Talk:JK Rowling/Archive1

Topic
Will work on this all day, but need to nip out to buy tobacco. Think it's a very good topic, because the response to Harry Potter typifies the problem with Fundamentalist Christianity. Thinking that a book about witchcraft will send children to hell; Grossly misrepresenting separation of Church & State for their purposes; Trying to ban or censor books they don't like; pointedly refusing to see the POINT and MORAL of a book because they're blinded by their faith, etc. etc. Will have sections of different groups' responses and on the revelation that Dumbledore was gay. 09:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What did young HP achieve - apart from accidentally surviving Lord Voldemart's attempts to kill him? Did the other wizarding nations do a whip-round to aid the reconstruction of the wizarding community in the UK after LV's destructive activities - and did they plan on damage limitation exercises should future equivalents arise?
 * 00:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The insurance company is never going to believe what happened to Hogwarts in the last book. Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So it's bad for them to say HP promotes Satanism or for that matter that The Muppets movie is Socialist, but fine to say HP promotes sexism and neoconservatism? I'm being consistent. It's just not there. Besides, Rowling is a staunch Labour supporter. A liberal, who's stated liberal views in interviews like supporting the Democrats in the 2008 election. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm going to put it back. It seems like the Grauniad's overreacting, Rowling's created one of the most influential feminist figures in children's fantasy (Hermione) and she almost turned her back on Labour while Tony Blair was blighting everything he touched. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you find a copy of the Rod Liddle article that isn't in the Times? We shouldn't cite sources you can only read with a paid subscription.  11:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does this open with an inaccuracy?
Harry's world says that drinking dead animal blood gives power, a satanic human sacrifice and Harry's powerful blood brings new life, demon possession is not spiritually dangerous, and that passing through fire, contacting the dead, and conversing with ghosts, others in the spirit world, and more, is normal and acceptable.

This DVD is also, apparently, making shit up. "Drinking dead animal blood gives power", seriously? (For those who have not read the books, that ... is not a thing.) I guess I can sort of see a few of those as twisted versions of stuff in the books, but this quote goes far beyond "incapable of making a distinction between fantasy novels and the occult."

Should we say that, or just remove that from the top altogether, or what? Perhaps replace it with something less likely to mislead, if anyone is worried it might be unclear why we have an article on this at first. -MugaSofer (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Rowling
Is it worth mentioning the controversies over Rowling including her alleged status as a TERF (unconfirmed) and her support for alleged domestic violence perpetrator Johnny Depp? It doesn't seem terribly relevant to this article, but it's the sort of thing mentioned on a lot of other articles. She also crops up on Wings Over Scotland, as her views on Scottish nationalism have been even more tediously controversial (English person doesn't support Scottish nationalism!). --Annanoon (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)