first book in the U.S. and had no say in that.  And at one point she objected to a theme park, but seems out voted by WB.  Just looking for a mild word-smithing of the sentence to give others credit.  She may be a smart business woman, but she didn't make Harry Potter worth $15B without a lot of help.  She just writes books, others sell and market them. Libertycookies (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Seren.  I moved the sentence to the third paragraph which seems to be HP focused, and added the bit on Time POTY.  I think it flows into the 2nd para about her philanthropy and the links to politics and fandom should eliminate any need for more copy on either subject in this article.  Its a good faith edit, hoping its acceptable.  Libertycookies (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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). Serendipodous 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rowling's fortune at £545 million: "Bollocks" According to Jo herself!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Serendipodous 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rowling to speak at Harvard commencement 

message: 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. Serendipodous 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: what? USD? CAD? what currency?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.218.172 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "worth an estimated $15 billion" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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.Serendipodous 15:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Don't start with her sales!