I really hope that she lost her job because she is horrible at her job, because she lies and exagerates.--HallieryElizabeth 00:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to inform you that Rowling revealed that Rita, after book 7, continued writing, she wrote some stuff about Harry and algo a book about Snape. --Lord Opeth 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Luckily, it appears as though Rita Skeeter will be more honest about her job after her being captured by Hermione. The article she wrote about Harry's encounter with Voldemort in the Fifth book was apparently modest and truthful, to my memory. 126.96.36.199 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was only because Hermione was still blackmailing her at the time; she also made her write it for free. We know that Rita continued to engage in dishonesty and sensationalism, as Rowling commented that she wrote a biography of Harry that was "one quarter truth to three quarters rubbish". Oread (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
shouldn't we remove the quote from the movie (everyone loves a rebel harry) because if I remember correctly, that was not in the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs).
- No, we souldn't. According to the canon policy, the quote is canon. -- Seth Cooper (Owl Post) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yea I remember reading the qoute in the book, I read it half a chapter ago... H91 19:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that 'individual' suits Rita. IT'S JUST LAME. People are working on a Convict Individual ingobox so why not a Reporter individual infobox. This infobox is for, Ginevra Potter, Rita Skeeter, Xeno Lovegood and others. I think this is a great opportunity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Twelfth Doctor (talk • contribs).
For Now, I´ll change it to wizard.--Rodolphus 09:59, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
- There's a Daily Prophet infobox now, and it's already been changed. - Nick O'Demus 20:55, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
Is Rita Skeeter a Ministry Ally?
Personally, I think she is. Her articles were pro-Ministry and she hated Dumbledore and Harry. Cornelius must have controlled the Daily Prophet because he told Percy to report the story to the Daily Prophet. Everything she wrote was biased against Order —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X247 (talk • contribs).
- She didn't hate Dumbledore and Harry. EVERYTHING she wrote was slanderous. Early in GoF, she had a couple of articles that were highly critical of the Ministry, regarding the Quidditch World Cup and Alastor Moody. Percy Weasley says on p.147 "That woman's got it in for the Ministry of Magic!", and the title of an article on p.202 is "Further Mistakes at the Ministry of Magic". And Fudge didn't start leaning on the Daily Prophet and influencing their writting until the 1995–1996 school year, when Rita was on her forced sabbatical from Hermione's blackmail. The only thing Hermione let her write during that time was the pro-Harry Quibbler article. By the time her year was up and she could start writting again, Voldemort's return was public and Fudge was on his way out. - Nick O'Demus 17:38, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
not necessarily. Fudge looked on the Prophet for support when he was anti-Dumbledore. She was anti-Dumbledore and anti-Harry and fuelled a lot of Anti-Dumbledores. Fudge became anti-Dumbledore at one point of his premiership! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X247 (talk • contribs).
- The thing is Rita didn't work at the Daily Prophet anymore when Fudge started his anti-Dumbledore and anti-Harry campaign. Also, numerous articles written by Rita criticised the Ministry itself. -- 16:52, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
- If you could kindly provide a situation where Rita actually supported the Ministry, I'd be very grateful. -- 02:25, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
An error in the Article.
The article mention's that Bartemius Crouch Jr.'s reveal as a Death Eater happened during Igor Karkaroff's trial. While this did happen in the film, it didn't happen in the book which is the main cannon. In fact the book put doubt on this fact up until the reveal of Crouch being disguised as Mad-Eye Moody. I think we need a correction. Ztyran 21:45, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
- Crouch was a known DE when he was arrested with the Lestranges after helping torture the Longbottoms. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 22:42, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone upload an image of Rita's beetle form from Lego Harry Potter? After all, it´s the only mention of her ability aside from the books.--Rodolphus 12:09, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Can we get some evidence verifying that she was a Hufflepuff? I have no recollection of that ever coming up in the books...TheBeast314 23:02, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Huh, surprised no one caught that before now, it's been there since the 26th. Good eye. Removed. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 23:29, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
- NP, it goes along with the CONSTANT VIGILANCE thing. Thanks for the verification! TheBeast314 17:20, March 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, re-watching the film, she isn't. Is this sufficient evidence, coupled with no husband ever having been mentioned and indeed no other known Skeeter, to write that she was unmarried? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 04:19, November 19, 2013 (UTC)
Rita Skeeter is said to have commented on Quidditch Through the Ages, which was written in 1952. But she was forty-three in Goblet of Fire, so she was one year old when she signed the book! Should her forty-three years old be discredited after the Quidditch book, or is there something I'm missing? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:06, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Hardly a big problem. The original edition of Quidditch Through The Ages was published in 1952, but the book has clearly undergone a number of revisions since that time, since it includes events that took place long after the 1950s: the threat of disbandment of the Moose Jaw Meteorites owing to post-match antics in the 1970s; the 1986 draw between the Patonga Proudsticks and the Montrose Magpies; the 1993 defeat of the Quiberon Quafflepunchers by the Sweetwater All-Stars; the time Toyohashi Tengu were narrowly defeated by the Gorodok Gargoyles, in 1994...
- The edition we have in our hands is, because of this, most definitely not the 1952 first edition. (More problematic would be Lockhart's blurb; he was born 12 years after the book was published.) -- 23:46, November 18, 2013 (UTC)