Eric Blatant (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Warner REBORN (talk | contribs) →NEED FOR DISCUSSION - NATIONALITY: new section |
||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
She is not 'the United Kingdom's best-selling author since records began'. The Telegraph article given as a reference for that actually says she's the best-selling since Nielsen BookScan's records began, not all records. In fact William Shakespeare, Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland and Enid Blyton each sold more. Rowling is, however, the UK's best-selling LIVING author and I'll edit the page accordingly. [[User:Eric Blatant|Eric Blatant]] ([[User talk:Eric Blatant|talk]]) 16:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC) |
She is not 'the United Kingdom's best-selling author since records began'. The Telegraph article given as a reference for that actually says she's the best-selling since Nielsen BookScan's records began, not all records. In fact William Shakespeare, Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland and Enid Blyton each sold more. Rowling is, however, the UK's best-selling LIVING author and I'll edit the page accordingly. [[User:Eric Blatant|Eric Blatant]] ([[User talk:Eric Blatant|talk]]) 16:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
== NEED FOR DISCUSSION - NATIONALITY == |
|||
This discussion has been held before but never seams to make any ground. In this case there seams to be three outcomes suggested and five outcomes possible. |
|||
*1. ENGLISH |
|||
*2. BRITISH |
|||
*3. SCOTTISH |
|||
*4. BRITISH/SCOTTISH |
|||
*5. ENGLISH born SCOTTISH |
|||
Here are the factors we must consider. |
|||
*Country of Birth = ENGLAND |
|||
*Parental = ENGLAND (French heritage resembles no change to the matter) |
|||
*Place of growing up = ENGLAND |
|||
*Place of residence = SCOTLAND (main residence), ENGLAND (London residence) |
|||
The basic matter is [[Scotland independence]]. If Scotland does go independent, Rowling can not be classed solely as Scottish as residence alone makes no difference. If Rowling gets a Scottish passport then she would be '''British-Scottish''' or '''English-born Scottish'''. If Scotland stays British then we are left with two outcomes '''English''' or '''British'''. As you can gather this is very complex and needs to be discussed in depthbefore the casting vote for Scotland. --[[User:Warner REBORN|Warner REBORN]] ([[User talk:Warner REBORN|talk]]) 13:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:24, 22 August 2014
J. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was travelling back to London on my own on a crowded train
The image in the section Inspiration and mother's death seems totally irrelevant. According to the text, Rowling was on a train when she was delayed, not in a station, certainly not in King's Cross Station, if that is where the photograph was taken. On her eventual arrival at KX from Manchester, she would have left the station without delay. Apuldram (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a separate paragraph in the main text, explaining the connection between Harry Potter and KX. The original image would then be more appropriate, as it shows a train, perhaps the Hogwarts Express. Apuldram (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Error in Religion Section
The Church of Scotland is a Protestant church, not Catholic. J.K.'s daughter would have been christened, not baptised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.172.33 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- There's a bit of confusion there; the source says Church of Scotland, but it's very likely that it was Scottish Episopal, though we haven't found a source yet to confirm it. Serendipodous 09:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to be a number of sources, but difficult to find one that's authoritative. How about this? Also, JKR is listed in the Wiki category Scottish Episcopalians.
- In any case, surely protestants are baptised? Apuldram (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- I always thought so. Serendipodous 11:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Scottish Episcopal Church seems to see the two terms as synonymous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- S. Episcopal is Anglo-Catholic rather than Protestant, whereas the Church of Scotland is Protestant. I've never heard that Protestants don't use the term "baptism"; after all, Baptists are a Protestant denomination. Serendipodous 13:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Church of Scotland uses the term baptism, see direct quote from their website here "The usual pattern for joining the Church of Scotland is that infant children of Church members are received into the Church through Baptism." The statement in section Religion of the article ("She attended a Church of Scotland congregation while writing Harry Potter and her eldest daughter, Jessica, was baptised there") is therfore correct. I think it's time to put this discussion to bed. Apuldram (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- I always thought so. Serendipodous 11:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
New subsection on Scottish independence issue
I have updated the Politics section and decided to create a separate subsection for the independence topic, as it has become increasingly significant in Rowling's career/public life. I will also be updating this content on related pages, such as the Better Together page. However, I am happy to collaborate on the further development of the section, as I am new to editing this page.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it really merits a separate section from politics generally, as her support of Better Together is consistent with her already expressed political beliefs (support of the Labour Party). The "Death Eater" reference belongs more in the politics of Harry Potter article. There is a useful article on the BBC about this. Also, there is a danger of the section being a bit unbalanced now in having more material about her views regarding Scottish independence than her other views. Again, most of the content probably belongs in the politics of Harry Potter article, with only a summary in this main article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
However
I have twice removed a "however" from the article. As WP:EDITORIAL says, we need to be extremely cautious in using this word and only use it where it is actually merited, or in quotes. Speaking of quotes, there are far too many such that we are well into WP:QUOTEFARM territory and I have tagged the article accordingly. --John (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you don't have the literary skill to preserve the meaning of a sentence after you alter it, don't alter it. Hacking a word out and then leaving the wreckage for others to clean up is vandalism, pure and simple. Serendipodous 10:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm. I'm not impressed with this response, as it does not address the content issue I raised. If there are no valid objections I will restore my edit. --John (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- "However" is not always editorial. It is simply used in this context to connect a contrasting subordinate clause. It makes authorial claims whatsoever. Now, there are words out there, beginning with "N" and "C", for instance, that are editorial; however, I do not appreciate my use of that word being grouped alongside them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talk • contribs)
- Mmm. I'm not impressed with this response, as it does not address the content issue I raised. If there are no valid objections I will restore my edit. --John (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- When the "however" in section Religion was removed by John, the two sentences created by that edit no longer made any logical sense. In this context, however is a necessary qualifier, contradicting the implication that by including witchcraft in her books Rowling is promoting it. "But" would be an alternative, however I feel that "however" is better. Apuldram (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, at least now we are beginning to address the content issue. The authorial claim lies in the contention that there is a contrast between the clauses. If this contrast exists in the source, we could perhaps keep the wording. Does it? I'm not particularly into playing guessing games so I have no idea what the latter half of your comment means. --John (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- So this is an issue about sourcing? Fine. I'll add a source. Serendipodous 15:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- It would need to be a source that calls the facts that she has been called a bad influence and that she has been to church some kind of contradiction. It seems to go against NPOV and NOR for us to make that statement in Wikipedia's voice. After all there is no inherent contradiction in Rowling's writings having been criticised by some religious believers, and her claiming to be a religious believer. Religious believers make claims like that against one another all the time. Do you see what I mean? --John (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Christian fundamentalists see the books as promoting Witchcraft, which they consider a religion. Rowling identifies as a Christian, and does not claim to promote the religion of witchcraft. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Serendipodous 18:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and maybe that's the problem. --John (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- So what are you asking for? Absolute proof that the books do NOT promote witchcraft? Other than the author's own stated position, what contrast could possibly be offered? Serendipodous 19:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not to wave my credentials around here but I do a lot of copyediting and reviewing of Featured Article Candidates and the use of "however" is something I have learned to look out for. I even wrote an essay on it. Along with "Nevertheless", "moreover", "additionally", it is a marker of weak, unfocused writing. The reason is that it betrays a simplistic view of causality. Using "however" in this case embeds an unspoken (and unsourced) opinion that being a member of a church precludes someone from being capable of being criticised by members of other churches (or even one's own). It is better to neutrally state what happened, what was said, who said it, with bullet proof sources at every stage. The current use of "however" is pushing synthesis into the article, and is unarguably bad style. --John (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bad style? Have you read the line as you leave it? It reads like a Dick and Jane book. Serendipodous 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Then you should attempt to find a compromise wording. I suspect a semi-colon may be involved. Honestly, there are worse problems with the article than this one word though. Please have a think about the points I made below. --John (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your points were too vague to be of any use. If you really want to take this to FAR, that's fine, but I'd rather we not go through it word by word. And btw, as far as this word goes, so far I don't see a consensus to change it, which means finding a compromise wording would be your job. Serendipodous 23:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Then you should attempt to find a compromise wording. I suspect a semi-colon may be involved. Honestly, there are worse problems with the article than this one word though. Please have a think about the points I made below. --John (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bad style? Have you read the line as you leave it? It reads like a Dick and Jane book. Serendipodous 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not to wave my credentials around here but I do a lot of copyediting and reviewing of Featured Article Candidates and the use of "however" is something I have learned to look out for. I even wrote an essay on it. Along with "Nevertheless", "moreover", "additionally", it is a marker of weak, unfocused writing. The reason is that it betrays a simplistic view of causality. Using "however" in this case embeds an unspoken (and unsourced) opinion that being a member of a church precludes someone from being capable of being criticised by members of other churches (or even one's own). It is better to neutrally state what happened, what was said, who said it, with bullet proof sources at every stage. The current use of "however" is pushing synthesis into the article, and is unarguably bad style. --John (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- So what are you asking for? Absolute proof that the books do NOT promote witchcraft? Other than the author's own stated position, what contrast could possibly be offered? Serendipodous 19:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and maybe that's the problem. --John (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Christian fundamentalists see the books as promoting Witchcraft, which they consider a religion. Rowling identifies as a Christian, and does not claim to promote the religion of witchcraft. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Serendipodous 18:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- It would need to be a source that calls the facts that she has been called a bad influence and that she has been to church some kind of contradiction. It seems to go against NPOV and NOR for us to make that statement in Wikipedia's voice. After all there is no inherent contradiction in Rowling's writings having been criticised by some religious believers, and her claiming to be a religious believer. Religious believers make claims like that against one another all the time. Do you see what I mean? --John (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- So this is an issue about sourcing? Fine. I'll add a source. Serendipodous 15:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, at least now we are beginning to address the content issue. The authorial claim lies in the contention that there is a contrast between the clauses. If this contrast exists in the source, we could perhaps keep the wording. Does it? I'm not particularly into playing guessing games so I have no idea what the latter half of your comment means. --John (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- John: I'd be happy to assist this informal review. When reading the article I notice that a lot of the self-published/interview sources are used to reference generally uncontroversial material, are there any particular sections/areas of the article you think need looking at more closely with regards to this? Best, —JennKR | ☎ 16:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. The one that I saw being added which concerned me was the one I removed towards the bottom of this diff. I've taken out and in some cases summarised around 35 quotes, and removed some snippets that were only sourced to her own website. I've tried to cleanup the language and edit for brevity and summary style. My edits (which were assisted by others) can be seen here. --John (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Left-wing
Serendipodous: I included a sentence on Rowling being left-wing, and I was wondering if you had any thoughts about whether this should be expanded on and how? Some have suggested she can be identified as socialist pointing to The Casual Vacancy and her love for Jessica Mitford, however, I'm not sure how reliably this information can be referenced. Best, —JennKR | ☎ 15:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed it. It's hardly a surprise that a right wing commentator like Charles Moore describes her that way, but it's of no encyclopedic value to add his thoughts on the matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle: But surely this information is relevant when she has said it of herself? Not in the source I provided, but previously in interviews. —JennKR | ☎ 15:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with its removal. It isn't something she is known for. --John (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- The sentence added by JennKR contained: "has been described as". Those are weasel words. A more complete statement, such as 'Charles Moore, a former editor of the right wing Daily Telegraph has described her as holding left wing views" immediately discloses the lack of a NPOV. Apuldram (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with its removal. It isn't something she is known for. --John (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle: But surely this information is relevant when she has said it of herself? Not in the source I provided, but previously in interviews. —JennKR | ☎ 15:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
What are all of your thoughts on this, there are probably more recent examples but this is what I first came across:
- Jensen: Do the books reflect your own political sensibilities? In America, some might say you're a bit left-wing.
- Rowling: It's absolutely the reverse to the British press; I was told yesterday that I'm a Euroskeptic, which is a big buzzword in Britain. I actually woke up at 2 a.m. this morning, went into the kitchen to get some water, and thought, "I know why they said that -- they haven't finished the book." Right at the end, Dumbledore says, "Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open." That is my view. It is very inclusive, and yes, you are right: I am left-wing.
Best, —JennKR | ☎ 16:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is evidence of what she says about herself. Are there third party sources that discuss Rowling's political views in these terms? --John (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Said, fourteen years ago, in fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good correction. That is evidence of what she said about herself fourteen years ago. No offence, but this is the sort of material that has got the article where it is today. See below. We definitely shouldn't add any more material like this. We should remove the self-sourced stuff, summarise quotes, and rewrite for summary style. --John (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Said, fourteen years ago, in fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is evidence of what she says about herself. Are there third party sources that discuss Rowling's political views in these terms? --John (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Featured article review
I am concerned that this article, having gone through the FAC process in 2007 when standards were much lower, no longer meets the standards. As well as the issues of excessive quotation and sloppy and editorial writing style, which I raised above, there is a problem with the references to the subject's own statements. Per WP:PRIMARY we should only be using this sort of sourcing for highly uncontroversial material. For a writer this famous it should be easy to get sourcing from proper third party sources. I think there may also have been a problem with fans editing the article. All in all, I think we may need to consider a review of the article's status. What do others think? --John (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
"The Smiths" or "the Smiths"
The Beatles page had a lengthy discussion on this issue and prefers the subsequent use to be "the Beatles". However, I noticed on The Rolling Stones page they capitalise "The" throughout. Is there a correct way here for The Smiths and The Clash? Best, —JennKR | ☎ 16:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a good point. The discussion at the Beatles involved a massive RfC as I recall, but it is not binding on other band names. I greatly prefer the uncapitalised version. --John (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Merge with Harry Potter
As far as I am concerned J,K, Rowling is only famous for one thing, being an author. If I am not mistaken it's policy for people who are only famous for one thing should not have articles.178.167.254.17 (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you're genuinely suggesting that the author of a franchise selling in excess of 400 million books is in some way non-notable then you are quite, quite mad. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- *rolls eyes* Mezigue (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- True; further, she is not noted only for Harry Potter. Didn't you notice her other works, including a collaboration on a new movie? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopedia/encyclopaedia
@Chaheel Riens: Either change all occurrences of "encyclopedia" to "encyclopaedia" or vice-versa. Right now, both are used and it looks sloppy. It's my understanding that the shorter spelling is more common on both sides of the pond; I'd like to see evidence to the contrary if you have any. --NYKevin 00:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- As "encyclopaedia" is the more inherently English spelling - and specifically categorised in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling I've updated all occurances of "pedia" to "paedia".
- In the first reversion, I slightly misunderstood, and thought your reference to consistency meant a general style, not specific instances of "pedia". Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes Wikipaedia can be frustrating... Serendipodous 08:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Best-selling UK author
She is not 'the United Kingdom's best-selling author since records began'. The Telegraph article given as a reference for that actually says she's the best-selling since Nielsen BookScan's records began, not all records. In fact William Shakespeare, Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland and Enid Blyton each sold more. Rowling is, however, the UK's best-selling LIVING author and I'll edit the page accordingly. Eric Blatant (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
NEED FOR DISCUSSION - NATIONALITY
This discussion has been held before but never seams to make any ground. In this case there seams to be three outcomes suggested and five outcomes possible.
- 1. ENGLISH
- 2. BRITISH
- 3. SCOTTISH
- 4. BRITISH/SCOTTISH
- 5. ENGLISH born SCOTTISH
Here are the factors we must consider.
- Country of Birth = ENGLAND
- Parental = ENGLAND (French heritage resembles no change to the matter)
- Place of growing up = ENGLAND
- Place of residence = SCOTLAND (main residence), ENGLAND (London residence)
The basic matter is Scotland independence. If Scotland does go independent, Rowling can not be classed solely as Scottish as residence alone makes no difference. If Rowling gets a Scottish passport then she would be British-Scottish or English-born Scottish. If Scotland stays British then we are left with two outcomes English or British. As you can gather this is very complex and needs to be discussed in depthbefore the casting vote for Scotland. --Warner REBORN (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)