Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Rowling's use of middle name

Notwithstanding previous (now archived) discussion on this Talk page, it is a matter of record that she gave evidence on 24 November to the Leveson Inquiry under the name of Joanne Kathleen Rowling - see http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-JK-Rowling.pdf Headhitter (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011

J.K Rowling's middle name contains "Kathleen" AwesomeMcAwesomeSauce (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. →Στc. 06:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the sections titled "Harry Potter Books" and "Religious Views" please change the references to the British documentary J.K. Rowling: A Year in the Life to a link providing the video for readers to watch and view as a viable primary source for information on the author. The transcript can be found at the following link, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/video?id=8105290. The video is no longer available on abcnews.go.com but the same video can be found on YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6-6zaa4NI4. Although YouTube can be unreliable the video is in fact the documentary. Fans, enthusiasts, and students doing research, such as myself, would benefit greatly from having a direct link to this source. This would also add one, or both, of these links into the citations or external links sections in the article. Msullivt (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The transcript can be added (though I don't see it on that page) but links to Youtube are not allowed on Wikipedia. Serendi^podous 08:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot add that, per WP:EL policy, sorry.  Chzz  ►  07:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2011

Please add that J.K. Rowling graduated with a 2.2 grade point average from Exeter into the Background section. It is an interesting fact that many people do not know about her. It makes her rise to fame even more compelling.

Source:

Kirk, Connie Ann. J.K. Rowling: a Biography, pg.47. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2003. Print.

Kristin147 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Makes her rise to fame even more compelling." Not necessarily. It can be seen as a form of libel. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, fail to see the libel, would need a source anyway--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

2.2 is not a grade point average! I hope it doesn't say that in the book you cited. Do you (or does the author of that book) imagine the whole world uses the grading system of the USA?! See British undergraduate degree classification#Lower second-class honours for what 2.2 means in this context. 82.32.184.68 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously a lot of people in the world are not necessarily aware of all aspects of the world, not to mention that many people are ignorant and "uneducated". Don't get too worked-up over some person's error; who really cares about the difference anyways? It's not important (yea no one cares what 2.2 stands for, so deal with it and don't be a douche). - M0rphzone (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting Kristin147 is at fault for not knowing the details of the British degree system, but she certainly is at fault for assuming that everything around the world works in the same way as it does in the United States. Credulity (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011

Please add into the background section, concerning her marriage to Jorge Arantes, that: Rowling, who had always enjoyed gothic fashions, wore black to her wedding. SOURCE: Kirk, Connie Ann. J.K. Rowling: a Biography, p.56. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2003. Print. Here is a link to the page of the book online: http://books.google.com/books?id=GJgbW9c9mpwC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=j.k.+rowling+wore+black+to+her+wedding&source=bl&ots=oJKRjjws6e&sig=tU0QadB5x5I5eXwRgJKomJT69O8&hl=en&ei=emjdTuC2DsT50gGy4MmvAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kristin147 (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason we should include what color someone wore to their wedding? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You insane fool! This information is CRITICAL! She also wore pale pink toenail polish and dropped a tissue while talking to a waiter named Clifford. Put it in the article now or else I'm going to Arbcom. Manning (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - the waiter's name was Clive, not Clifford. a_man_alone (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a fashion magazine article, and her works are not Gothic, unlike Helena Bonham Carter who is well known for playing Gothic-like Characters as well as her distinctive fashion sense. --Nutthida (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2011

J.K. Rowling and her daughter survived on the equivalent of $103.50 per week while on government assistance.

Source: Kirk, Connie Ann. J.K. Rowling: a Biography, p. 59. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2003. Print.

Kristin147 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that she survived on social security is already mentioned in the article. The amount is not particularly relevant and is soon outdated Apuldram (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Cameo role

The article mentions that Rowling declined a cameo role as Lilly Potter, giving the impression that she did not have a cameo role in any of the films. In fact, it look pretty clear to me that she does appear, as Lilly Potter, for a few seconds in Deathly hallows Part 2, 1 hour and 17 minutes into the film. Can the film itself count as the reference for this, or am I doing original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.228.154 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's original research; though if a lot of people will agree with it and no-one contests it, it might be admissible. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lily Potter was played by Geraldine Somerville and Ellie Darcey-Elden in Deathly Hallows part II.Apuldram (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

True - but not, I think, for these few seconds of the film. Could someone else verify this? [File:https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qVp0yBGROjI/Twq84TL7OiI/AAAAAAAADyc/OooFO5f4eN4/w341-h404-k/Capture.PNG]

How? You do not provide a citation to a reliable source. An editor's opininion is not an acceptable souce. Apuldram (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean by looking at the image from the film seen at the link - that is the reliable source! - I was following Carl Bunderson's suggestion above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.228.154 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And how is our personal interpretation of an image reliable? Besides, that isn't her. Serendi^podous 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 February 2012

Please change instalment to installment because the word was spelled incorrectly.

Mari Anonymous (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, instalment is the UK spelling, and since the subject is British, that's the spelling that is used--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Article needs an IPA for pronunciation

Could someone who knows how please add one? It doesn't matter if people on this talk page know how to pronounce her name -- what matters is that the article have a pronunciation listed. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The IPA was moved to the first paragraph years ago following probably the stupidest edit war in Wikipedia history. Serendi^podous 11:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That discussion seems to have been instigated and pursued by a single editor (a high school student who has barely edited for the last three years, by the way). It would be much clearer if the IPA of her pronunciation of the name was reinstated in the opening sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please make the IPA clickable. There's no point in having it if nobody can look up what the little squiggles mean. Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Sheesh. How many more issues with her name could there be left to discuss? Serendi^podous 08:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYN / WP:OR & not in citation given

In the op, the sentance "The Potter books have gained worldwide attention, won multiple awards, sold more than 400 million copies to become the best-selling book series in history" should be :The Potter books have gained worldwide attention, won multiple awards and have sold more than 400 million copies.

the claim of bestselling ever is not in the cite (it just gives the number), also it is false, Agatha Christie has sold 10x as many books in her two main series,

it sounds like it was added by an over-enthusiastic fan, and should be removed unless a cite can be found, (perhaps "bestselling CHILDRENS author would be uncontested?)

Agatha Christie didn't write book series. See: List of bestselling books#List of best-selling book series Serendi^podous 15:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done We should have an actual source for the claim, not refer to a Wikipedia list which is sourced by an article at abc news which no longer exists. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the Internet honey. Nothing no longer exists. That said, the article does not specifically say that the HP series is the bestselling in history, though the Wikipedia list appears to support that. Serendi^podous 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since others are addressing this, I'm going to change the answered parameter on this template to yes to help clear a backlog. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm all guy, Clyde, and you should watch the chauvinism regardless.:) Thanks for finding the reference for the list. I notice that the writer is careful to attribute each statement to the Rawling's agent, which is probably how we should take the details as well. If the best-selling part is true, we should be able to find plenty of sources for that claim. Regards, Celestra (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Guinness World Records cites Harry Potter as the Bestselling book series for children, but provides no record for Bestselling book series. However, in the description of the record it says "It will surely come as no surprise to discover that J K Rowling’s Harry Potter novels are the all-time best selling series of books." (Disregarding children). Is there any evidence to say it isn't the best-selling book series? --Jennie | ☎ 23:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to add it back with that source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Done. --Jennie | ☎ 15:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much :-0 ) Serendi^podous 15:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention that Rowlings was/is an astrologer?

See http://www.astrology.co.uk/news/jkrowlingastrology.htm Terry Macro (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not close to being a reliable source --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because someone does a single horoscope that doesn't make them an astrologer, just as baking a cake doesn't make someone a baker. Serendi^podous 08:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional clarification

Per change I made: In edit summery 'reference to suicide' I was referring to paragraph 7 of background section which had already made mention of the fact along with 'Dementor' idea. "Selene Scott (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)"

her role with the scripts.

This article mentions several times that jo rowling had creative control over and was able to approve all of the scripts as per whats sourced with 7 and 100

the thing is, she didn't have any control beyond making sure they werent taking things in the wrong direction or adding things about characters that they wouldn't. (even in this kloves interview: http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2009/06/17/countdown-to-harry-potter-and-the-half-blood-prince-steve-kloves-talks-up-the-final-moments-between/)

it's weird because those sources, 7 and 100, are this video with david heyman. But whoever sourced them obviously didn't even watch them because the interviewer asks "whats the hierarchy in determining whats necessary to put in vs. whats not, obviously Jo is probably at the top" and he quite clearly states: "You know what, Jo is not that involved. We send her the script and she has a look at it." and then he mentions the character changes, when they cut kreacher or had to change a line of dialog because dumbledore was gay he goes on to say "Thats where shes helpful but other than that she isnt... she doesnt have... shes there when we need her, to support. But the person who is most key, is steve kloves. then me, then the director."

you can watch it yourself : http://vimeo.com/17630234 starts at the 13:13 mark.

but thats not approving them, as he JUST said shes not involved in that process, all she does is make sure theyre on the right path and aren't compromising any of her characters. She has/had no creative control at all. And it's really annoying that this rumour is still around and being supported by false evidence. So can someone check the video out and make the proper changes to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.114.79 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

English

JK Rowling is English, if you note best wiki practice British bio's state the country of birth which in her case is England. Twobells (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to this "best practice"? Why is it so important to note that she is English, rather than British? Serendi^podous 09:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless she has received unusual treatment her passport shows her to have British nationality and to be a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the European Union. Suggest it's ok to describe her as an English author, but the infobox should show British nationality. Apuldram (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reading the top of this page will see that this exact question has been discussed on several previous occasions, and there seems no need to reopen it now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I find this whole intra-British tribal thing kinda perplexing. No one seems to care if, say, a Belgian is a Fleming or a Walloon, but whether a Briton is English, Scottish or Welsh seems to be a major hangup. Serendi^podous 13:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this has been discussed so frequently and in so much depth astounds me. JK Rowling is English. JK Rowling is British. All that needs to be established is whether it is necessary to specify. Edit: On reflection, it depends whether you are referring to nationality or ethnicity. And also, I don't think a change would mean much. --Jennie | ☎ 22:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nationality is a complex issue in the United Kingdom for some and not for others. Individual identity must be respected in BLPs or it is simply a flat-out violation. In the case of Scotland and Wales, it is very very clear, most persons originating from these parts of the United Kingdom identify first and foremost as Welsh or Scottish, and are overwhelmingly identified as such in media. This is clearly and accurately reflected on Wikipedia. In England, the situation is a lot more complex, but can be explained with a rather simple analogy - most identify as British, English, or a combination of the two - all very common. When there is no clear preference present, either British OR English may be used. Favouring British because of Citizenship is strongly frowned upon and has been largely discredited by the community as nothing but POV pushing. Self-identification is key, and if none is present, then it actually hardly matters. However, changing nationalities around without discussion and a lack of evidence is not acceptable. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Life after Harry Potter"

The first section within the Life after Harry Potter section, which discusses her wealth, her estates, her children, her marriage and friendship with the Brown's, all happened during Harry Potter (in fact, quite early on) and therefore doesn't really make much sense under the "Life after..." section. Does anybody else have any thoughts on how we could rename the section for clarity? Or even move it around? --Jennie | ☎ 20:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"After Harry Potter" means, "after Harry Potter had changed her life", which occurred shortly after the release of book 1. Serendi^podous 20:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if that transpires. I would always presume, "Life After Harry Potter" to literally mean, JK Rowling's life after the Harry Potter books, as in, after there completion in 2007. This would tie in with the "Subsequent writing" section but not the former. Don't get me wrong - it's a well-written and concise section, but doesn't tie-in with the title. --Jennie | ☎ 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How would you phrase it? Serendi^podous 21:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's my problem - I'm not too sure! Maybe split into a "Personal Life" section? Or a "Biography" (incorporating religion, politics and family) and a "Writing" section like on J. R. R. Tolkien? Or possible something much more simpler and move it up into the Background section?--Jennie | ☎ 22:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that could be done. Tolkien has been around a lot longer, and so there is a great deal of material on his writing style. Rowling has only written "Harry Potter" so far,so this article focuses primarily on her biography. The "Harry Potter" section is about her experience of publishing Harry Potter, not about the books themselves. Moving her biography out of chronological order would just be confusing. Serendi^podous 06:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at redrafting it. It doesn't quite work (not sure if Sarah Brown counts as "family", but perhaps she'd disagree), but it's the best I can do. Serendi^podous 07:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The restructuring of this section is a logical improvement. Congratulations. Apuldram (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the new structure Serendipodous! Much easier to get to sections of information. I'm going to move the relationship with the Brown's to Political views, I think it's probably were it is most relevant. Unless anyone has other thoughts? --Jennie | ☎ 17:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Route from Manchester to London

This includes clapham junction and is not on the Manchester to London train route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.52.247 (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

there is no suggestion in the article that Clapham Junction is en route to London. From Manchester, London was en route to her flat in Clapham Junction. Apuldram (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling is an Episcopalian

In the section on J.K. Rowling's religious views, it says that she was raised in the Church of Scotland. On the Radio Four arts programme Front Row tonight (i.e. September 27 2012), she said that was a member of the Episcopalian church, so should this word be used in the article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This has been added previously at the last sentence of the "Religious views" section. —Cupco 01:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 October 2012

J K Rowling was born in Chipping Sodbury Maternity Hospital (not Yate as put here) 86.186.124.86 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Rowling was born in Chipping Sodbury Maternity Hospital,[1] but its address is now 248 Station Road, Yate (not Chipping Sodbury!). Confusing, but she was born in Yate I believe. Probably due to the hospital predating the expansion of Yate in the 1960s. Rwendland (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Added name of hospital and source but didn't change Yate per above. —Cupco 01:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I undid this, as infoboxes don't normally show maternity hospitals. The purpose of the edit request seems to be to query that JKR was born in Yate, and that has now been confirmed. Apuldram (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Some further detail: I've located the former Chipping Sodbury Maternity Hospital on Google Earth: 51.53995,-2.40482 It is close to the the Yate/Chipping Sodbury border, so some might informally consider it Chipping Sodbury. But if you look at the current electoral map[2] it is clearly in Yate Central Ward, by about 180m. All of Station Road is in Yate by the look of it. Rwendland (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

At the time the hospital was built - and probably when Rowling was born - Chipping Sodbury was the larger of the two places, Yate being an adjacent village. So, it was named Chipping Sodbury Hospital because that was the main place it served. Subsequent housing development has meant that Yate is now the larger town, and includes the hospital site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It would be interesting to know exactly when the Yate area was officially expanded. yateheritage.co.uk says early 1960s, with the new Yate Shopping Centre opening 2 months after JKR was born (Sept 1965).[3] I cannot track down any official doc, but it looks like the central/north Yate expansion had taken place before she was born - her first home 700 m from the hospital had already been built. Rwendland (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the development really got going in the 1960s, and is still continuing now. See pages 6-7 here, for background. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So, if the location was Chipping Sodbury at the time of her birth, but is Yate now, is it accurate to say that she was born in Yate? —Cupco 16:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opening statement is not correct. The location has always been Yate - I was explaining why, despite that, it was given the name Chipping Sodbury Hospital. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, my premise was wrong. —Cupco 17:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Success

...a £4.5 million ($9 million) Georgian house in Kensington, West London.

That assumes an exchange rate of £1 = $2 which is incorrect. As of this moment, XE.com gives the exchange rate as £1 = $1.59 and a bit, which is roughly where it has been for ages. That would make £4.5 million equal to about US$7 million (AUS$7 million and CAN$7 million). Dick Kimball (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. Serendi^podous 20:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Error on qualification

Under marriage, etc. the course she studied is a PGDE (Postgraduate Diploma of Education) not PGCE, which is obtainable in Scotland. The PGCE is only available at English universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.49.130 (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As Shakespeare said not, "The fault, dear IP, is in our sources, not in ourselves". Serendi^podous 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2013

In reference to J. K. Rowling's house sale, her new house 'on the outskirts of the city' should be stated as being in Barnton, where she moved in 2009. Also, on the same note, the house did not sell for 2.25 million, the actual amount was unknown, the only thing we do know is that the offers were for over 2.25 million. Reference from the estate agent that sold the house:

http://www.rettie.co.uk/news/501/jk-rowling-author-sells-merchiston-house-in-three-weeks/?p=1

Nathanamery (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that ref! Added. Serendi^podous 13:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Name

She appears to go by the name Joanne Murray in her private life. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/446.html Cripipper (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This article notes that in the section "Name". Serendi^podous 07:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

In paragraph three, sentence one, the terminology used for Rowling's financial status pre-Potter success, is ambiguous: "social security" is used, which is not the phrase commonly used in either the U.K. or the U.S. etc. Also, "social security" in the U.S. is specifically and technically, the public taxpayer funded government run retirement program. Technical, factual, would be more precise. "on the Dole" U.K. (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/266900.html) "social programs" U.S. 71.53.188.94 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

changed. Serendi^podous 16:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

References

References 32 and 194 require attention. -- 212.139.111.120 (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Edenc1 • Talk 11:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels tag

The WikiProject Novels only covers novels, and not biographies of novelists (I checked on Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and Dickens). This page turned up in the list of Novel Articles, class FA and importance unknown. The tag needs be removed. I'll address the issue of the Harry Potter task force covering issues other than the novels themselves on the task force page. Bubka42 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Cuckoo’s Calling

Hi all, just added this reveal that got leaked about an hour ago. I know this is a featured article, so if there's any style stuff I screwed up, I apologise in advance. I have set the pen name and novel to redirect to that section, so if you change the header title, please check redirects and disambigs. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we know who blew her cover?

Or did she do it herself? Serendi^podous 05:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Sunday Times. According to LeakyNews.com, they hired analysts from Oxford University (and an American uni) after gaining suspicion that Little, Brown & Co. were being covert about author, the maturity of the work in question and the fact that the writer was signed to the Blair Partnership and had JKR's editor. She said in a statement to them she wanted her anonymity to last last longer (shame, really). —JennKR | ☎ 09:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been added to the article, it was determined to be a leak from within her solicitor's office, with a partner of the firm talking out of school to a friend of his wife. Definitely not JKR herself. Metheglyn (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

cuckoo's calling reviews

I have mixed feelings about including reviews for "The Cuckoo's Calling"; on the one hand, we so far have specifically avoided including reviews for her books in her biography, on the grounds that this isn't a lit-crit article. On the other hand, the fact that The Cuckoo's Calling received rave reviews, particularly as a "debut", is relevant to her writing under a pseudonym. It would be nice if we could find a quote from Rowling, perhaps in the Sunday Times article, (which I will now have to break my personal embargo on the Murdoch press and read, because there's no way in hell I'll pay to read it online) explaining why she chose to write under a pseudonym, and whether she expected doing so would improve her critical reception. Serendi^podous 05:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I also think it'll be interesting to see the reception before and after the "reveal". I'll collate some reviews on the book's talk page and give a link here, to see if there's anything that might be useful in explaining why she's done this. —JennKR | ☎ 10:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Independent source uses the quote from The Sunday Times —JennKR | ☎ 10:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong qualification given

The article states that J. K. Rowling needed a PGCE to teach in Scotland. This is incorrect as PGCEs are English qualifications; the Scottish equivalent is a PGDE (diploma not certificate). PGCEs are not offered at any Scottish university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottishexile (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been raised before, and since the only source for it is Sean Smith's "biography", I think it can be removed.Serendi^podous 06:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Birth and family

Her great-grandfather being awarded France's 5th highest honour, is ludicrous and unworthy of this featured article's inclusion.Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Why exactly is it ludicrous? Plenty of biographies contain genealogical information. If nothing else, it establishes that Rowling is of French extraction, which is relevant. Serendi^podous 06:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's ludicrous because a) it's a minor honour and b) it's so far back in her lineage. I've no objection to mentioning that she has French ancestry, but the Croix de guerre '...was created to recognize French and allied soldiers ' Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Plus, the fact she believed her grandfather received a Légion d'honneur (France's highest honour) like she did, became the subject of her episode of Who Do You Think You Are? - it's definitely significant. —JennKR | ☎ 10:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that neither mentioned in the above section nor this article. Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

We got a big problem

Rowling has recently "upgraded" her official site, and in doing so has taken down much of the information cited in this article. I'm not sure if she's going to put any of it back, or if some of it has been migrated to Pottermore, or what. But we need to do something. Serendi^podous 06:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you get it from the text version here? —JennKR | ☎ 10:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope; a lot of the citations are from her old "Rumours" section, and she apparently wanted to clear the old rumours from her site. Serendi^podous 12:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Estate agents replaced with JKR official link?

Nearly finished my citation weeding here. I can't make this last change unless I get some positive feedback, so here's my suggestion: I've recently made a minor change to bring the Beedle the Bard citation link back to life. This new citation is a link to the author's own web-site.

I'd like to use the same authoritative citation as a guide to where JKR lives (Edinburgh) along with a deletion of the actual area in the city where she lives. I think this would be more solid than linking to an estate agents & grant her family a little more privacy. Likewise if I could delete the adjacent comment on her previous property which directed to the same estate agents then that would knock off another citation. The fact that the house cost 2.5M is I think, financially irrelevant when compared to her entire wealth. By the time we're onto her 3rd, 4th... house I feel like we're wandering into a copy of Ideal Home magazine : )

In fact, I thought this might be a nice way to cap off the family info which sits just below the Success part. I'll come back next week to see if anyone objects to the citations being removed and replaced with Mrs Murray's own site as a citation. Input would be welcome. Thank you. Angela MacLean (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If the link you mention is the one to Rettie and the sentence defining the district JKR moved to in 2009 - I would strongly support what you propose. JKR's privacy is something we should respect. Apuldram (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me; I'm all for giving her some privacy. Serendi^podous 18:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this; I think we have some concensus building. I'll do it at the weekend if I'm not busy. Thanks for all the good work on the astronomy section Serendi - some amazing pages there for children, and thank you for the citation Barnstar on JKR; we might get there yet : ) Angela MacLean (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I included this (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but I support the removal of the area. As much as I think it will be pretty easy for journalists to find her homes through Google, Wikipedia might be the tool of some of the less-skilled press, and the borough of Edinburgh is not that important. —JennKR | ☎ 00:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

misspelling of Jude Callegari

In the Cuckoo's Calling section, Jude Callegari's name is misspelled as "Calligari".

 Fixed. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling is excited to make a movie!

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/09/12/j-k-rowling-to-write-new-harry-potter-inspired-film-for-warner-bros/?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth — This could go in 'Future writing' in a new subsection. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup! Serendi^podous 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible error in destination of train

The article talks of her on a train from Manchester to London. The picture insert says the destination was Kings Cross, yet Trains from Manchester go to Euston Station in London not Kings' Cross. There is an apparent inconsistency here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.6.239 (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; the Kings Cross mention is uncited, so I reworded it. The Kings Cross/Euston confusion has been brought up before in media, but mentioning it here would probably be OR. Serendi^podous 13:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Origin, Nationality and Ethnicity of Father

Why is there no detail of the origin, nationality and ethnicity of her father. Her mother's origins are given a lot of detail. The same should be the case for the father.

If we can find any information about her father's lineage, it can be included. Serendi^podous 13:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Installment is spelled wrong...

...in the introduction. I can't seem to edit the page to make changes though.

Saintvolge (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This page uses British spelling. Serendi^podous 22:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Name section includes Angelfire dead link. You may delete this comment/section when dead link has been tagged. -- 109.78.140.11 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've subbed the link with a mirror from Accio Quote. It's not the best solution but we're not going to find that quote online any more without the Wayback Machine. Serendi^podous 15:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of initials J K

I have removed "her publishers demanded that" (she use initials). I have seen this ascribed to her publisher, agent and herself. Also "suggested" seems to be more common than "demanded". Is there a definitive source? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In the attached source - the Oprah interview - the very first topic they touch on is her name. In it Rowling says "They [her publishers] asked if they could use my initials, and I said OK." Intepret how you will. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Revised. Now, given that this is the 19th discussion we have had regarding her name, can we PLEASE stop arguing about it? Serendi^podous 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In the news

Headine-1: Warner’s C.E.O. Is Bullish on the Big Screen

• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/business/media/warners-ceo-is-bullish-on-the-big-screen.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0

QUOTE: “Mr. Tsujihara, 49, has surprised Hollywood with bold moves that belie his nice-guy demeanor. He persuaded J.K. Rowling to expand the Harry Potter movie universe, something most people thought was a nonstarter.” [Three new movies will be great!] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-2: Three "Fantastic Beasts" Megamovies Planned

• http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2014/3/30/three-fantastic-beasts-megamovies-planned

QUOTE: “A New York Times article on WB CEO Kevin Tsujihara reveals that there are three "megamovies" of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" planned:” [The Leaky Cauldron.org is an interesting website title.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-3: Harry Potter 'Fantastic Beasts' Spinoff Will Consist Of 'Three Megamovies'

• http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Harry-Potter-Fantastic-Beasts-Spinoff-Consist-Three-Megamovies-42315.html

QUOTE: “As if it weren't exciting enough to know that J.K. Rowling was making a grand cinematic return to the Harry Potter universe, we now know that the Fantastic Beasts followup she's penning will be a trilogy. And it seems we have Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara to thank for getting the ball rolling there, as Rowling credits him and his energy for prompting her to pen the first draft of the script for the story, which will center on the fictional author of Hogwarts textbook Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them, Newt Scamander. ” [Nice prior picture of Harry Potter in a movie.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-4: That 'Harry Potter' Spinoff Movie Is Now Three 'Harry Potter' Spinoff Movies

• http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2014/03/that-harry-potter-spinoff-movie-is-now-three-harry-potter-spinoff-movies/359883/

QUOTE: “It was announced, somewhat surprisingly, last September that J.K. Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them would be turned into a film. Now, according to a profile of Warner Bros.’s new CEO in the Times, the 42-page paperback is getting turned into three movies. That’s like… carry the one, divide by five… 14 pages of inspiration for each movie! (This is not actually how book-to-film adaptations work.)” [Excellent AP picture of J.K. Rowling; can we get permission to use it?] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Added. :) Serendi^podous 08:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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. Serendi^podous 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. Serendi^podous 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. Serendi^podous 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)

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)

Agreed. Done. Serendi^podous 10:12, 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. Serendi^podous 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)

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. Serendi^podous 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. Serendi^podous 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? Serendi^podous 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. Serendi^podous 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. Serendi^podous 23:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well indeed. I don't either. Glad to have found common ground with you at last. I don't much want to go to FAR but I think there are actionable points there. The quotes are a good place to start. Can we trim them and summarise where necessary? --John (talk) 23:16, 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)

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.

Entertainment Weekly interview with Jeff Jensen, 2000.

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)

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... Serendi^podous 08:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agræ. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 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)

Correct. Thanks for spotting. --Warner REBORN (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

NEED FOR DISCUSSION - NATIONALITY

When you say "never seams (sic) to make any ground" - what you mean is "never any consensus to change"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Why are we having this discussion completely based on hypotheticals? If, if, if...--NeilN talk to me 13:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Indeed, whatever Rowling decides if Scotland becomes independent is immaterial as of now. On the current status of her description of the lead in this article, British is best unless you can find a source where she personally makes a preference. If she wished to not be described as British here I'm sure her agent would of passed along her views to us by now anyway. Regards from China, Somchai Sun (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Rowling up a pointless conversation. Pun intended. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the exact form of Rowling's name printed in the first British edition of her first Harry Potter installment

Her original name "Joanne Rowling" actually appears in small print in the first British edition, but the first American edition removed reference to "Joanne" completely.

I suggest adding the following information in the "Name" section, after the passage "As she had no middle name, she chose K (for "Kathleen") as the second initial of her pen name, from her paternal grandmother.[16]":

The name that appears on the cover and title page of the 1997 first Bloomsbury edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is "J.K. Rowling", although the copyright of the book was ascribed to "Joanne Rowling", in small print. The 1998 first American edition removed reference to "Joanne" completely. 鹧鸪天 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? What would it show? Serendi^podous 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The existing paragraph is clear and comprehensive. It would not help to list how the name occurs in different editions of the books, Apuldram (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This small detail in the form of Rowling's name is made relevant by a recent misstatement found in Marja Mills’s new book, The Mockingbird Next Door: Life With Harper Lee (Penguin, 2014). It suggested that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was initially published under "Joanne Rowling", and it changed to "J.K. Rowling" only in the second volume. The current passage in Wikipedia, "the author's name when her first Harry Potter book was published was simply 'Joanne Rowling'" could be misinterpreted by a casual reader to support that erroneous statement. The information I have suggested to add could help clarify that confusion. Having said that, if the nuance will be perceived as an issue interesting only to die-hard fans and meticulous bibliographers, as opposed to the general readers of Wikipedia, I understand. 鹧鸪天 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No. A casual reader would interpret that statement as meaning 'the author's name when her first Harry Potter book was published was simply 'Joanne Rowling'. There are no grounds for thinking it would support a misstatement in a book not mentioned in the paragraph. Apuldram (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I came to visit that passage precisely after learning about someone's misreading of the sentence. That does not necessarily reflect any lack of clarity in the writing and language, more of a confusing nature of the matter, especially if the reader is already confounded by misinformation elsewhere and jumps to Wikipedia for confirmation. I imagine that the main structure of the sentence, "the author's name...was simply 'Joanne Rowling'" could have contributed to a second, unintended meaning caught in a casual reading typical of web browsing.

鹧鸪天 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Revised. I never liked the way that line was phrased anyway. Serendi^podous 22:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Tutshill

Tutshill where she lived as a child is in the Forest of Dean Gloucestershire (where my ancestors were from around the 14th century to the present day). "The Forest" as we know it must have been some part of the inspiration for her work. It has many alumnii including Jimmy Young the broadcaster and Dennis Potter of "the singing detective" fame.86.171.85.177 (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Paula

Very Good Lives

I don't see why "Very Good Lives", her Harvard commencement address, should be under Children's Books, it is not for children. It was a commencement speech aimed at graduating students mostly in their early twenties.

Agreed. Revised. Serendi^podous 15:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Pottermore Short Story

I believe the Quidditch World Cup Short Story should be deleted from her short stories. It is similar in length and content to much of the other entries on Pottermore, I don't understand why this should get any special recognition as a published short story.

I dunno. It depends if there are other stories on Pottermore, or if everything else is just background information. I can't say because I don't have a pass. Serendi^podous 11:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

References

I suggest we add below the numbered {reflist} one appropriate full citation of the reprint website Accio Quote! (accio-quote.org), and link (call?, cite?) that within each ref that links to one of its reprints.

Where we have some authorname, the evident publication date format should be used uniformly: Author (DD Month YYYY).

We should use JK or J.K. or J. K. uniformly.

For refs #1 to #44 only, I prepared for the first (without creating the adequate full citation of Accio Quote!) and I conformed manually with Author (DD Month YYYY) and J.K..

--P64 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

4. Source titles should use quotation marks and italics in a uniform style. At the same time as above, I added quotation marks to some plain linknames. --P64 (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The article name uses "J. K." so for article use a different format doesn't make sense. If JK or J.K. is preferred, then an article move needs to be proposed. As for references, titles should have J. K. in the manner that article had it in regardless of this Wikipedia article's preferred format. Kirin13 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Success" section

I think that attempts to alter this section header are causing far more damage to the article than the header itself, which, I agree, is not perhaps the best option. However, neither "Net worth" nor "financial position" are accurate either, because suggest current net worth or financial position, which is not what the section entails. Changing it would very likely require a substantial alteration to the structure of the article, which should be discussed here. Serendi^podous 13:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015

In the first paragraph, last word should be installment with two l's rather than only one. (Is currently instalment) 74.83.85.173 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The article uses British English spellings so instalment is correct. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't neighbors treat her with respect?

"Rowling moved from her flat with the money from the Scholastic sale, into 19 Hazelbank Terrace in Edinburgh. Her neighbours were initially unaware that she was the author of the Harry Potter series, but treated her with respect."[4] I don't get it. Is there some reason her neighbors wouldn't treat her with respect? How would we expect them to treat her? And if they had known who she was, how would they have treated her? There's no context here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It is unnecessary and a bit odd. Removed. Serendi^podous 21:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015

"Instalment" in the first paragraph is spelled wrong. The correct spelling should be put in place instead: "installment" 10d1 1187 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

British English. See above. Serendi^podous 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Yes, her nationality has been discussed many times as evidenced above. This is a mere suggestion that perhaps ethnicity should be added to the info box, alongside nationality, as has been done on the J.R.R Tolkien article. --89.168.192.35 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

no it would only re-introduce controversial arguments. The Tolkien article is not a good example, as his ethnicity was Germanic, see here, rather than English as shown in the infobox. The Merriam-Webster definition of ethnic is:

of or relating to races or large groups of people who have the same customs, religion, origin, etc.

associated with or belonging to a particular race or group of people who have a culture that is different from the main culture of a country.

Using that definition, the English, who do not all "have the same customs, religion, origin, etc", cannot be an ethnic group. Apuldram (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Careful, there's a big distinction between ethnic groups and "groups that are ethnic". IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2015

Please add to "Over the years, some religious people, particularly Christians, have decried Rowling's books for supposedly promoting witchcraft" something like ", while others praise the deep christian message they reveal." . Would be amazing if you would like to get into details :).

There are several Christians that have found and analysed in HP the parallels with the Christian faith and values, as well as passages from the Bible, and have written blogs or books reflecting on these books as a good tool for a Christian for spiritual growth. One of the first persons who have started this kind of work is John Granger, see for example the book "Looking for God in Harry Potter" (http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Harry-Potter-John-Granger/dp/1414306342/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8).

Of course there is the opposite as well, Christians that condemn the books. But I think it's worth mentioning that both opinions are explored equally and the pros are equally active as the antis.

Some other links analyzing and, most of them, also supporting the Christianity in Harry Potter: -http://www.amazon.com/One-Fine-Potion-Literary-Potter/dp/1602581983/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1288390179&sr=1-1 -http://www.dartmouthapologia.org/apologia/the-christian-message-of-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-1/ -https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/124979.What_s_a_Christian_to_Do_with_Harry_Potter_ -http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/oracleofdelphi/Harry1.htm with many other links PRO!!! -http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/articles/hpandthebible.php -http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/augustweb-only/131-43.0.html

Thanks a lot and would gladly offer more information on this if needed. Alinnacalin (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done:I think what you're asking is probably better covered in the Religious debates over the Harry Potter series article, which is touched upon in the Religion section. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

updated sales figures

so BBC just uploaded an interview from Barry Cunningham, the editor who first picked up harry potter. You may find it interesting and it may have facts in it that make this a better article, however, the BBC also says that harry potter has now sold 450 million copies. I don't know the proceedure for when you should update the total number sold or even if the BBC is accurate. here is the interview http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33791582

01:27 12th August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.98.210 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111219121651/http://www.oprah.com:80/showinfo/Harry-Potter-Phenom-JK-Rowling to http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/Harry-Potter-Phenom-JK-Rowling

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015

In October 2015, Rowling announced via Pottermore, that a two part play she has co-authored with playwrights Jack Thorne and John Tiffany, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, was the 'eighth Harry Potter story' and that it would focus on the life of Harry's Potter's second son, Albus after the epilogue of the Deathly Hallows.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.185.137.17 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- ferret (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

In section 3.1 Future of Harry Potter, last paragraph, Albus is named the "eldest" son of the Potter family, while he is the "youngest" son.

Done Cannolis (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

edit request

In the introduction, change "and in politics supports the Labour Party and Better Together." to a manner that indicates that the support of the latter is in the past tense. The organisation was temporary for the referendum, although obviously Rowling nonetheless remains a unionist Valentina Cardoso (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Valentina Cardoso (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

fixed. Serendi^podous 08:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Should Cursed Child be under Rowling's publications?

Should we list CC under Rowling's publications, maybe as "co-author"? Mhoppmann (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we should at it and fantastic beasts(as it will be different from the other publication) under subsequent publications. Houdinipeter (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Political monster fairy tale

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/711178804648132608

Rowling just said on Twitter that she won't publish it. So I'm planning to remove it. Serendi^podous 15:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Bray or Gray

Dear Wikipedia

In J.K. Rowling's listing in Wikipedia you talk of the furore when she started to write her first Cormoron Strike novel. You state:

"Some also noted that many of the writers who had initially praised the book, such as Alex Bray or Val McDermid, were within Rowling's circle of acquaintances; both vociferously denied any foreknowledge of Rowling's authorship.[138]".

My notation is that Alex BRAY (according to your link refers to a Swansea City footballer). You should, instead, refer to Alex GRAY who is a Scottish crime writer and is appropriate in the contexts of the article.

For your consideration.

Bluey

 Done, please check. Apuldram (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hold it. The original source says "Alex Bray". Now that's likely a typo (B and G are right on top of each other on a QWERTY keyboard) but we aren't really in a position to correct it, are we? Serendi^podous 10:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Added another source with the correct name. Serendi^podous 10:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Religion

We must include her opinion about the fundamental difference between magic and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:7400:826:EF95:84DB:6C30 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Her view on religion vs magic is already covered in the article. Apuldram (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What religion was her previous husband, since its obviously incredibly important that her current one is an atheist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keloran (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The article's section on religion states that she "identifies as a Christian" and "a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church".

Neil Murray an atheist?? Did you mean anaesthetist?

The religion of her divorced husband isn't relevant to this article. Apuldram (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh lordy - keep the day job.Mezigue (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

In the first paragraph, "installment" is spelled incorrectly:

Rowling had overall approval on the scripts[5] and maintained creative control by serving as a producer on the final instalment.

208.81.12.35 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to this article, instalment is correct in British English. clpo13_(talk) 05:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC) clpo13_(talk) 05:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Alma mater

If she did indeed study at Edinburgh as the article states could this be added to the alma mater in her infobox? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:361:110:0:0:1:1F (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Je moeder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.90.28 (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

installment spelled incorrectly as instalment.

page semi-locked or i'd fix it..

Pbostley (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you look it up? Instalment is the British spelling; no fixing is required. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, but the exact same request was made (and rejected with explanation) two posts above this one. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)