![]() | 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WPHP
|
Filmography section?
Would it be suitable for the article? It is normal for many producers to have a filmography section, such as David Heyman. Guy546(Talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Un-objective Source: Matt Latimer in "Life After Harry Potter" section
I'm concerned about one point on the J K Rowling article. Under the "Life After Harry Potter" section, the article states: "Matt Latimer, a former speech writer for President George W. Bush has claimed in his book Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor that Rowling was turned down for the Presidential Medal of Freedom because White House officials in the Bush administration believed that the Harry Potter series promoted witchcraft."
Regardless of my personal issues with GW Bush, I'm concerned about using Matt Latimer as a source here for two reasons: 1) As a disgruntled former employee, Latimer is very biased against Bush, and therefore is not an objective source. It would be in his best interests to lump Bush and his administration in with some of the fundamentalists who actually do think the books promoted witchcraft. 2) Latimer's book has been frequently criticized as containing several factual inaccuracies, not necessarily because he was deliberately lying (I wouldn't presume to make a judgment in that regard) but because he did not always have first-hand knowledge of certain things, meaning his book contained Latimer's personal interpretations of hearsay.
Therefore, because Latimer is not widely regarded as an objective source under the best of circumstances and because there is a lot of dispute about the accuracy of other things he said he "knew," I question whether he's the best source for this. If such a discussion about JKR did take place, there are going to be other people who will have talked about it, so surely another source could be found if this is important to include.
Personally, I suspect the discussion did take place. And while I doubt any of Bush's advisors actually believed JK Rowling was promoting witchcraft, I'd bet that someone voiced their objection to giving JKR the medal based on the concern that it might alienate a key demographic (fundamentalists who DO feel that way about the HP books) for Bush. Therefore, using Latimer as a source for this doesn't seem to me to be a good idea since he isn't the most credible, and the statement he makes sounds heavily biased to me.
And, much as I hate to admit it, I suppose it should also be discussed whether this statement actually should go in this article, or if it should be limited to the article, "Religious debates over the Harry Potter series."
GioiaMia (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's about something that didn't happen, whether it's true or not, I think it can be removed, though I still think it's relevant to Religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Serendipodous 10:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)