Serendipodous (talk | contribs) |
Libertycookies (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
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. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
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. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
: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.[[User:Serendipodous|Serendipodous]] 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
: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.[[User:Serendipodous|Serendipodous]] 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
Okay, rather than deleting everything, lets get some other viewpoints. Should we discuss how to word in the Talk section? I do have issues with the complete lack of coverage of Rowling politics in the MSM as well as wikipedia especially since the Order of the Phoenix movie (trailers) have such political overtones.[[User:Libertycookies|Libertycookies]] 15:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:14, 1 June 2007
J. K. Rowling has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |
Template:WPHP |
Template:WPCD-People Template:FAOL
Archives |
---|
|
Good Article Status
I've given this good article status though I am hesitant as there is no free photos (all fair use). Computerjoe's talk 11:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair use images
Can we be a little more careful in using fair use? If you replace the existing photo, please list the original one for deletion. I've just had to hunt back through the history and tagged Image:Jk-rowling.jpg and Image:Rowling.jpg, unused fair use photos. Also, I find it a little ridiculous that we're even using fair use. Rowling is a highly prolific author - it shouldn't be hard to find a free photo of her. Hbdragon88 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, OK, but I have no idea how to locate a public domain image of a living author; most, if not all, images of the author would fall under the copyright of the photographer, correct? And given how Wikipedia's entire Harry Potter domain seems ruled by screenshots from the movies, it seems a bit odd to go against fair use for this article. Serendipodous 14:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be public domain; it just has to be freely licensed. Someone here with a camera can go to a book signing or whatever and take a picture of her. But fair use is discouraged - the philisophy is to use it only when it's necessary. It is inevitable that we must use fair use movie screenshots for the movies, but for its author? - it should be relatively easy to find a freely licensed image of her. Hbdragon88 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's a harsh image policy indeed that places fair use below stalking. Serendipodous 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh give me a break. If Jimbo had his way, he'd probably have deleted the image by now. It would techincally violate criteria one of WP:FUC - FU is supposed to be used if a free imae can't be located. As a living person it shouldn't be hard to find an image. And stalking? Pfft. She's a celebrity and presumably goes out on book signings. It would be stalking if someone got an image while she was at her house or something. Anyway, Flickr turns out nothing, so I suppose that this image will stay for now. Hbdragon88 05:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- So basically, we have a choice between using a picture without the photograper's consent, and taking a picture without Rowling's consent. Which is worse? Serendipodous 07:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Without the photographer's consent is breaking the law (copyrighted image). Without Rowling's consent is at least legal (in a public setting, mind, not in her backyard or anything). And who says it has to be done without permission? See Image:KatarinaWitt_1.jpg and Image:JakeGyllenhaal.jpg for pictures taken with the subject's permission. Hbdragon88 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to revive this discussion because it seems a little absurd this is no photo of Rowling in the article. Since no free alternative can be found, fair use is acceptable here, I think. In that case I'd think something like this, meant for publicity (it's from a book cover), should qualify, no? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- No Fair Use image is suitable as a Free image can be created, purely because JKR is a living person and it's neither impossible or difficult to create an image to release under a free licence. I've removed the latest image uploaded as it's one of them "from some website" jobs too. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- All this bullshit about images is nonsense. Can't you do something more constructive than policing pages for questionable images. Just forget the rules, this helps nothing. John Reaves 05:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Tagged the image with {{Replaceable fair use}}. Flickr still yields nothing, just idiotic pictures of people who think it's so cool to take a photograph of the books they hvae. 'Till next time. Hbdragon88 05:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is this: anyone who claims that a fair use image of JK Rowling is easily replaced should buy a ticket to Scotland, track JK Rowling down, and ask her permission for a free image to be used for Wikipedia. If such an undertaking is indeed as easy as they claim, then they are free to do so. As none of the officious pedants who have raised this issue seem bothered to follow up with anything requiring such effort, they aren't in a position to complain. Why should they expect anyone else do to something they themselves refuse to do? Serendipodous 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the statement that she makes "regular public appearances" is false; she in fact has only been seen in the recent past at Radio City in August 2006, where photography was not allowed inside the building, and prior to that in July 2005 for the release of HBP where she read an excerpt of the book for children starting at midnight. And, as we have said, no free images have been found. Just because she's living doesn't make her an easy subject to photograph. Besides, the pictures on the back of the books are meant for promotion and certainly, if the photos we've found recently don't work, the "About the Author" qualifies for FU. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's an idea. Go find a Harry Potter forum or two, and post a request! Someone there will have a photo they took at a book-signing. Another idea - is it possible to find a list/forum of Scottish wikipedia users/admins? Maybe go post a request on the "Scotland" discussion page. CraigWyllie 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The other image
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)
Rant on hallowness of this article.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
List/contents of works
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).
- 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)
Rowing or rolling
According to the The Oxford BBC Guide to Pronunciation[1], 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)
- It's "Rowling like bowling." See [2]. 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)
Accusing Rowling of copyright infringement without evidence is libel
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)
Unreplaceable FU image
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)
- But she is not a recluse. She may not make regular appearances, I will concede, but she is not a recluse. Foofy (talk · contribs) argued the same for Robert Post, but it was deleted per Image talk:Robert_Post.jpg. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Ok, so it doesn't matter, and it's probably not too good a source since it's six and a half years old, but The Times did once call her a "recluse"… Anyway, I'm still waiting for a response from Leaky. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Dr. JK Rowling
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)
CHILDHOOD from steeley
216.105.208.2 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Italic textwhen did jk write her first book? how old was she? what was the book called?
- 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)
Philopsher's stone!?!? what? ~Fixed~
- 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)
According to her UK publisher, Rowling was born in Chipping Sodbury, which lies very close to Yate, where she lived in early childhood. (In fact the two have merged into one town really.) She was probably born in Chipping Sodbury Cottage Hospital (which no longer exists). --Genie 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have seen the note that says her birth certificate gives Yate and the place of birth. In that case we need to edit the Chipping Sodbury article for consistency. --Genie 16:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Name
Rowling's "legal name" is mentioned in the article. There has not been for 2000 years in English or British law any such thing as a legal name. Other countries, such as Denmark and Turkey, may differ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.50.244 (talk • contribs)
Ebay Lawsuit Sources
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" [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: [3] and [4] and [5] and [6] and [7] and [8]. 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)
Rowlings Current Family section
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).
Middle Name
The cover of Deathly Hallows was just released and the back flap[9][10] 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)
- 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)
Her assumed middle name, Kathleen, is that of her late grandmother, whom Joanne loved very dearly. It is not her middle name, as she was never registered as having one.
As I understand it, she was asked to use a second initial so that (as the article already states), the author's credit on PS would be gender-neutral. Thus, she chose 'Kathleen' after her grandmother. I do not, however, know if she has since adopted that as her middle name by deed poll.
Religious beliefs
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).
j.k rowling is the most amazing author in the history of the world. Maybe i can even convince my friend jenny to read the books if only j.k. could meet her. the books are sometimes scary but what is cooler than a thriller? (to me) I recomend that everyone read these and don't fool yourselves into thinking your too young. I finished the series in first grade. (except the ones that hadn't come out) -C.F.O.P. C. Salgero ...a fourth grader in love with the series plus i'm a girl.
Format
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)
Flag is wrong
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)
- 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)
Indeed I was.
67.162.215.20 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the "Religious beliefs" section
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)
- 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)
JK not J.K.
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)
- 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)
Her Donation
She recently donated money over the equivalent of $495000 USD as a reward for a missing child.[11] 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)
Should her full name be "Rowling Murray"?
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)
- 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)
Suggestions
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)
- 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)
- 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)
JKR's political views
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)
- 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)
Okay, rather than deleting everything, lets get some other viewpoints. Should we discuss how to word in the Talk section? I do have issues with the complete lack of coverage of Rowling politics in the MSM as well as wikipedia especially since the Order of the Phoenix movie (trailers) have such political overtones.Libertycookies 15:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)