Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 3

message: I've been through a hundred Google hits, and I still cannot find any direct evidence linking Rowling Gate to JK Rowling. A lot of circumstantial evidence, but nothing direct. I think it's about time we took that down. 
Wow. That was prompt.
Serendipodous 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rowling gate again

message: The POV fork created at Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling has been redirected here. Libertycookies: please consider that attempt to bypass consensus, to be of poor manners and disruptive.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unbelievable... AulaTPN 07:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering why he was being so docile and compliant. Serendipodous 07:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following all your advice, but with Jossi reediting everything two seconds after I put something in, I was forced to firm up the article prior to getting all of your negative feedback.  And contrary to Jossi comments that are in poor manners themselves, I don't consider it any of the above.  You three are way too much in conflict to be objective. Libertycookies 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Which is why I haven't bothered adding my support to that article's deletion. Since it is effectively a re-inroduction of your other article which was also deleted (and which, note, I also didn't vote for), I'm confident it won't require my assistance. Serendipodous 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way to do that is to create a sandbox page under your user pages and then when you're done you put it into the main article. What you've done is a flagrant violation of editing protocol and an unpleasant way of circumventing consensus. I'm not *personally* in conflict with anyone but I am committed to making sure that articles/editors stick by the rules. All of our actions here have been in accordance with well-established protocols such as WP:BLP, yours have not. AulaTPN 18:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for my ignorance of the sandbox.  Please see if there hasn't been hostile and rude comments in this discussion, or a prejudice and ad hominem attacks against me rather than my contributions.  Half the people on the delete said its clearly OR, when the other claimed its already been posted.  Jossi jumped to the conclusion that the article was to be rude.  Well congrats, I'm sure it will be deleted, as it falls outside of the majority held belief that Rowling is just a rich witch.  Ever hear of tyranny of the majority? Libertycookies 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As a minor contributor to the argument, I have to agree with jossi.  Liberty, you seem to be deliberately trying to circumvent the rules, and jossi is justified in labeling the new article disruptive.  I highly recommend that you read through the pages on biographies and original research and point of view, because although various people have tried to point out the rules that we are supposed to be following, you don't seem to understand. You can't disregard the rules just because you disagree with them.  Karanacs 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've transferred the only new content to this article.  Hope you don't mind it. Libertycookies 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the content from this article. Content shouldn't be repeated across articles and as it's already in Hary Potter I felt it was more appropriate there. AulaTPN 23:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah sorry, unless we delete the whole Harry Potter section, that doesn't cut it. Libertycookies 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you what doesn't cut it - your continued ad hominem attacks and violations of rules. Believe it or not I'm actually doing you a favour - adding the same content to multiple pages is a sure-fire way to get unwanted attention from admins and I'm saving you the hassle. You've added it to this article and the Harry Potter article. It quite clearly belongs on the harry potter article and not this one so I'm removing it yet again. Do *not* add this stuff back in again and quit with the insults. AulaTPN 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use a more civil tone, avoid making personal allegations, and leave admin work to the admins. Libertycookies 23:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you come right in with a decidedly uncivil ad-hominem attack? Nice way to make your point. They are not allegations and I have previously supplied proof - check the various histories of the pages you've posted to. Also until your own editing decisions start to fall in line with policy I think you're the last person who should be telling people how to behave on wikipedia. AulaTPN 10:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV fork

message: Right I think it's fair to say that things on this article (particularly the talk page) have gotten ever so slightly heated lately. Heck, I'm even willing to concede that my restraint hasn't been perfect of late so how to move on? Well as a start I've archived the latest batch of 'debate' to the talk page barring the current discussions so let's try and start with a clean slate. I propose:
* We stop the debate at AfD and just wait for the article to be deleted. I think Libertycookies understands that we're not trying to kill his edits - just make sure that they end up in the right article and without POVForking.
* I'd like to reiterate that I do think that the topics Libertycookies wishes to discuss are valid topics and would be a valued contribution to the article but they need to be presented in a way that is fair and balanced and does not violate WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I know Libertycookies sometimes doesn't see why his content violates these so perhaps we can be better at explaining why rather than just shooting it all down? But that must be dependent on my next point.
* I'd like to ask Libertycookies to agree that any proposed edits on these topics should be constructed here first as he has been doing of late but I would also like to ask that he wait for consensus to be reached here before moving the content to the article. I understand his concerns about delay tactics on other forums but I cannot emphasise enough that this is honestly not what we're trying to do here.
* Finally, no matter how annoying/frustrating this gets let's all try not to take/make things personal. Particularly not entering into 'he said, she said' arguments into which many of us have regrettably slipped.
With something which has obviously proven to be as contentious as this I think we can still get there provided we adopt some rigour and an approach of assembling changes outside the main article. Thoughts anyone? AulaTPN 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to move forward. 

message: Someone recently added a para on Harold Bloom's criticism of the books to that section, but I shifted it over to Harry Potter on the grounds that it had more to do with the books than with Rowling. On reflection though, I realised the entire controversy section is also not particularly relevant to Rowling personally.  Since it's already in the Harry Potter article, I deleted it and replaced it with links in the See Also section. Serendipodous 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. The focus of the controversy has mostly not been on J. K. Rowling as a person but on the merits/effects of her published works. However there has been a good deal of controversy over her stance on society's current portrayal of 'ideal women' as being overly skinny. Perhaps that can be incorporated here? AulaTPN 11:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure that it correct to delete. We have a spinoff article and it is summarized here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is a flypaper for potential OR. It encourages people to add their own thoughts about how "good" or "bad" JKR or her books are. It's already in the Harry Potter article, where I think it belongs, as its focus is on the books rather than her. Since the controversy is about the books, not her, it makes better sense that the summary section stays with the article on the books. Serendipodous 12:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Controversy" section was "spun out" from two different articles. The "religious" section was spun out from the main Harry Potter article. The "Legal" section was spun out from this article. Now that both sections have their own articles, if this article must link to part of the controversy section, it should link to the "legal" section only. In my opinion though, the legal section has evolved beyond its original theme, as many of the legal issues have nothing personally to do with Rowling, and thus is no longer directly tied to this article. Therefore it makes more sense to simply link to them, rather than mention them in the article. Serendipodous 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, can I remove the controversy section or not? Serendipodous 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Controversy" section

message: There's sentence on how JKR sent a letter to the Czech government to stop using caged beds in mental institutions which the government obeyed immediatelly and without hesitation. The complete story is much more complicated and also much more entertaining.
Use of caged beds was supported by larger fraction of psychiatrists in the Czech Republic, some had opposed it. Independently, a British newspaper (Sunday Times) wrote a sensationalist article how badly they treat patients in this country (somewhere in the Wild East barbarians torture a retarded kid keeping him in a cage), JKR read it and wrote a letter to the president of the country, how she "is shocked this happens in an EU country".
The minister of public health (who was a doctor by profession and not very smart politician) on the next day banned the caged beds. This decision was associated (by the media) with the letter, the minister ridiculed all over (like whether JKR is the new ruler of the country), reprimanded by president and lost his position soon during a government reorganisation. The decision itself was disagreed by many specialists (who had JKR for incompetent meddling in things she does not understand) and later partly reverted. Number of injuries of the patients has increased and the clinics have been constantly complaining about the decision.
When JKR visited Prague in June 2007 ago she apologised for all the media uproar she caused. The timeline of the story in a Czech newspaper.
IMO the sentence "According to a press release by Amnesty International, Rowling is cited as having written a letter to the Czech government in support of the ban of cage bed in mental institutions in that country. This decision to ban these cage beds was made days after the authorities received her letter." should be removed as incomplete and deforming the reality. The complete story is not significant enough for an overview article. Pavel Vozenilek 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh gosh... Removed. If you want, please re-add, this time adding the missing information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to comment, Rowling still advocates against cage beds and has several links to organizations and the sensationalist articles on her website.  Not to say she is correct in her opinion, but her advocacy on the issue is significant, and warrants some comment rather than deletion because of controversy.  Suggestions for a neutral sentence just mentioning the advocacy not the outcome? Libertycookies 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gonna have to agree with this one. While it's a stretch to assert that she had any significant part in the government's decision it is an issue on which she has campaigned quited publicly and quite vociferously. I think that needs to be mentioned. AulaTPN 08:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinstated first bit and merged it with "Other donations", since it was no longer big enough to stand on its own. Serendipodous 09:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter to the Czech government (in Charities section) 

message: Jo is a Scot. Scotland is part of the UK. In the UK we don't put fartsy periods all over the place. In the UK Jo's name is 'JK Rowling'. Please have some decency and respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.125.44 (talk • contribs) 
:Wrong and wrong - good start. You're obviously not a Brit as nobody in the UK calls a full-stop a 'period', to a Brit a period is something completely different and much much scarier. Jo is English if it matters, born in Yate near Bristol. And British people most certainly do use full-stops all over the place - that is if they've actually been taught spelling and grammar. Oh and new talk subjects should be added to the end of the page. AulaTPN 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She pretty much is an adopted Scot, and her books were aided quite a bit by Scotland (arts grant and welfare).  Now she pays the bulk of her taxes there, and is thrilled to have a Scottish PM.  Perhaps a bit more on her relationship with Scotland?  http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/bldev_famrowling.htm Libertycookies 12:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True but the money for those grants ultimately comes from the UK Treasury and no matter where you pay your taxes in the UK they all still go to the same place. Unlike the US we have no concept of a local income tax. There's council tax but that's a whole other can of worms... AulaTPN 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JK Rowling No Period

message: :With so many assumptions in the media about why Rowling is shy and private, we probably should address the various viewpoints here.  Here's a rough draft, needs work, and I've thrown notes in so you can see where I'm trying to go.  I can track down the quotes if you guys think it is an appropriate subject.  Libertycookies 13:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems in adding some text about Rowling shunning the media, if we have such sources. As for the "autobiography" claims, I am not so sure, unless there is wide consensus of sources on the subject or, at least, a significant vioewpoint in this regard (and not some vague speculation by a journalist). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Privacy of Rowling

message: Rowling is known for her reticance in discussing her personal life, as well as her disdain for spoilers of her books, which may be due to the somewhat autobiographical nature of Harry Potter.  In addition to Ron Weasley and Hermoine Granger being inspired by her best friend and herself, Rowling said that Ernie and Stanley, the driver and conductor of the Knight Bus, were named after her grandfathers. [Conversations with J.K. Rowling pg 12].  Rowling's mother came from a family of teachers, "was a huge reader," and was "quite bookish" which Rowling said was a big influence on her. (ibid pg 12)  Dobby the house elf seems to come from her heroine, Jessica Mitford's second autobiography, A Fine Old Conflict.  Rowling says that the Dementors are representative of Depression, which she experienced while on the dole in Edinburgh [Chaundy, Bob. "Harry Potter's magician". BBC, 18 February 2003].  The death of her mother to MS aided in her description of Harry's longing in the Mirror of Erised in which Rowling said she "would see exactly what Harry saw." ["Harry Potter Charms a Nation," Electronic Telegraph (July 25, 1998)].  When asked how she got the idea of writing about magic, Rowling said "When I was younger, I think my greatest fantasy would have been to find out that I had powers that I'd never dreamt of, that I was special."  [From radio interview with Margo Adler, All Things Considered, NPR (October 2000)].  Rowling shares a birthday with her protaganist, Harry, of 31 July, and says if people had asked her more about her [Christian] faith they could probably guess where the series was going.
J.K. Rowling says she is "left wing" and that there is a certain amount of "political stuff"  in Harry Potter, but that "every reader will bring his own agenda to the book."
Several articles have noted the leftist influences of Rowling's heroine, one-time Communist Jessica Mitford, on the Harry Potter series, with the themes of cooperation among the magical racesNatalie Nichols, LA City Beat  26 July 2007., racism, and the slavery of House elves.[www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/05.23.07/harry-potter-0721.html John Rose, Metro Santa Cruz 23 May, 2007 
:Would something like this be okay for inclusion, or a spinoff article?  Theres more, and I can look up the sources if you guys are agreeable to the subject. Libertycookies 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is good and interesting material if you can find good sources to support it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the attributions okay? Can we post? 70.137.148.86 00:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autobiographical aspects of Harry Potter

message: Nice word Jossi!  I added her to the wiki list with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Mother Teresa.  What odd bedfellows. Libertycookies 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know what you mean by that, but a living person that gives 22 million pounds of her money to  comic relief and raised that much on special books dedicated to charitable work, is a philanthropist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant it in serious praise and wished I would have thought of the word myself. Libertycookies 07:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Philanthropist]]

message: Hey Jossi, maybe we should put a moratorium on change for a few days? Libertycookies 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need is to be ready for the onslaught when the 7th book is made available... Vandalism galore is guaranteed... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this page should be semi-protected, like Harry Potter. Serendipodous 06:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protected sounds good.  I saw some yahoo trying to vandalize with a spoiler already.  At least I'm trying to contribute positively, although sometimes slanted. Libertycookies 07:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always been surprised that this page isn't semi-protected anyway. AulaTPN 08:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sprotected for 1 month. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Freeze the page

message: Although Joanne is her real name, she is best known to millions as J.K. Rowling.  Per WP:NAME, the article should be under the latter name, so I'm going to move it.  Exploding Boy 05:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Could we get the talk page on the same name as the article page is on, please? └Jared┘┌t┐  18:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. User:Mr. panadol incorrectly moved the article and its talk page from J. K. Rowling to Joanne Rowling. User:Exploding Boy then attempted to revert that change, as per WP:NAME, by moving back but accidentally moved the pages to J.K. Rowling. The article was subsequently re-moved & redirected but not the talk page. The change is now working it's way through the Requested Moves process. AulaTPN 22:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I just figured someone here was an admin who could make the change right away to at least match them. └Jared┘┌t┐  23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismatched pages