SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Tagging suggestion: fix |
Innisfree987 (talk | contribs) →Nay: ce, correcting to better reflect the issue |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured article review|J. K. Rowling/archive1}} |
|||
{{Skip to talk}} |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{Talk header|age= 30|bot= lowercase sigmabot III|units= days|minthreadsleft= 3}} |
{{Talk header|age= 30|bot= lowercase sigmabot III|units= days|minthreadsleft= 3}} |
||
{{British English}} |
|||
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Writers|class=FA}} |
|||
{{Article history |
{{Article history |
||
|action1=GAN |
|action1=GAN |
||
Line 27: | Line 24: | ||
|action4oldid=176585208 |
|action4oldid=176585208 |
||
|action5 = FAR |
|||
|action5date = 2022-04-15 |
|||
|action5link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 |
|||
|action5result = kept |
|||
|action5oldid = 1082873609 |
|||
|currentstatus=FA |
|||
|maindate=April 11, 2008 |
|maindate=April 11, 2008 |
||
|maindate2=June 26, 2022 |
|||
|topic=Langlit |
|topic=Langlit |
||
|currentstatus=FA |
|||
|otd1date=2017-07-31|otd1oldid=792890911 |
|otd1date=2017-07-31|otd1oldid=792890911 |
||
|otd2date=2021-07-31|otd2oldid=1036292258 |
|otd2date=2021-07-31|otd2oldid=1036292258 |
||
|otd3date=2022-07-31|otd3oldid=1101432981 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{section sizes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|class=FA|blp=yes|living=yes|listas=Rowling, J. K.|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=Mid |a&e-work-group=yes }} |
|||
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=high|fantasy-task-force=yes|fantasy-importance=high|harry-potter-task-force=yes|harry-potter-importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Women in Business|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Gloucestershire|importance=Top}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|brief}} |
|||
{{Talk:J. K. Rowling/FAQ}} |
{{Talk:J. K. Rowling/FAQ}} |
||
{{Press|author=Stephen Foley |date=2009-02-03 |url=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title=Is Wikipedia cracking up?|org=[[Irish Independent]] |section=February 2009 |
|||
{{ds/talk notice|gg}} |
|||
{{Ds/talk notice|blp|brief}} |
|||
|author2 = Hava Mendelle |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= |
|||
|title2 = JK Rowling puts Wikipedia’s neutrality to the test |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes |class=FA |a&e-priority=Mid |a&e-work-group=yes |listas=Rowling, J. K.}} |
|||
|date2 = April 22, 2024 |
|||
{{WikiProject Children's literature|class=FA |importance=Top}} |
|||
|org2 = [[The Spectator Australia]] |
|||
{{WikiProject Women writers|class=FA |importance=Top}} |
|||
|url2 = https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/04/jk-rowling-puts-wikipedias-neutrality-to-the-test/ |
|||
{{WikiProject Women|class=FA}} |
|||
|lang2 = |
|||
{{WikiProject Novels|class=FA|importance=high|fantasy-task-force=yes|fantasy-importance=high|harry-potter-task-force=yes|harry-potter-importance=Top}} |
|||
|quote2 = |
|||
{{WP1.0|class=FA |importance=Low |v0.5=pass |category=Arts |WPCD=people}} |
|||
|archiveurl2 = |
|||
{{WikiProject Women in Business|class=FA|importance=high}} |
|||
|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|||
|accessdate2 = April 22, 2024 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Backwards copy |
|||
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|||
| title = JK Rowling Net Worth |
|||
{{Press|small=yes|author=Stephen Foley |date=2009-02-03 |url=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title=Is Wikipedia cracking up?|org=[[Irish Independent]] |section=February 2009}} |
|||
| year = 2023 |
|||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Oberlin_College/GSFS_101_(Fall_2017) | assignments = [[User:Mgs1234|Mgs1234]] }} |
|||
| author = Fehintola Ambali |
|||
| display-authors = |
|||
| url = https://gatekeepersnews.com/2023/04/16/jk-rowling-net-worth/ |
|||
| org = gatekeepersnews.com |
|||
| monthday = 16 April |
|||
| id = 1139578915 <!-- |
|||
| title2 = |
|||
| year2 = |
|||
| author2 = |
|||
| display-authors2 = |
|||
| url2 = |
|||
| org2 = |
|||
| monthday2 = |
|||
| id2 = --> |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 20 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(20d) |
||
|archive = Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
__TOC__ |
|||
== |
== Death threat == |
||
A man has been sentenced for making death threats against J K Rowling and [[Rosie Duffield]]. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o ] I think this should be added to this article, but I don’t want to interfere with any redrafting, etc. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1640880080}} |
|||
*I agree. Incorporated in draft #7, below.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc top|1=Result was overwhelmingly (re: [[WP:SNOW|SNOW]]) in favor of '''option A.''' Thus, Rowling's stance on trans issues should ''not'' be mentioned in the lead ''sentence''. See below for an ongoing RfC about how to mention this topic within the lead as a whole. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 18:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)}} |
|||
Should the lead sentence of this article mention Rowling's involvement in controversies about trans issues (roughly defined) and if so, how should it be mentioned? |
|||
==Draft 7== |
|||
'''Option A''': Do not mention them in the lead sentence. |
|||
Suissa and Sullivan are out, and Glenn Mullen is in. As there's no good faith dispute at all over whether J. K. Rowling was insulted and threatened for her views, I've left that in.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
'''Option B''': Mention them as a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g., "anti-transgender activist". |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Draft 7.1: 403 words |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Historical: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1202117364#Transgender_people 429 words] |
|||
|- |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
'''Option C''': Mention the controversy without making a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g. "who has received criticism for statements that have widely been considered transphobic". |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
Hopefully specific options help clear up the disorganized discussion above. As I see it, there is consensus to keep mention of her other activities (e.g. producer) in the lead sentence, and only notable disagreement about the trans part. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 15:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling has ''[some contributors want to add a qualifier here]'' [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical]] views.{{sfn|Whited|2024|loc= p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'."}}{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|loc= pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs"}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|loc= pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)"}} She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} She opposes gender self-recognition{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} and suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} In April 2024, responding to [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021|Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act]], she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".<ref name=Brooks2024>{{cite news |last1=Brooks |first1=Libby |title=JK Rowling’s posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/03/jk-rowling-comments-scotland-non-crime-hate-incident |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 April 2024 |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> |
|||
*Considering her essay, would not "anti-trans commentator" be better than "anti-transgender activist" as an option?<span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 16:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: As I read the question, "anti-transgender activist" is just an example for Option B. It would be entirely in-process to !vote for B but propose other terminology, such as "anti-transgender commentator". [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
*'''Comment:''' Rowling's primary notability was without doubt established as an author, however this does not exclude/blank out the fact that over the last few years she has now also become widely known (in the reliable media) as a prominent anti-trans commentator, I believe this is undisputable based on dozens of articles in numerous international high quality reliable sources (some of which are listed [[Talk:J. K. Rowling#First sentence|in bold above]]). One thing does not necessarily exclude the other, someone can become notable for more than one thing. Three years can be a long time in civil and human rights.<span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 17:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]].{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6-8}} When [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|Forstater's employment contract was not renewed]] after Forstater shared gender-critical views,{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=230}} In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} According to ''Harry Potter'' scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} In June 2020,{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} Rowling mocked the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=14–15}}{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
*'''Option A'''. Notified to this discussion by bot. Mentioning the trans statements in the lead ''sentence'' is a gross overweighting, and even in the lead is questionable given her longstanding notability as an author and not as a political activist. Referring to her even by implication as "anti-trans" or as an "acitivist" on this subject is in my view an overstatement. [[User:Figureofnine|Figureofnine]] <small>([[User talk:Figureofnine|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Figureofnine|contribs]])</small> 17:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling's views have affected her reputation.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=8}} She has been the target of widespread condemnation,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} insults, and threats, including death threats.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}}<ref name=Burnell4June>{{Cite news|last=Burnell|first=Paul|date=4 June 2024|title= Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o |access-date= 9 June 2024}}</ref> Despite the controversy, sales of ''Harry Potter'' books grew during the [[COVID-19]] lockdown.{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=238}}<ref>{{cite news |first=Mark |last= Sweney |title= Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |work= [[The Guardian]] |date= 21 July 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/><ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref><ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
*'''Option A'''. It seems to me that putting Rowling's views on trans issues in the first sentence is indeed lending undue weight, per the comments of [[User:Crossroads|Crossroads]] above with regards to [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] and [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY|lead follows body]]. That said, I also don't think that the way her trans views are currently incorporated into the lede is very effective. The list of feminists who have supported Rowling's views on trans people is very short and is basically limited to gender-critical people/TERFs (the claims above that [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]] does not fall under that category are erroneous, she has repeatedly promoted the work of noted anti-trans activist [[Helen Joyce]]). |
|||
Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic.<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= Dismisses>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy' |date= 22 February 2023|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}}<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title=J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
:My opinion here is that the following actions should be taken: |
|||
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref>{{efn|The UK laws and proposed changes are the [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]], the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] and the related [[Equality Act 2010]].{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} }} and her views on [[sexual identity|sex]] and [[gender identity|gender]], have provoked controversy.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} Her statements have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
:1. Keep the first sentence as it currently is written. |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
:2. Reword the claim at the end of the lede that Rowling's views have received support from "some other feminists." It seems to indicate that feminists are evenly divided over support of Rowling when this is entirely false and is thus a violation of [[WP:UNDUE]]. |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
:I am not entirely sure off the top of my head how a rewording of the last sentence of the lede would look, however at the least I think it should somehow be noted that Rowling's supporters are gender-crit/terf. This would almost certainly provide a more accurate description than just saying feminists, in any case. [[User:Always forever|<b><span style="color:DarkTurquoise">always forever</span></b>]] ([[User talk:Always forever|talk]]) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)<sup>[[WP:FRS|[notified by bot]]]</sup> |
|||
[[LGBT]] charities and leading actors of the [[Wizarding World]] franchise condemned Rowling's comments;<ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref>{{efn| [[Daniel Radcliffe]], [[Emma Watson]], [[Rupert Grint]],<ref name= Hibberd2021/> [[Eddie Redmayne]]<ref name=Lang2020/> and others expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments;<ref>{{cite magazine |first= Maureen |last= Lenker|title= Every Harry Potter actor who's spoken out against J.K. Rowling's controversial trans comments |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 1 April 2022 |magazine= [[Entertainment Weekly]]|url=https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-potter-actor-whos-spoken-out-against-j-k-rowlings-controversial-transgender-comments/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first= Maggie |last= Baska|title= Stephen Fry defends 'friendship' with JK Rowling: 'I'm sorry that people are upset' |date= 20 May 2021 |url= https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/20/stephen-fry-jk-rowling-friend-harry-potter-jordan-b-peterson-podcast-trans/ |publisher= [[PinkNews]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> [[Helena Bonham Carter]],<ref name=Evans2022> {{cite news |first= Greg |last= Evans |url= https://deadline.com/2022/11/helena-bonham-carter-johnny-depp-j-k-rowling-1235182523/ |title= Helena Bonham Carter says Johnny Depp 'completely vindicated' in defamation trial, and J.K. Rowling 'hounded' for transgender stance |work= [[Deadline Hollywood]] |access-date= 18 December 2022}}</ref> [[Robbie Coltrane]],<ref>{{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first= Hannah |title= How the 'Harry Potter' reunion addresses author J.K. Rowling's anti-trans controversy |date= 30 December 2021|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/30/harry-potter-return-hogwarts-20th-reunion-emma-watson-jk-rowling-controversy/9042955002/ |work= [[USA Today]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> and [[Ralph Fiennes]] supported Rowling.<ref name= Hibberd2021>{{cite news |first= James |last= Hibberd |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ralph-fiennes-defends-j-k-rowling-amid-trans-controversy-says-backlash-is-disturbing-4151944/ |title= Ralph Fiennes defends J.K. rowling amid trans controversy, says backlash is 'disturbing' |date= 17 March 2021 |access-date=26 March 2022 |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]]}}</ref>}} [[GLAAD]] called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".<ref name= Yasharoff2020> {{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first=Hannah|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/07/j-k-rowling-harry-potter-author-slammed-transphobic-comments/3169833001/ |title= J.K. Rowling reveals she's a sexual assault survivor; Emma Watson reacts to trans comments |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 27 March 2022}}</ref> Rowling responded with an essay on her website<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title= J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making "anti-trans" comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Writing of her own experiences with [[sexism]] and [[misogyny]],<ref>{{cite news |first= Sian |last= Cain |date= 11 June 2020 |title= JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault |url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/10/jk-rowling-says-survivor-of-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to [[Gender transitioning|transition]] if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".<ref name=DAlessandro2020>{{cite news |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |title=J.K. Rowling defends trans statements in lengthy essay, reveals she's a sexual assault survivor & says 'trans people need and deserve protection' |url=https://deadline.com/2020/06/j-k-rowling-defends-trans-statements-essay-1202955524/ |access-date=5 January 2022 |work=[[Deadline Hollywood]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref> |
|||
*'''Option A''' Her attitudes/opinion on transgender issues belong in the lead due to its coverage in the press and for the lead to provide an accurate summary of the article. However pushing in the first sentence strikes me as a ridiculous undue hype.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 20:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}<ref name= Jacobs2023>{{cite news |last= Jacobs |first= Julia |title= Hogwarts legacy can't cast aside debate over J. K. Rowling |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/arts/hogwarts-legacy-jk-rowling.html |date= 9 February 2023 |work = [[The New York Times]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name= Spangler2023>{{cite news |last= Spangler|first= Todd |title= J.K. Rowling addresses backlash to her anti-trans comments in new podcast: 'I never set out to upset anyone' |url= https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-comments-podcast-witch-trials-1235522301/ |date= 14 February 2023|work= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref> – have been called transphobic by critics<ref name= Breznican2023>{{cite news |last= Breznican |first= Anthony |title= J.K. Rowling will oversee a new streaming ''Harry Potter'' series |url= https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/04/jk-rowling-harry-potter-series|date= 12 April 2023 |work= [[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name=Rosenblatt2020>{{Cite web|last = Rosenblatt| first =Kalhan |title=J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351|date= 10 June 2020 |access-date=19 January 2022|publisher=[[NBC News]] }}</ref> and she has been referred to as a [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]].<ref name= Rosenblatt2020/>{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|pp=34–35}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–368}} She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.<ref name=RowlingReasons/><ref name= Breznican2023/><ref name= Spangler2023/> Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the ''Harry Potter'' fansites [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]];<ref name=FanSites>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights|publisher=[[Reuters]]|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200703011204/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|archive-date=3 July 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> and the charities [[Mermaids (charity)|Mermaids]],<ref name=Petter2020/> [[Stonewall (charity)|Stonewall]],<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref>{{cite news |first= Elise |last= Brisco |title=Dave Chappelle says he's 'Team TERF,' defends J.K. Rowling in new Netflix comedy special|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/10/05/dave-chappelle-terf-defends-j-k-rowling-netflix-special/6002017001/ |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 8 October 2021|access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
*'''Option A''' per Kmhkmh. Absolutely appropriate for the lede, not for the first sentence. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 20:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
As Rowling's views on the [[legal status of transgender people]] came under scrutiny,{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} she received insults and death threats{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|p=69}}{{sfn|Qiao|2022|p=1323}} and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}} Some performers and feminists have supported her.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}}<ref> Supporting Rowling: |
|||
*'''Option A'''. Totally [[WP:UNDUE]] for the lead sentence, and absolutely a PoV suggestion to include it. I'm actually kind of amazed this has been proposed, it's rather egregious. It's already mentioned within the lead itself, which is entirely appropriate. As a rule of thumb, don't try to fix what's not broken. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 20:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]]: {{cite news |first=Katie |last=Law |date= 15 October 2020|title= JK Rowling and the bitter battle of the book world |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/books/trans-battle-book-world-jk-rowling-a4571221.html |work= [[Evening Standard]] |access-date=27 March 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Allison Bailey]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |title= Maya Forstater: who is woman in employment tribunal over transgender comments? |first= Sam |last= Hancock |date= 27 April 2021 |work= [[The Independent]] |access-date= 27 March 2022|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210427131430/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |archive-date= 27 April 2021 |quote= criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey – known for launching legal action against LGBT+ rights charity Stonewall over its attempt to have her investigated for setting up the anti-trans rights group LGB Alliance – has also been a vocal supporter of Ms Forstater.|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Julie Bindel]]: {{cite news |last1=Thorpe |first1=Vanessa |title=JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=14 June 2020 |quote=Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend |access-date=6 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200704200412/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |archive-date=4 July 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Dave Chappelle]]: {{Cite news |first= Maya |last=Yang|date=7 October 2021|title='I'm team Terf': Dave Chappelle under fire over pro-JK Rowling trans stance|url=https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/oct/07/dave-chappelle-transgender-netflix-special-backlash|access-date=27 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]]|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Dana International]]: {{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Eddie Izzard]]: {{cite news |title='I don't think JK Rowling is transphobic,' says gender-fluid comedian Eddie Izzard |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=27 November 2021 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=1 January 2021|ref=none}}{{cbignore}} |
|||
* [[Kathleen Stock]], [[Alison Moyet]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".<ref name= Flockhart2020>{{cite news |last= Flockhart |first= Gary |date= 28 September 2020 |access-date= 2 April 2022 |work = [[The Scotsman]] |title= JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row|url= https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-receives-support-from-ian-mcewan-and-frances-barber-amid-transphobia-row-2986268|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
|} |
|||
'''Sources''' |
|||
*'''Option A''': Madness to mention it in the lede sentence; good as it is in the lede paragraphs. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]<small> + [[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Esowteric|<span style="color: red;">Breadcrumbs</span>]]</small></b> 21:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
===Discussion=== |
|||
* '''Option A'''. Wait, is someone ''seriously'' suggesting a first sentence like, "J. K. Rowling, is a British author, philanthropist, film producer, screenwriter, and anti-trans activist"?! 🤪🥴🤒🤕🤣 [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 21:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** How about you wait ten years, then ask me that question again? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***Alright, I'll set my egg-timer. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 21:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****[[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] Honestly, after several years on Wikipedia and reading much weirder requests, your comment almost reads disrespectfully. I concur with @[[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] above. [[User:I dream of horses|I dream of horses]] [[Special:Contribs/I dream of horses|(Contribs)]] [[User talk:I dream of horses|(Talk)]] 21:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****Which comment? The egg-timer? Or the emoji party? [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 21:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
******@[[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] Emoji party. [[User:I dream of horses|I dream of horses]] [[Special:Contribs/I dream of horses|(Contribs)]] [[User talk:I dream of horses|(Talk)]] 23:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*******Oh. Well, it's probably slightly ''more'' respectful than the various acronyms that get thrown at me by some users, like 'FFS', and [[WP:CIR|the various phrasings that get piped to personal attacks by others]]. Very respectful topic area, this. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 23:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
******* {{ping|Tewdar|Newimpartial|I dream of horses}} this sub-discussion is not worth any of y'all's time. If any of you feel properly wronged by other editors y'all are welcome to use the [[WP:PNBD|proper channels for this]]. {{u|Tewdar}} if you feel you have been the target of disrespect, the proper response is not to use emojis and sarcastic phrases — you will only add fuel to the fire. Editors are always welcome to either pay no mind or use the proper tools at their disposal (namely, noticeboards and good-faith discussions in user talk pages) when they feel wronged.<span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 00:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
********@[[User:A. C. Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]], I thought/think the conflict is winding down, if not entirely over, but okay. [[User:I dream of horses|I dream of horses]] [[Special:Contribs/I dream of horses|(Contribs)]] [[User talk:I dream of horses|(Talk)]] 01:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*********{{u|I dream of horses}} I agree completely, just thought it worth mentioning. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 07:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*{{unindent|8}}{{U|A. C. Santacruz}} Fair. --[[User:I dream of horses|I dream of horses]] [[Special:Contribs/I dream of horses|(Contribs)]] [[User talk:I dream of horses|(Talk)]] 19:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' per [[User:Always forever|<b><span style="color:DarkTurquoise">always forever</span></b>]] and [[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] the fact that she is a "anti-transgender commentator" is unquestionably supportable for inclusion in the lede, but it does not need atm to be included in the first sentence, maybe some day in the first paragraph, but atm it would been better to simply improve the accuracy of paragraph four in line with [[Talk:J. K. Rowling#Last part of the sentence|the discussion started here]] and [[User:Always forever]] correction. I feel that this RfC was premature at this stage.<span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 21:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''': This isn't even notable enough to be in the lede at all, because a) this simply isn't what she's known for, and b) is very pov, as she has been shown to support transgender people's transitions, and the harassment she is getting seems more because she doesn't like the idea of erasing the concept of sex and lumping trans and cis women as the same thing, something I honestly agree with. I've seen transphobia before, but what Rowling said is only tangentially related; not anti-trans, just anti-erasure of differences. I think mentioning her perceived transphobia on the page under the views section, like it currently is, is fine, but not in the lede. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 04:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**{{u|Unnamed anon}} your personal political inclinations are not justification for including or not including stuff in the lead: that would be a breach of [[WP:POV]]. Our job here is to reflect what reliable sources say about her. ''We'' don't get to decide what is or is not transphobia, either, per [[WP:OR]]. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 05:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment from RfC starter:''' I will not participate in this discussion, but once consensus is reached (the RfC started yesterday so it'll wait for a bit) I will start a second RfC presenting various options for wording based on the result of this RfC (such as {{u|Always forever}}'s proposed changes, as an example). If any editor feels that is unnecessary they are free to reply under this comment. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 23:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:*[[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]], I'd respectfully suggest that you start a ''new'' discussion or RfC, whatever you prefer. As soon this discussion is closed one way or another it will be shelved and untouchable. Any discussion started under your comment would have a very short life, if at all. Take care. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::* Will do, {{u|The Gnome}}. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 12:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A''' - Rowling's best known as an author. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' without a doubt. Her notability is due to her books, not her trans views. Definately shouldn't be in the lead. [[User:Masterhatch|Masterhatch]] ([[User talk:Masterhatch|talk]]) 01:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A'''{{snd}} do not mention in lead sentence. This is both a [[WP:DUEWEIGHT]] and a [[WP:BLP]] issue. This is clearly a contentious issue, and BLP is categorical about how to handle that. Accusations of transphobic comments on her part has zero to do with Rowling's notability. It simply isn't what she is known for. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A.''' Recommend [[WP:SNOW]] close. It is due weight to include the topic in the lead section, but not in the very first lead sentence. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 01:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC) {{botsum}} |
|||
:*I oppose a [[WP:SNOW|quick, same-day]] closing of this RfC, on account of the importance of the issue discussed. We should allow the time for potentially more editors to chime in. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:* Oppose snow close; this was opened *today*. There is no reason not to let it run while others who haven't heard about it, or aren't online daily, find out about it and weigh in later. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::*Completely agree with [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]]. This is not a race, nor are we supposed to be [[WP:SNOW|hastily]] closing down discussions when they seem to go our way in the immediate aftermath of their being tabled. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::*The main reason would be to avoid continuing a long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussion. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 01:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::*We don't need to do the maximum of a month, though. You think a week is good? Or even less? <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::*<s>Waiting the weekend is probably good enough, I'd say, but it does seem headed towards a snow close.</s> Most definitely a SNOW, am requesting closure now. In any case, it seems that year-on-year she's becoming more notable for her views so editors are highly encouraged to start a new RfC on this topic in the future if she continues to receive coverage about it in major publications. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 05:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC) (Appended 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::*Again, I '''strongly disagree with a same-day closing''' as per objections provided above by contributors, including your humble servant. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::*I'm not asking it be closed today {{u|The Gnome}}, but I'm leaving that up to the closer. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 12:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' per [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:BLP]], and [[WP:NOTADVOCACY]]. And no, writing it so it is not technically in full wikivoice and similar word games does not change that the impression of such a thing would be to prominently label (essentially define) a living person as a transphobe (or whatever synonym) and to appear to use Wikipedia to score points in a culture war. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A''' More than due for the lead generally, should not be in the first sentence. [[User:BSMRD|BSMRD]] ([[User talk:BSMRD|talk]]) 06:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Is that meant to be titled as Draft 6.3, or is it a mistake? [[User:Alpha2 5232|Alpha2 5232]] ([[User talk:Alpha2 5232|talk]]) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A'''. The opening, lead section is fairly long but quite adequate on account of the [[WP:MOSLEAD|size of the main text]]. And, since the subject (controversial statements by Rowling regarding [[Transgender|trans persons]]) is evidently [[WP:N|notable]], it deserves a place in the opening section. But ''not'' in the lead sentence! That would be a violation of the [[WP:WEIGHT|due weighting]] [[WP:POLICY|policy]]. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Fixed.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A'''. she is notable for her books. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 13:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Busy for the rest of today, but I should be able to enter my commentary (as promised weeks ago), by tomorrow. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' - Rowling is notable primarily for her creation and continued management of the Wizarding World IP. No prejudice in this !vote against certain changes to the lead sentence, such as removal of the reference to her (largely non-notable) role in television production. Rowling's interventions in trans-related controversies are certainly notable, though less prominent than the IP she created, and do justify mention later in the lead section, as in the present article version. Also, the language used to refer to these should be tightened up in line with what the sources actually say - I value BLP principles rather than FALSEBALANCE and whitewashing. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 13:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::PS, [https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/constable-to-publish-essays-on-scottish-womens-campaign-featuring-j-k-rowling this might provide an updated source] to replace her website essay. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc bottom}} |
|||
:{{u|S Marshall}}, thanks for doing this & huge apologies for being awol (there's another article where I'm in over my head & my time for Wikipedia keeps shrinking). A couple of comments to get started: |
|||
== FA review? == |
|||
:*I have some as-yet-very-muddy-thoughts about the first sentence & the phrase [[Gender-critical feminism|gender-critical]] so I'll try to flesh those out later. |
|||
:*Minor point, but there's some repetition of "She, she, she" in the first para that needs wordsmithing. |
|||
:*For people with no clue, have been wondering whether we should try working in a link to [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe]] |
|||
:*"affected her reputation" should be cited to Whited page 8 |
|||
:*Good to see the draft less wordy; I'm wondering how others feel about putting back the sentence "Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." that's in the historical draft? The end of that sentence mentions includes " "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real", which is another way of saying sex is immutable. Should that be clarified? |
|||
:That's it for now. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*In draft 7.1, I've attempted to address points #2, #3 and #4 that you raise, and I await further input on #1 and #5.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 21:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Article was nominated in 2008. I believe there's a couple problems that prevent this article from meeting the [[WP:FACR]]. First, the article is not stable. The length of the article may be an issue too, going into unnecessary detail that is not always summary style. I think a FA review may be in order. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 07:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**Much appreciated! Agreed that input from others is needed. <s>Just to spin my thoughts out a bit more. Re the first sentence, I've realized that one reason it's been bugging me is that the term [[Gender-critical feminism|gender-critical]] may mean something very different in the US than in the UK. Recently I read an article about someone running for congress whose opinions about women are, shall we say, a bit archaic. Beyond that this person claims the LGBQT+ movement was created by radical feminists. So we need to be clear in terms of where links are going & what exactly we mean for a global audience.</s>{{pb}}Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with ""Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made. Also I've not had time for a full examination of the essays in Whited ({{Project Muse|111748|type=book}}} or Konchar Farr {{{Project MUSE|99615|type=book}}), which in my view needs to be done. Anyway, let's see what the others say. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 23:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
***Yes. On the wildest, most far-flung fringes of the US right, there lurk certain characters who do indeed like to burst out of their swamps, yell things like "the LGBTQ+ movement was created by radical feminists!" and then slide back into the mire, waiting for the next gloriously unhinged thought to turn up. Like you, I'm often refreshed and challenged by their {{abbr|unique perspectives|delusions}} and their {{abbr|idiosyncratic ways of putting things|lies}}. I think my personal favourite is "blame the gun". Presumably someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to drive without a driving licence is "blaming the car".{{pb}}I don't think we can use language the way those people do, and I also don't think we should be trying. Conservapedia is thataway ----->. I feel that as encyclopaedists, it's our task to summarize things in simple and clear terms, even (especially!) when the things we're trying to summarize are complex and difficult; and we should use normal, natural language in its usual meaning; and, despite what the US right might think, it's quite possible to be supportive and tolerant of gay and lesbian people, but intolerant of trans people; and that J.K. Rowling ''is''; and that "gender-critical" is succinct, accurate, and neutral. It's not a pejorative.{{pb}}But I can see that "gender-critical" is an uncomfortable thing to say about someone. Even though it's not a pejorative, it's a pungent term. It reeks of repression and segregation and prejudice. It's scrupulously accurate, though.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 09:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****I knew I wouldn't be able to make myself clear & that's why I have trouble engaging here. Being told to go off to Conservapedia doesn't want me to engage. To try to clarify: can we not just say she's a [[Gender-critical feminism|Gender-critical feminist]] whose views align with Maya Forstater (i.e the #IStandWithMaya tweet) & then tell readers who don't know (or who do know) those views are x, y and z (including that they believe sex is immutable). I think we're close. So just ignore me. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 14:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****:[[User:Victoriaearle|@Victoriaearle]] If we call J.K. Rowling a gender-critical feminist in the article, do we need to clarify what that means? Surely the page it would link to would give people an idea of what those views are without having to reclarify here? [[User:Alpha2 5232|Alpha2 5232]] ([[User talk:Alpha2 5232|talk]]) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****::Yes, I think we should because this is her biography & the article is about her. But I need to step away to refamiliarize myself with the sources & don't have time for that at the moment. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****:::My thought is this: J.K. Rowling uses the term herself, e.g. [https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ here]. I think we can safely call her gender critical - ideally with an explanation - because it's language she seems to accept as a description of the group she belongs to anyway. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****::::Basically I was only wondering if we needed to gloss the term & failed to explain myself at all well. Stricken a bunch above. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****:::::I have been stalled by real life matters on coming back to this, but I'm concerned that the process is not engaging [[WP:WIAFA]] 1c; yes, we're updating to Whited, which is a good thing, but that's only one high quality recent source, and it's not apparent whether we're working towards a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Instead, we seem to be working towards preferences of individual editors, which won't render this in compliance with FA standards. {{pb}} I don't have easy/full journal access, so can only access that which is freely available, but that (limited) survey continues to support the most NOT-NEWSY, NOT-RECENTISM, and likely to endure statement that was once in the article, and is mentioned by Victoriaearle at 23:56 June 15: {{tq|"Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with 'Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc.' ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made." }} {{pb}} I've been hoping the other FA writers of the FAR version would find time and inclination to weigh in here so we could address the WIAFA issues, including any updates needed to the literary portions of the article based on Whited and more, but I don't feel like I should ping them again. {{pb}} I have other (more minor) concerns about the draft, but if we aren't working towards meeting WIAFA, I'm unsure what the value of time spent here is ... so I haven't yet spelled those out. Ideas ?? Most certainly, that one deleted sentence is warranted by what I can access as a survey of the relevant literature (scholarly articles restricted to 2024), and is likely the most enduring of the section, so I hope it comes back with updated citations. Regards, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****::::::With all respect, you seem to be objecting to change by holding standards that ''are not apparent in the original version of the section'', which, if anything, is far worse. If this fails WIAFA after the changes, it fails it without the changes. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****:::::::I (and others) have explained several times that the FAR was constrained by the results of a very recent, and very well attended, RFC, and that all acknowledged we would have to revisit after some time had elapsed from that RFC ... so I won't repeat all of that again. Please do reread the archives of discussions already had with you. Now that we ''are'' revisiting, we should be keeping WIAFA in mind. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****::::::::From a high quality sourcing point-of-view, I'm not convinced there's enough yet to revisit. The search function at the top of the page of [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ The Wikipedia Library] goes to Ebscohost. If sorted by newest the first page shows results only from ''Daily Mail'', ''Daily Telegraph'', ''Hollywood Reporter'', ''Business Wire'', ''USA Today'', and so forth. Sorting by "peer reviewed" does show much and nothing I'm seeing that can be used, on a quick perusal. That said, anyone can search there. Whited is a start, but not much of a start & only published a few months ago. Waiting is not the worst option; agree that the understanding was that the section would be rewritten when high quality sources come available. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I believe the draft as written constitutes a considerable improvement on the current text. I'm certain it can be improved further, but we ought not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I do think the sentence beginning "Rowling rejects these characterizations..." needs some reworking specifically because we've lost the reader on what those characterizations might be. I'm also not certain the statement is broadly true; she denies being transphobic, and rejects the "TERF" label (though nobody really embraces it, do they?), but if there's evidence she rejects "gender critical", I've yet to see it. I'm also noting I don't have time to engage deeply here. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 01:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Her statements have divided feminists...==== |
|||
:I agree, {{u|FormalDude}}. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please tag me!</span>]]</span> 07:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
This sentence was cut because: |
|||
: |
|||
*It's not about J.K. Rowling's views; and |
|||
: 2007. The article is now more than twice the readable prose size as the version that passed FA, so there is a lot of unvetted content. It is still within [[WP:SIZE]] guidelines, though, so examples of what content needs trimming to meet [[WP:SS]] should be given. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 08:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*There was pressure to cut the word count. |
|||
::I don't think this BLP is going to be suitable for FA for a long time. It is currently contentious with POV warriors fighting backwards and forwards over it. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 10:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC). |
|||
I don't object to restoring it if we feel the extra words are justified in the circumstances.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please remember that [[WP:FAR]] is not dispute resolution, so if someone submits this article to FAR based on [[WP:WIAFA|1e stable]], they should be prepared to demonstrate lack of stability with specific diffs, specific issues where [[WP:SS]] is not adequately used, or specific problems with prose, neutrality, comprehensiveness, sourcing or MOS compliance. Since the original (and competent FA) nominator, {{u|Serendipodous}}, has not touched the article in over a year, I would not be surprised to find that the prose or sourcing has deteriorated. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Demonstrating those things should not be difficult, and this article hasn't been FA material for quite some time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Likely, but if the article goes to FAR (''after the two-week wait period from notification''), I hope the nominator recognizes that dispute resolution does not continue to FAR, the issue there is ''only'' whether the article meets [[WP:WIAFA]], and that is the case to be made. The case probably can be made, but I haven’t seen that addressed yet here on talk. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
=== Survey: proceed to [[WP:FAR]]? === |
|||
*'''Yes.''' Seeing as there are significant problems with the article's ability to meet [[WP:FACR|FACR]], I think we should proceed with FA review. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 04:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{u|FormalDude}} do you see in this discussion, including in the next post, requests that you ''read the instructions at [[WP:FAR]]''? Please a) describe exactly what the issues are, and b) complete the notifications at [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1]]. As you knew of these procedures in advance, someone else should not have to do the work for you. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:: This is a procedural question, because I'm not familiar with how FAR works. Can a FAR even occur while an RfC is still in progress? Is it not horrendously premature, as there are also some editors in the discussion below who might nominate [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] for deletion/merge with this one, which could result in a significant increase in this article's length. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Moot proposal''', not how it works. Please read the instructions at [[WP:FAR]]. After a two-week wait period from notification on talk, anyone can submit to FAR. A survey, or consensus, is not needed. Please review other articles at FAR to understand that the only concern there is [[WP:WIAFA]], not dispute resolution. Further, the notification (above) did not do a very good job of describing exactly what needs to be addressed for the article to meet WIAFA (as I’ve mentioned a few times). An honest talk effort to describe and resolve issues is expected. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Yes''' Just from the stability point, if 16 out of the last 50 edits (per time and date of this comment) have been reverted, I'd expect an in-depth analysis of the last half a year would probably find a trend of instability. However, when moving on to the actual FAR step of the process (with its appropriate subpage) a stronger case would probably be needed. I'm not particularly experienced with FAs, though (much more with GAs and the step between them is a significant one), so I'd recommend someone else start this. I'd have to do a close reading as well to determine whether the article is a good summary or not. In any case, reviewing FAs every so often is good practice to keep sure they are "the very best of Wikipedia". <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 18:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:The stability criterion at [[WP:WIAFA]] was never intended to account for normal editing, even when that occurs at a very fast pace to keep the article updated, so yes, the case for ongoing edit warring and disruption would have to be made. But you can probably save yourself(ves) some effort and make a stronger case re WIAFA based on the other criteria. I haven't looked, so am just guessing, but unstable articles are usually failing in other areas as well; I am intentionally not looking, rather just responding about how the [[WP:FAR]] process works, so as to be a neutral reviewer should the article appear at FAR. I hope the person who said the article was too long will lay out ''where'' the content needs trimming to meet [[WP:SS]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::To be perfectly honest I agree with your reasoning. However, I don't have much intention to dedicate more time to J.K. Rowling than I already have as I am currently focusing on getting the [[Bank of North Dakota]] and the [[User:A._C._Santacruz/sandbox|First Carlist War]] articles to GA and responding to RfC bots from time to time. Would be nice for there to be some kind of "FA articles identified as good candidates for review" noticeboard or something along those lines for cases like these. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 21:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::: Where in my case, the time spent here making sure a potential FAR nom is done correctly saves time later! {{u|A._C._Santacruz}} in fact, there is such a place and we would love to have more hands helping at [[WP:URFA/2020]] (I saw the news of this article where I check all new additions at [[WP:FARGIVEN]]). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: I believe a thank you for both your time here and the link is in order, {{u|SandyGeorgia}} :) <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 22:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::And thank you for the interest! My verbosity pays off for once :) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: The proposed word count now (400-ish) is approaching 10% less than what was in the article historically (430-ish); IIRC, any pressure to reduce the word count was when the section on transgender rights was hovering around or at times above 475 words (eg [[Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_19#Third_draft_(3.2)|here]], although I think at one point we were near 500). I propose we have room to bring back one sentence, but that if we did, it could be updated and cited to newer scholarly sources. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead == |
|||
: {{u|Bastun}} re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1230207962 this edit], [[WP:WIAFA]] is linked in the discussion just above this one. It stands for What Is A Featured Article, also abbreviated as [[WP:FACR]], Featured Article Criteria. It is separate from [[WP:FAR|Featured Article Review]]; it is not clear to me that {{u|S Marshall}} was suggesting (yet) that we need a trip to FAR. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive top |
|||
::Given the sources for the "divided feminists" sentence are 2019 and 2020, I don't think this should be used without very explicitly putting some context as to WHEN feminists were divided. Though the sourcing then adds additional problems: |
|||
|status=No consensus |
|||
::* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html one source] is ''explicitly'' about her comments on Maya Forstater. It'd be a great source to use in the context of Forstater, but not to use as if it applied to anything else Rowling said. It's also pretty clearly the main source for the statement; neither of the other two have "feminists divided" as a clear reading. |
|||
|result=This discussion has received a large attendance and requests for panel closes at [[WP:AN]] and [[WP:Close request]] - but apparently nobody volunteered and there was no consensus that the close ''must'' be a panel close -, so I'll go into more than usual detail here. Numerically, we are at about 95 !votes, with the following distribution: |
|||
::* One source is [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557 just probably not very good]: A single tweet by (non-academic) blogger Claire Heuchan is literally the only evidence of feminists supporting Rowling presented. |
|||
* 46 are for Option A ({{tq|Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on [[Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people|transgender people and related civil rights]]. These views have been criticised as [[Transphobia|transphobic]] by [[LGBT rights]] organisations and some [[Feminism|feminists]], but have received support from some other feminists and individuals.}}, which is the current one) |
|||
::* The third source is... [https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-living-anti-intellectual-times honestly a great article by Judith Butler], but she explicitly says "...I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen." A source that says gender critical is [[WP:FRINGE]] is a poor source to use for a statement that presents the views as equal within feminism. |
|||
* 23 are for Option B ({{tq|Since 2019, Rowling has received significant attention for her views on [[Politics_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people|transgender people and related civil rights]]. These views have been widely criticized as [[transphobia|transphobic]] in mainstream media and mainstream [[feminism]], yet has received support from [[TERF|trans-exclusionary radical feminists]], some artists, and a few [[Conservative politics|conservative politicians]].}}) |
|||
::---- |
|||
* 22 are for Option C ({{tq|Since 2019, coverage of Rowling's views on [[Politics_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people|transgender people and related civil rights]] has gained increasing prominence in the media. Her views, published on social media and her personal website, have been widely criticized as [[transphobia|transphobic]] in mainstream media and mainstream [[feminism]], yet have received support from [[TERF|trans-exclusionary radical feminists]], some artists, and a few [[Conservative politics|conservative politicians]].}}) |
|||
::So... aye. I'd probably say that, without modern, mainstream sources talking about a division in feminism, that sentence is dead in the water. And, let's face it: Even if we did find sources, if we kept the text exactly the same, then we wouldn't be summarising modern sources, we'd be using a summary of a source about the reaction to her commentary on Maya Forstater, treating it as if it covered all Rowling's comments since then, and retrofitting sources onto it) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 05:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* 42 are for Option D (remove completely) |
|||
:::Well, this is straightforward. Her statements haven't so much divided feminists, but rather, feminists were ''already'' divided on trans issues, and they've split on Rowling according to tribal lines. Those feminists who're gender-critical like Rowling and those who're gender-inclusive dislike her. Her statements have certainly prompted debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech, and they've certainly given rise to declarations of support for trans people from various actors and pressure groups. Nobody who's read the sources could possibly deny any of that, could they?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* 18 are for Option E (Include, but determine exact text later) |
|||
::::I mean, I'm only commenting on that one sentence (as written) and its poor sourcing. I don't disagree with what you just said, but what you just said explicitly rejects the statement I'm commenting on, and what you said, that already gender critical / TERF people supported her, is sky-is-blue stuff that probably doesn't need said. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* 3+1 are for Option F (something else altogether) |
|||
:::::Probably does need to be said, though, doesn't it. We're an encyclopaedia. Imagine we're writing for an intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, teenager from a village in rural India. If you want reliable/recent sources for this stuff, you don't need to look further than the BBC, which has published so many pieces about J.K. Rowling that she has her own dedicated topic page, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c50znx8v82dt.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Do note that many editors specified more than one option, or had an order of preference; for the purpose of this tally I am counting an editor supporting more than one option as multiple editors and am comparing the tally for each against the total number of !votes. On average, Options A, B and C were used about half-a-dozen times as second, third etc. preference, while D and E were so used only twice and thrice. <p> On the include-or-not side of the discussion, the key point of contention is whether Rowling's views on transgender issues are important/widespread enough to her notability to warrant inclusion (or not). The main argument proffered in favour is that it is frequently covered in sources and that it is already covered in adjunct articles and the main article to a large degree and thus should be included in the lead per [[WP:LEAD]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. The main argument proffered against is that the coverage does not amount to proof of [[WP:WEIGHT]] and that much of the coverage appears to be a recent (social) media flap ([[WP:RECENTISM]]) and unrepresentative of what actually makes her notable (''Harry Potter'' books and films), and that putting it in the lead would be undue relative to her notability/the prominence of other sections in the article. There are some polemic statements, but most arguments in general are along the lines of "(not) important part of her career/notability and (not) widely covered"; most editors don't specify how they measured this. Some editors used academic search engines or specific search engines to find out how proportionate the coverage is, but this approach didn't get much support. I see that not all sources provided by the include camp - in particular Aquillion's - were {{em|explicitly}} contested by the remove camp although one concern is that just listing a bunch of sources, many of which have been contested on grounds of unreliability, may not establish [[WP:WEIGHT]]. <p> On the how-to-write-it side of the discussion, a main concern is how to attribute the statements on Rowling's views: There are many concerns that Options B and C are improperly attributing viewpoints and labelling these expressing them ("mainstream media" is one that has raised many concerns) when such attribution is not properly supported by the sources/implausible, sometimes nationality-dependent and is often [[WP:BLP]]-sensitive. Some people worry about the current lead text implying a false equivalence, that it is not representative of how the rest of the article discusses her views and that many of the proposed writeups are too focused on how other people view her views. <p> There are some discussion threads that deal with [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]], whether it should exist and whether its content should influence that of the lead here and how. It became a sort-of merge discussion but didn't have a clear consensus. <p> Overall, it seems like slightly less than half of the editors accept a complete removal, slightly more than that want to keep the same text as currently is on the page and again about the same want a different writeup. On the "include or not" question, it seems like people agree that her views are covered in the article, that both [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:LEAD]] apply and that there is real world coverage of her views, but not on whether all these points warrant a mention in the lead. Excluding a few polemic arguments and those not backed by policy, it seems like opinions are quite split and no side {{em|clearly}} out-argues the other, thus there is '''no consensus on whether to rewrite or remove the current lead section'''. A number of people have concerns about the various writeups and how they attribute the views on Rowling's views, though, not all of which were refuted and some of which are [[WP:BLP]]-sensitive. <p> Also, a few comments on procedural matters. I see that some people in November argued that the RfC was malformed should be closed, but most people evidently didn't agree and the RfC continued, and some people eventually retracted this procedural objection. The "D-option" originally was "something else" but was changed to "Remove from the lead completely" since almost all editors who used it specified they wanted to use it in this manner, and the one editor who didn't, changed their !vote to clarify. There are a few concerns about [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ing of editors, personalized comments and about editors putting up selective and non-neutral notices on talk pages and noticeboards, and some others took actions to correct that. Behavioural issues are not, however, in the remit of my close. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 12:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Edit to add per a request on my talk page: I know that per [[WP:NOCON]] a lack of consensus on contentious content on living people {{em|often}} results in removal; but the concerns here are mainly about due and undue weight, not about the content being made-up, unsourced or libellous, and there is no such presumption for removal in these cases. And I don't see many people asking for a summary removal. Thus the section is kept by default, for lack of a consensus to remove or alter it. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 15:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 14:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1640959280}} |
|||
Hi! I'm making a second RfC as it seems the first one has resulted in clear consensus that her trans-related views deserve mention in the lead, but not the lead sentence. Below I have written a few possible ways to do so (in vague terms). Feel free to suggest other ways as well. |
|||
:'''A:''' Leave as is. Namely: Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on [[Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people|transgender people and related civil rights]]. These views have been criticised as [[Transphobia|transphobic]] by [[LGBT rights]] organisations and some [[Feminism|feminists]], but have received support from some other feminists and individuals. |
|||
:'''B:''' Since 2019, Rowling has received significant attention for her views on [[Politics_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people|transgender people and related civil rights]]. These views have been widely criticized as [[transphobia|transphobic]] in mainstream media and mainstream [[feminism]], yet has received support from [[TERF|trans-exclusionary radical feminists]], some artists, and a few [[Conservative politics|conservative politicians]]. |
|||
:'''C:''' Since 2019, coverage of Rowling's views on [[Politics_of_J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people|transgender people and related civil rights]] has gained increasing prominence in the media. Her views, published on social media and her personal website, have been widely criticized as [[transphobia|transphobic]] in mainstream media and mainstream [[feminism]], yet have received support from [[TERF|trans-exclusionary radical feminists]], some artists, and a few [[Conservative politics|conservative politicians]]. |
|||
:'''D:''' Leave it out of the lead completely. |
|||
:'''E:''' Include in the lead section, with other language to be determined later. |
|||
:'''F:''' Other. Please propose an alternative if you do vote this option. |
|||
[[User:A. C. Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ([[User talk:A. C. Santacruz|talk]]) 13:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====Wikipedia Featured article criteria (WIAFA)==== |
|||
Option D (This was originally the 'Other' option, but has become a de facto 'exclude from the lead' choice. I moved 'Other' to option F.) added by [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 03:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC); option E added by [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Without changes to this section the article is outdated. Without the proposed changes it represents a historical version of what J.K. Rowling is famous for, and it's consequently drawing attention from people who want to update it piecemeal. A wholesale rewrite from the best sources available is the least bad option.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: <small>Clarifying for [[WP:RFCL#Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead|closer(s)]]: Option E added 28 Nov. ([[Special:Diff/1057506654|diff]]); option D wording changed and option F added 30 Nov. ([[Special:Diff/1057865138|diff]]), after discussion [[#Clarify what option D is?|here]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 20:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:Agreed. Choosing to not update it is basically saying this article should not be an FA. If we're not going to do the best job we can with it, then it's not featurable. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 22:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Survey === |
|||
::As it happens, I agree with S Marshall. But I also understand the urge to swap newer sources for those the FA writers used some years ago. I wasn't one of the contributors (except maybe a little around the edges) and tapped out with Wikipedia atm. To keep the process on track, do you have any comments to make regarding S Marshall's most recent draft, {{u|Adam Cuerden}}? That's how we keep going. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option A'''. I see nothing wrong with the current wording, and I feel this is a case of "don't try to fix what's not broken". — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 18:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm fairly happy with it. I'm just not happy with - and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is. |
|||
* '''Option A'''. It is the most accurate and was agreed on after much discussion already in the archives. '''Strongly oppose B and C''' per [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:BLP]]. "Widely criticized" is either [[WP:Original research]] (OR) or based on cherry-picking sources; most do not use such [[WP:Puffery]]. "Mainstream media" is OR and false; the vast majority of the mainstream media does ''not'' call her transphobic or anything like that ''in its own voice'' and instead remains neutral on the allegations. "Mainstream feminism" is OR. "Trans-exclusionary radical feminists" is a BLP violation of the people mentioned in the body of the article per [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive292#Labeling_or_categorizing_BLP_subjects_as_TERFs_or_trans-exclusionary_radical_feminists|consensus from an RfC at the BLP noticeboard]]. All these phrases are massive problems regarding NPOV. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 20:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's bits to argue. I think "She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased. But that's not the worst objection, is it? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 01:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Later addendum: '''Option D''' is superior to B and C because not mentioning something is better than doing so in a way riddled with errors, POV, OR, and BLP violations. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. <small>(It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.)</small> |
|||
*:Yes, I was indeed questioning whether or not it's true whether mainstream media has "widely criticised" her as being transphobic, because I'm sure that's not true. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 20:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:: [https://ew.com/celebrity/eddie-izzard-defends-j-k-rowling/ Entertainment Weekly] has said so in almost exactly those words; I'm sure other sources agree. Would it help if I dug them up for you? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 22:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Re {{tq|and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is}}, yes you are misunderstanding -- I've not said (or meant) that at all. As I stated above, this process has not (yet) fully engaged 1c of [[WP:WIAFA]] by engaging in a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and as I've mentioned, there are newer and better sources for redrafting that sentence, which I believe to be one of the most FA-worthy parts of the section (that is, what is the lasting effect, beyond JKR triggering every news cycle, and editors then wanting to insert that [[WP:NOTNEWS|NEWS]] here rather than in the sub-article). My apologies for not having time to delineate them, but repeating, if we aren't engaging the FA criteria, and as most of the FA writers who did engage it originally can no longer engage, I'm [[WP:FAR|unsure where we are headed]] if we are going to keep filling the talk page discussions with NEWS and RECENTISM. {{pb}} {{u|Victoriaearle}}, when you stated yesterday that you find little new from your scholarly search to incorporate, were you referring to updating the literary portions of the article, or only the transgender rights section? When I browsed the other day (from the car, so couldn't save the sources), I found indications there is plenty for re-drafting that sentence, although I could only access those that were freely available. I'm relieved to have now heard from VM93, but remain concerned we may not be engaging in an overall way that will lead to retaining FA status. I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, but it's possible we could get more FA-knowledgeable writers to engage the criteria by in fact going back to FAR, where the off-topic RECENTISM is less likely to overtake the discussions. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Cherry-picking a few examples isn't going to make "widely" any less of a [[WP:WEASEL]] problem. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: This characterization of using material from post-2020 as "off-topic RECENTISM" is disputed.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 13:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Not only is it cherry-picked, but that source doesn't say anything about "mainstream media"; it just itself asserts "widely criticized". As I've said before, entertainment magazines make no pretense of sociopolitical objectivity in reporting, nor would we expect them to be particularly good at reporting on that topic. Its actual point, with no sources stating otherwise, is that genderfluid person [[Eddie Izzard]] defended Rowling. This is absent from either of the articles on the topic, so thanks for the source so I can fix that. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: I know what the article is about, thanks. For convenience, I have linked a representative sample of other sources for "widely criticized" below. I am not trying to find sources for {{tq|by mainstream media}}, because that isn't language I support for this article - I understood Czello to be saying, essentially, "mainstream media doesn't say she's been widely criticized", not "mainstream media doesn't say mainstream media says she's been widely criticied", since that last point seems silly to me. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 01:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*{{strikethrough|Option A I think that sums it up better than the other options. [[User:Masterhatch|Masterhatch]] ([[User talk:Masterhatch|talk]]) 21:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)}} |
|||
*'''Change to D''' as well with '''A as second choice'''. [[User:Masterhatch|Masterhatch]] ([[User talk:Masterhatch|talk]]) 12:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*{{strikethrough|Option A Perfect the way it is; the most objective wording IMO, and perfect position currently as well. When it was mentioned that it should be in the lead, I thought that meant the first paragraph, not simply before the subsections start. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 23:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)}} |
|||
**Change to '''Option D''': Now that I know leaving it out completely is an accepted option, that's preferable imo. If people are really insistent about keeping it, option A is still the best in both its location and wording, but I'd prefer if such social media buzz that is primarily only supported by opinion sources is out of the lead completely. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 03:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D'''- Leave it out completely. She's most notable as an author, not as a trans hater. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree to a point. I think it needs very little weight in the article. Definately ''shouldn't'' be in the opening paragraph, never mind the lead sentence.[[User:Masterhatch|Masterhatch]] ([[User talk:Masterhatch|talk]]) 01:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D'''- Leave it out completely, for reasons above. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 01:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC). |
|||
** As this editor has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1056867932&oldid=1056860696 repeatedly] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1054068203&oldid=1053987992 reverted] from versions of this article that had achieved Talk page consensus or were stable versions, I don't think this content-free !vote should receive any weight from the eventual closer. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>'''Immediate procedural close'''{{snd}} this Rfc is tainted; it was opened (in [[WP:GF|good faith]]) by a user who prematurely self-closed a related rfc (see [[#RFC on lead sentence]] above) in violation of closure guidelines.</s> [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 02:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)<small><small>Clearly never went anywhere, so updated !vote below; [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small></small> |
|||
*:{{Re|Mathglot}} What supposed guidelines did they violate? There's no rules against self-closures of an RfC when consensus is obvious. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 04:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''': Leave it out. It's not pertinent to why she's notable; it's just a post-notability media and social-media flap. I completely agree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&type=revision&diff=1056943131&oldid=1056923005&diffmode=source JBullock83's previous comments] on this overall question. Failing that, then option A as second choice, for reasons others have already given more concisely than I would. PS: I don't agree with the procedural close idea. We have [[WP:SNOW]] for a reason; cf. [[WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]][[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** The current version of the lead section consists of four long paragraphs; the current mention of these issues is two short sentences. The discussion in the lead of the subject's pseudonymous publications, of the extent of her wealth, and of her philanthropy are ''in each case'' longer than the discussion of these controversies, although the latter have received more RS (and specifically scholarly) attention. So this whole {{tq|post-notability}} business seems to be a pure canard - this RfC is about the lead ''section'', not the lead ''sentence''. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' per SMcCandlish. The true primary thing Rowling is known for is the Potter books. That is what should be the focus of the lead. Certainly this content is due in the body but I would leave it out of the lead entirely. Absent that, option A as it is the most impartial in it's telling. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** The lede is literally meant to be a summary of the body. That is its purpose. You already acknowledged the section in the body, so it should be included as a sentence in the lede. The "primary thing" someone is known for has...literally nothing to do with a discussion on writing a lede. That primary thing is already in the lede, obviously. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*** The purpose of the lead section is the summary the most encyclopedic key facts, not present every fact in short form. The very fact that the bulk of this stuff has been shunted off into a side article is a strong argument against it being lead-worthy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 09:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**** That makes no sense. It was split to a separate article probably because of section length, per [[WP:SPLIT]], with a brief summary kept in the main article. Calling it "shunted off" is an unnecessary use of loaded language. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 09:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** Springee, the inclusion of two sentences to deal with current controversies, at the end of a four paragraph lead section, doesn't impact {{tq|the focus of the lead}} on the Harry Potter/Wizarding World IP. That's true in Option A (the status quo) and in any of the other options as well. So your!vote doesn't seem to apply for this RfC. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option C.''' First off, the justifications for removing it entirely are weak. Content in the lead does not soely have to be mainstream views, nor does it have to be related to the subject's main reason for notability. The lead is supposed to represent the body ([[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]]), and the body goes into great depth about Rowling's views, specifically transgender views, which has a full section. Option C seems to be the best as it is the most neutrally worded [[WP:SUMMARY|SUMMARY]] of the content that already exists in the body. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 05:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option E'''. I agree with Option C for the most part per FormalDude, but I do not like the "in mainstream media" or "conservative politicians" clauses of that option since neither are really discussed in the article section (and also because I'm not entirely sure that the former is true, British media isn't exactly known for its standard-bearing support of trans people but that's a whole other can of worms), so I think they're best removed. Other than those two clauses, C seems pretty neutral and certainly avoids subtle misrepresentations present in the current version. <sub>Also this is barely relevant but it should say "on social media" not "in social media".</sub> [[User:Always forever|<b><span style="color:DarkTurquoise">always forever</span></b>]] ([[User talk:Always forever|talk]]) 07:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|Always forever}}, they are mentioned in [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] so I assumed they'd be mentioned in the main article as well. I personally think that's more an issue of bringing it into main rather than finding it to be not discussed in the article, as U.S. senators referencing her when blocking the [[Equality Act]] is quite notable in my eyes. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 08:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::That's fair, should've checked the other article. I withdraw my previous comment about the clause referencing conservative politicians. [[User:Always forever|<b><span style="color:DarkTurquoise">always forever</span></b>]] ([[User talk:Always forever|talk]]) 08:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::"Widely criticized by mainstream feminism" is still original research, and "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" is still a BLP violation of the persons so described. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 17:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{u|Crossroads}} {{tq|"If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."}} from [[WP:PUBLICFIGURE]] so I'm not sure what violation you're referring to (especially when the media uses that term as well). Additionally, when [[Dave Chappelle]] gets attention in the media from saying [https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/oct/07/dave-chappelle-transgender-netflix-special-backlash he's "Team TERF" to indicate his support of Rowling] means that some of her supporters even like the term. In regards to the OR, modern (fourth-wave) feminism is trans-inclusionary so I ask you to please include sources that say that modern feminists are mostly in agreement with TERF ideology. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: The discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive292#Labeling_or_categorizing_BLP_subjects_as_TERFs_or_trans-exclusionary_radical_feminists Crossroads linked above] was closed with the conclusion, {{tq|There is consensus that we should generally provide in text attribution when using the term "TERF" in BLP.}} Given that the arguments in support of that conclusion were mostly on [[WP:BLP]] grounds, I assume that is what he is referring to here. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: The summary of that discussion indicates in-text attribution (which seems fair) not that they cannot be called TERFs. Even if the way to word that (e.g. "has received support from a movement within fourth-wave feminism referred to as TERF") might be hard, I don't think that calls for removing the whole paragraph from the lead. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 20:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''': Remove from the lede entirely. Perhaps in ten years' time things will be different, but right now it isn't why she is notable. Many other equally (by article coverage and additional metrics) notable views of hers (eg against press intrusion, which nobody seems bothered about) are not included in the lede, and rightly so. Furthermore, the issue is controversial, and so not easily covered in the lede, as illustrated by the current terrible lede wording on this topic. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 11:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC) modified by [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 10:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**The Trans section was kept short in this article simply because it is more fully covered in the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] article were it accounts to close to half of its content. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 10:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***The trans section in the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] article (which shouldn't exist at all, IMO) is ludicrously over-detailed. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 14:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****{{u|Tewdar}} your personal opinion does not change the fact that keeping the trans section in the main article short per [[WP:SPLIT]] was the correct thing to do, and so saying using article coverage as a metric for judgement (as your vote reasoning would suggest) might not be accurate in this case if one does not consider pages split off due to length. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 14:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****Tewdar, are you suggesting that most of the RS coverage of Rowling for several years now is *not* about her statements on transgender issues? If so, I'd like to see some evidence for that EXTRAORDINARY claim. If not, how is the section {{tq|over-detailed}}? Did history end in 2016, or something? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****I am suggesting that what you might describe as "the very utmost highest quality, absolutely bloody top-notch beyond reproach reliable sourcing" is usually just sleazy click-bait. '''Show me any other <s>encyclopedia</s> general-purpose encyclopedia article <s>about Rowling</s> with a specific entry for Rowling that covers this subject at all.''' [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 00:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|off-topic discussion that produced the bold clarification of the immediately preceding comment - darkly hilarious}} |
|||
****** Try looking [https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/skpromo/uCw7vK/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-trans-studies/i2901.xml in here]. And if you think academic journals are {{tq|usually just sleazy click-bait}}, perhaps you would be happier contributing to some other "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*******That encyclopedia does not appear to have an individual entry on J. K. Rowling. Also it's a rather specific encyclopedia, not general-purpose. Perhaps I should have been more specific, to avoid those famous Newimpartial Gotcha® replies. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 10:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
********* I don't know why you are looking to {{tq|other general-purpose encyclopedia articles about Rowling}} for guidance - we are not writing a quadrenary encyclopaedia here, and I don't know how many other encyclopaedias have been revised over the last couple of years, anyway. Your argument is akin to suggesting that we shouldn't cover Covid-19 because it isn't in older encyclopaedias...[[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 11:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
********** [https://www.britannica.com/science/COVID-19 Britannica seems reasonably up to date with COVID]. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 11:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*********** Tewder ... It is not what we as individual editors consider a reliable source but what the Wikipedia community agrees are reliable sources. You are fully aware that your are able to check if a source is considered reliable at [[WP:RSP]], if you consider a source to be unreliable you are entitled to make a case at [[WP:RSN]] ...I know you are very much aware of this. I worry that you are simply unable to tell the difference between community agreed reliable sources and sleazy click-bait gutter press. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 01:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*{{od|:::::::::::}} {{reply to|Tewdar|Newimpartial}} I suggest that the discussion here guide itself by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia without copying from other encyclopedias. That is neither our purpose nor our role in WP. The guidelines are based on decades of consensus and reinforced by thousands of discussions. Our guidelines on the lead section are clear in their wording, so [[appeal to authority|appealing to other general purpose encyclopedias]] is unnecessary for the purpose of this discussion, and drives the discussion off-topic. {{u|Tewdar}} if your issue is that her trans-related views are not commented on in RS, the large amount of RSs that have been provided should dispel that. If your issue is that it is not the most notable thing about her, then you are misreading the guidelines on lead which suggest that the lead follows the body. If your issue is that the matter is controversial and therefore should not be in the lead because it is hard to write about, then you are ignoring the fact that this RfC is in fact to get community input on how to improve that wording, and I suggest you propose some ideas on addressing the issues you find in the current wording rather than removing it altogether. If your issue is that other notable views of her that are covered extensively in the article aren't in the lead and therefore the trans views should also not be covered, I'd argue that's a stronger argument for including them all rather than removing the trans views. I expect another RfC to happen after this about how to do so if the consensus is to keep the trans views in the lead, and would warmly invited you to join that discussion as well. If your argument is that the controversy is too recent that is much more defendable and you can certainly make that argument, but that's a much weaker argument for removal than the others. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 13:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** {{yo|A._C._Santacruz}} ''Thanks ever so much'' for that massive exposition pointing out exhaustively all of the reasons why anyone choosing to exclude mention of this issue from the lede is wrong. Perhaps this can be moved to the top, so that everybody choosing "option D - exclude" won't have to put up with boilerplate replies pointing out the same sort of thing over and over and over... [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 13:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***I appreciate your thanks, but will wait for more experienced editors to indicate doing that (perhaps as a note before the survey or something along those lines) would be in the interest of the discussion, as I don't want to seem like I wish to silence other viewpoints etc. etc. I personally think doing so would reduce the [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] that has been happening (whether from the right or wrong viewpoint does not matter much here) and improve the quality of discussion, but hope other editors will give me input on that (pinging {{reply to|Bodney|FormalDude|Cullen328|Bastun|Dennis Brown|Masem|Binksternet|Bilorv}} as some highly experienced editors that participated in this RfC whose input here would be very appreciated). <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****Personally, I do not think it would be appropriate to present a one-sided help note at the beginning of the survey , it is for editors to make good arguments in their own contributions. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 13:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****:Being moderately proficient in reading Tewdar English, I think there's a high likelihood they were being sarcastic. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 13:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****::"Tewdar English", I love it! 😂 [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 14:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****: Oh :/. Well that's not nice {{u|Tewdar}}. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 14:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
*'''Option C (as nom)''' — I think this gives much more context about the world's reaction to her views than Option A (e.g. how the views are published) and describes both the groups in favor of her views and those against better than the current lead's paragraph. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 12:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>Option C</s> '''Option B or C''' are the more accurate as per [[User:FormalDude]], [[User:A._C._Santacruz]] and [[User:Always forever|Always forever]]'s arguments, Removal is clearly [[WP:UNDUE]], inclusion is supported by [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]], and by dozens of articles in numerous international highest quality Reliable sources [[WP:RSP]] (a few of which are listed [[Talk:J. K. Rowling#First sentence|in bold above]]). Alternatively ''a variant of Option A i.e. '''Option E''' (as just proposed by [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]]) where'' the wording could include a wiki link to [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical (or trans-exclusionary)]] or just [[Feminist views on transgender topics]] as suggested at [[Talk:J. K. Rowling#Last part of the sentence]]. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 12:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Amended <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 02:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option D'''. Remove entirely. Per [[WP:BLPSTYLE]] > [[Loaded language]]; and [[MOS:LABEL]]. Attaching the label "transphobic" in the lead is a through-the-back-door injection of persuasive language. There is no acceptable "alternative" for including the POV of some editors. ''Edited to add'': [[WP:WEIGHT]]: "{{green|Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements...."}} Rowling's gender politics comments may have received coverage in UK and LGBT-related/friendly media, but it has not received the same headlines outside of the UK. What she is predominantly known for -- worldwide -- is as an author of successful and popular novels. Her gender and political viewpoints as well as her receiving death threats and being [[Doxing|doxxed]] by trans activists belong in the Views section, just as the charitable causes she is involved in are under Philanthropy. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 13:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC); edited 03:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC) [[WP:CURRENTSECTION#New section|<sup>[expand comment]</sup>]] |
|||
:* {{u|Pyxis Solitary}}, the label "transphobic" is how the media, LGBTQ+, and mainstream feminism characterizes her comments. It is not POV to describe it as so. "Her transphobic comments" is POV. "Her comments have been described as transphobic by" or other similar formulations is not POV — per [[WP:OPINION]]. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 13:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:* [[WP:BLP|Biographies of Living Persons policy]]'s [[WP:PUBLICFIGURE]], {{tq|"If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."}} <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User #talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 13:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::*This RfC is not about whether anything on this material can appear in the article at all; it's about the lead. You're quoting non-relevant rules. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 09:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*As I mentioned below I (too) believe this RFC is ill-prepared, premature and unnecessary, and I oppose making any changes to the paragraph in question based on it. I believe it should be closed for the reasons pointed out by others. I support the status quo agreed on after extensive debate. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{Re|Amanda A. Brant}} What exactly is "ill-prepared" about this RfC? As far as I can tell, only one other person has called for a procedural close, and they did not have good reasons either. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 07:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Like [[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] I'm not sure why this RfC exists. <s>Of the options that do exist in it, I prefer the wording of option B, followed by option A. Option C is far too verbose for a lead, and option D is entirely policy non-compliant per [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]] especially in light of the [[J. K. Rowling#Transgender people|Transgender people]] subsection. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)</s> |
|||
:'''Option E'''. Per [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]]'s reasoning below. If E fails, then '''B''' followed by '''A'''.[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC) <small>tweaked on [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*'''Option A, then E, then either B or C'''' <strike>Option A, per Czello,</strike> but really - wait, what? What's happening here? Why is a relatively new user who I've rarely seen on this article jumping in to one of the more controversial areas on WP, proposing RFCs with their own multiple alternative wordings (thereby splitting a vote)? Has anybody actually been looking for this? The current version is actually relatively stable, as these things go. Why fix something that isn't broken?! [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 17:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC) [Changing to add Option E. Lead follows body. Wikipedia is not censored, and we cover Rowling's recent controversies in this article '''and''' the subject's political views receive enough coverage that they also warrant their own full article. Excluding this from mention in the lede would be bizarre]. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 11:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:* {{u|Bastun}} I got summoned by bot to the discussion above my first RfC and saw that perhaps the discussion that was happening (which I saw as disorganized and unfocused) could be benefited by 2 RfCs with clear options that could guide discussion (e.g. should it be in the lead sentence and if so how, and should it be in the lead and if so how). I understand now that the similarities between B and C are muddling this discussion and that is my error. However, I reasoned that having 3 options (status quo, a small addition, and a small addition with more description of how the views are made public, and other choices) would be helpful as clear options that guide discussion. The state of the discussion above my RfCs indicates that if not broken, it might still benefit from recent, specific community consensus on the lead. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 18:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:*<small>New user {{u|A._C._Santacruz}} is clearly [[WP:HERE|here]] for the right reasons, has navigated complex guidelines as best {{they|A._C._Santacruz}} could, and acquits {{themself|A._C._Santacruz}} well. That said (and this is getting o/t here), {{u|Bastun}}'s point makes me wonder if the [[User:Yapperbot|FRS bot]] should be adjusted to retrieve a topic's ArbCom D/s status, as well as a user's [[WP:XC]] and Arb D/s warning status, and react in some t.b.d. way. If there's interest, we should move this aside to [[User talk:Yapperbot]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 19:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::<small>{{u|Mathglot}} this seems like quite the interesting proposal, I'd support starting the discussion. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> </small> |
|||
* '''Option A''' Lede follows body. It is a section in the body, it should have at least a sentence in the lede. To do otherwise is trying to purposefully hide content in the body. Anyone arguing otherwise is going directly against policy. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 01:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option E''' (which I added above) - I have never done this before, but I cannot !vote for any of the options given. A is mealy-mouthed and promotes FALSEBALANCE; B and C are flawed in almost identical ways, and by now any !vote for D could be mistaken as a !vote to leave this material out. As borne out by the body of this article, by [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]], and by previous discussions at this very Talk page, issues arising from Rowling's statements on transgender issues are more than DUE for inclusion in what is a longish (lead section). The material should be included by policy, in a neutral way that meets BLP and DUE requirements without succumbing to whitewashing or deviating from what the sources actually say. I'm confident that the discussion to discern what this language is simply hasn't started yet in earnest - the stable version can stay as a placeholder until we have something better. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Prefer B, would be okay with A'''. As Silver seren says, lead follows body, and so it bears mentioning; B feels the option that offers the most context but the simpler reading in A is not a bad option either. [[User:Grapple X|ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ]] [[User talk:Grapple X|ꭗ]] 01:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option B''' As a billionaire, Rowling is one of the most powerful people in the world and of all the ways she has used her power and influence, in terms of count and depth of media coverage she is most known for her hatemongering against the trans community. This is not an area where she has casual opinions; the media she sought and acquired has made her a thought leader for oppression of trans people. Based on my experience editing Wikipedia, seeing this kind of media coverage makes me think her actions in the trans movement are defining features of her biography, public image, and historical record. Option B could be reworded, but in any case, I choose it because I support communicating that many sources - including LGBT+ organizations, mainstream media, and most of her prominent colleagues in performing her works - all see fit to report her hostility to one of the most vulnerable, attacked, and underprivileged demographics of society. The weight of the sources merits including this prominently in the lead. {{u|Bodney}} has a more complete list of sources in another section but here are some for this discussion. |
|||
**<s>{{cite web |last1=Ennis |first1=Dawn |title=J.K. Rowling Comes Out As A TERF |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-comes-out-as-a-terf |website=Forbes |language=en |date=19 December 2019}}</s> |
|||
**{{cite web |last1=Gilchrist |first1=Tracy E. |title=J.K. Rowling Goes Full TERF in New Series of Transphobic Tweets |url=https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/6/06/jk-rowling-goes-full-terf-new-series-transphobic-tweets |website=www.advocate.com |language=en |date=6 June 2020}} |
|||
**{{cite web |last1=Robertson |first1=Grace |title=Where J.K. Rowling’s Transphobia Comes From |url=https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism |website=Vanity Fair |date=12 June 2020}} |
|||
:[[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 02:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:*Quick note: the Forbes source is not an RS per [[WP:FORBESCON]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:*And ''The Advocate'' is, well, advocacy. It is not independent of the subject (the one this thread is open about, I don't mean Rowling as the subject of the article), so it's of no use to cite in this thread. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 08:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okay, I am out of touch about the decline of Forbes. I struck that. As for ''The Advocate'', if there is a wiki-policy-based explanation for why community publications are excluded from talk about their own communities then I want to see it. The Advocate is a fine source for presenting mainstream LGBT community views. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 16:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yeah; SMcCandlish is offering a "unique" reading of [[WP:INDEPENDENT]], here. Taken to its logical conclusion, we couldn't cite UK broadsheets on UK political issues... [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Since there is a tendency to shoot the messenger and squelch dissenting voices, I don't know what "mainstream LGBT community views" could be, but if ''The Advocate'' gets a pass we can also use community publications that are on the other side of the [[Political correctness|PC]] popularity aisle; such as [https://lesbianandgaynews.com/?s=J.K.+Rowling ''Lesbian and Gay News''], [https://afterellen.com/?s=J.K.+Rowling ''AfterEllen'']. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 13:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Pyxis Solitary}} Excuse the late reply, I just checked again now that this is closing. I object to your argument because those publications are not comparable. There is such a thing as the LGBT community and the ''The Advocate'' has been a respected publication for that community since the 60s. Millions of people have read their articles, and thousands of LGBT community leaders have shown respect to the publication by cooperating with their journalists. Those two publications you shared are new and have not yet been shown to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I personally characterize them as fringe, because they both present themselves as serving a community of LGB people who are transphobic. The LGBT community has always opposed hate and discrimination, and I doubt the existence of legitimate journalism which seeks to grow a transphobic gay audience. There is so little money in mainstream LGBT journalism that my first thought to explain funding for transphobic gay lifestyle magazines is that it must be propaganda intended to sow discord and doubt with negativity. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 01:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I grabbed some captures of those publications. [https://web.archive.org/web/20211221024752/https://lesbianandgaynews.com/?s=trans Lesbianandgaynews has a list of transphobic articles]. [https://web.archive.org/web/20211221024925/https://lesbianandgaynews.com/ Almost every article on the frontpage of their website today] seems focused on hatemongering against trans people, which I feel makes this topic a focus and defining feature of the publication. [https://web.archive.org/web/20211221025635/https://afterellen.com/?s=trans Afterellen avoids the usual LGBT coverage of trans topics], but at the top of that list does have an article guiding trans people into conversion therapy to quit being trans. None of this is from the LGBT community, and there is no organized LGB community. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 03:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I don't agree with your characterization of ''Lesbian and Gay News''. I see it as a canary in a coal mine, and to form a factually-based opinion about any subject it is important to see both sides of the aisle. Characterizing the ''AfterEllen'' article as "{{tq|guiding trans people into conversion therapy to quit being trans}}" is a misrepresentation. The article is titled [https://afterellen.com/supporting-our-detransitioned-sisters-on-detransawarenessday/ "Supporting Our Detransitioned Sisters on #DetransAwarenessDay"] and is an interview regarding the organization [https://www.detransvoices.org/ Detrans Voices]. Detransitioners exist. Their experiences and what they have to say have as much value as those of transgender women and men. ''The Advocate'' ignores the detransition movement. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 12:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Whatever your opinion of them is does not make them RS. With regards to their opinion on trans people, the fact they'd publish [https://afterellen.com/girl-dick-the-cotton-ceiling-and-the-cultural-war-on-lesbians-girls-and-women/ this article] saying {{tq|And as anyone who has ever participated in social media knows, any criticism of transgender ideology, which we all of us have the right to accept, critique and reject, any deviation from the brain-sucking mantra of ‘trans women are women,’ is met with [...]}} (removed disturbing language but you get the point){{tq|. This is a viciously toxic form of men’s sexual rights activism that has managed to rebrand and reframe itself as a civil rights movement.}} means the site supports the statement that trans women are not women and that trans rights is not a valid civil rights movement (both transphobic statements). So I have strong doubts as to whether their editorial policy ([https://afterellen.com/about/ or lack thereof]) means they can be considered an RS on this topic, {{u|Pyxis Solitary}}. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 12:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: The ''AfterEllen'' article you linked is written by Miranda Yardley, a trans woman. You disagree with her. But that doesn't make her opinion not worthy of consideration. You should invite her to tea sometime so you can hash out your differences. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 12:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::2 points. Firstly, the fact she's a trans woman does not mean she cannot be transphobic. That would be absurd. Secondly, I'm not saying her opinion is not worthy of consideration, I am saying it is indicative of the editorial line of the page you have mentioned and in opposition to both the scientific, academic, and popular media RS mainstream. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 13:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Casual reminder that [[Blaire White|Blaire white]] is also a trans woman. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Of course, feel free to take the issue to [[WP:RSN]] if you feel otherwise. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 12:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Sandy, I probably misunderstood. I wouldn't call my quick dip-stick search at Ebscohost a scholarly search. I thought you were referring to high-quality scholarly vs. news sources re the transgender section - and no, I didn't see anything that we aren't already using (but I didn't go beyond the first page). Even if you can't save, is it possible to capture links? In terms of updating the rest of the article, there's plenty, but as I mentioned Whited is new & generally lit. articles don't get updated within months of a new publication - at least not the ones I steward. It's always good to wait a bit.{{pb}}As far as the sentence in question, I'm not wedded to it. It would be better to keep the process moving, imo.{{pb}}As for as going back to FAR, don't see the need. The only immediate is need an overhaul of the transgender section & given the suggestions overnight think S Marshall's current version is fine. But ... today's article in the Times will need to get incorporated at some point because of the election.[[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D – Delete''' Her views on trans people are incidental to her notability. The article has an extensive section on her views ranging from religion and politics to the media to trans issues, yet only the latter is deemed worthy of mention. If the lead is to mention her views then it should be balanced and in proportion to the coverage of her other stances, otherwise it just looks like wiki-activism. If it is to remain then the wording would have to be balanced with her other positions. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm glad to be wrong. Thanks, Sandy. I think there's a major tension between recentism and outdated here. We need to include some amount of recent content as Rowling's views have pretty clearly moved to more extreme ones, but we also don't want to merely document the most recent three incidents. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' or (2nd choice) '''Option D''', as undue in the lead. For a British person, option C is a complete non-starter - those sweeping characterizations ''might'' be true for the US (though I rather doubt it), but are certainly not for the UK, where she lives. Support for her position is much wider than that in the media, & no doubt the wider public. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 02:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::RE, "the most recent three incidents", that is the tricky part of working on this article (she triggers the news cycle weekly, so how to decide which to include). Re Victoria and S Marshall, when I was browsing from the car, what I meant was that I found plenty of scholar.google sources that could be used to update that sentence and that we don't need to go to news sources -- enough so that the still-relevance of the sentence was shown, which is why I think it the most enduring. The reason I didn't save those I found is that I considered my search (without journal access) incomplete. I could find them again, subject to same constraints, if my real life issues {{em|would ever settle down}} and give me a long-enough break to refocus here (sorry :( . [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No more than in the politics article''': The article [[Politics of J.K. Rowling]] contains two lines in the lede on her trans-related views, along with various party political and referendum declarations. None of these views should be more represented on the main article than on the specific Politics article. (copied from below) The mention about trans issues may be present or absent from this article but it would be incoherent in my opinion for the main article to give greater detail to a secondary subject than the specific article dealing with the secondary suject. I think that Wikipedia should be consistent and coherent, especially across two very closely related articles. If any expansion might possibly be worthwhile, it would be over at the Politics article. (added) [[User:Munci|Munci]] ([[User talk:Munci|talk]]) 04:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::To some extent, we don't need to be perfect, as long as we cover fairly typical and/or illuminating events. We're trying to give a flavour of her sort of activity. Ideally, analysis that makes the choices for us would be better, but in the absence of that, we have a little editorial perogative to pick and choose. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Cot|long IP rant against WP policy}} |
|||
*'''Option D (also bad formed RFC choices - all three are POV language, some only more inflammatry than the others)''' - this is not even remotely close to being what she is notable for. Putting it in the lede is undue RECENTISM, and it most certainly violates many facets of the '''spirit''' of BLP, and '''probably multiple instances of the letter''' as well (but I refuse to engage in endless Wikilitigation over that). Putting any of the three options in the lede would mean the encyclopaedia is being used as a mouthpiece for a '''misogynistic and homophobic "lynch" mob, thinly veiled in the "inclusive sheep"'s clothing in order to fool some proponents of women's and gays' rights, and to intimidate the rest of them for fear of being destroyed if they dare speak.''' |
|||
*The only way this can possibly be mentioned neutrally - and it is UNDUE for the lede regardless - would be to state ''exactly'' what she said, then briefly describe that she received backlash from some feminists and LGBT activists, and support from other feminists and LGBT activists. Anything beyond that violates NPOV. The non-activist community at large, here, needs to understand (and eventually, I think, will need to acknowledge) that there is a cold civil war going on right now in the feminist and LGBT circles - all of the involved parties are marginalised groups, and both sides say they are being waged war on by the other side. Only one side engages in personal campaigns to destroy the reputation against individuals that disagree with them, though, and we have a squadron of editors here dedicated to that goal as well (certain of whom {{tq|"can't wait until every last homosexual is dead and buried"}}). And for the record: we have sex-separated spaces SOLELY because of material reality: females are weaker, '''only''' females can become pregnant, and '''only''' males can impregnate them, potentially against their will. None of that has anything to do with how anyone "identifies", and claiming it does is dishonest. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F|2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F]] ([[User talk:2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F|talk]]) 08:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** Would someone be so kind so as to collapse this IP's tantrum? [[WP:SOAPBOX|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] and neither is this talk page. Cold civil war lynch mob, I swear to god...<span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 08:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**Not only a tantrum but it contains '''baseless accusations and crazed attacks on other editors''' in both paragraphs. This comment should be removed in its entirety by any Editor, as per [[WP:RPA]]. As a likely target of the abuse I think it would would be better if someone else took the appropiate action. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 11:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
*'''Option D, or second choice option A''' Option C is too POV in tone, the others, meh. This issue is going to simmer down one way or the other and is not a defining feature of who she is. Most of all, avoid recentism and always keep it NPOV. [[User:Montanabw|<span style="color: #006600;">Montanabw</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 08:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' in a decades-long wiriting career, her views on trans issues are insignificant and [[WP:UNDUE]]. We certainly should not be using inflammatory language like "transphobic" (a word that is thrown around willy nilly at anybody who criticises anything to do with trans). Additionally, where's the mention of her political views in the lead? Why are the trans views deemed more significant? Why isn't there mention that feminists support her for the same reasons that trans people dislike her? Remove. Remove. Remove. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red">''<sup>2</sup>''</span>]].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: blue">'''''O'''''</span>]].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red"><sup>''Boxing''</sup></span>]] 10:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**{{tq|Why isn't there mention that feminists support her for the same reasons that trans people dislike her?}} Perhaps because, as it stands, this statement is false? Feminists outside the UK are most ''unlikely'' to support Rowling, and feminists within the UK are divided. People who think this is a "trans people vs. feminists" issue seem to be unfamiliar with the sources. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 13:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***As I said, option D; remove, remove, remove. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red">''<sup>2</sup>''</span>]].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: blue">'''''O'''''</span>]].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red"><sup>''Boxing''</sup></span>]] 18:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**** You haven't read either the lead or the sources on this topic, have you? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****You mistakingly think Rowling is transphobic, we get it. Now stop bludgeoning. ''Still'' '''option D'''; remove, remove, remove. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red">''<sup>2</sup>''</span>]].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: blue">'''''O'''''</span>]].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red"><sup>''Boxing''</sup></span>]] 00:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***** Actually, I do not {{tq|think Rowling is transphobic}}, and I have consistently opposed describing Rowling as transphobic. Perhaps you are thinking of some other editor? What I think is that Rowling's comments on trans issues are controversial, have been widely condemned as tranphobic, and that this is now a very substantial strand in the coverage of Rowling, particular the "better" (scholarly) coverage. You can disagree with that, but please don't attribute to me beliefs I don't hold. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** {{tqq|anything to do with trans}}. Trans is an adjective, not a noun. Did you mean to say {{!tqq|trans issues}} or {{!tqq|trans people}}, perhaps? —<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd><sup> [ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span> 15:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==== |
====This morning's article in The Times==== |
||
is extraordinarily timely and helpful. I propose that we suspend updating this section for the moment because Rowling's latest little rant will provoke a reaction and, hopefully, some analysis by third parties.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D – Delete''' Wikipedia is not the place for Terf-wars. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 02:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:* Well, I hope your vote is completely ignored. We follow how the news reports on subjects and there has been extensive reporting on Rowling's views on trans people. Hence why there's a section in the article. And the lede is meant to be a summary of the body. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 02:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::*Feel free to go start a trash tabloid where your views will be welcome. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::*{{reply to|Only in death}} Please take comments such as the one above to another forum. [[User:I dream of horses|I dream of horses]] [[Special:Contribs/I dream of horses|(Contribs)]] [[User talk:I dream of horses|(Talk)]] 18:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option B''' although I would drop “mainstream”; apart from that it seems the most precise. And two sentences seems well warranted by the space devoted in the body of the entry. (Meanwhile I would suggest trimming the five sentences on how wealthy she is, which corresponds to a shorter section of the body.) Note: I was summoned by Smcandlish’s post on WikiProject Novels. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 02:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' Informative, concise and neutral. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 02:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option D''' exclude from the lead, as articulated by SMcCandlish her views have nothing to do with her notability or her fame. Failing exclusion, option A is the least <s>objectionable</s> biased language. [[User:Cavalryman|Cavalryman]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman|talk]]) 02:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC). |
|||
::* The opinion below is wrong in fact, Rowling’s views on transgender issues occupy a sub-section of the article, there are entire sections of this article which are not summarised in the lead. I appreciate this issue is emotive to some editors here, but it is UNDUE to include any of the above in the lead of this article. [[User:Cavalryman|Cavalryman]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman|talk]]) 07:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC). |
|||
::*: Which ones exactly, {{u|Cavalryman}}? From what I can tell all the relevant sections are included. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 09:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I guess relevance is subjective, hence this discussion. [[User:Cavalryman|Cavalryman]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman|talk]]) 09:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC). |
|||
:::::: I'd appreciate you indicating which ones you feel should be included in the lead that are not currently there, as that would be helpful both within this RfC and also afterwards since a number of people feel there are more things that could be included and I assume there will be a discussion/RfC on that as well, {{u|Cavalryman}}. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 10:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: I don’t, I think the first three paragraphs are sufficient and the forth UNDUE. [[User:Cavalryman|Cavalryman]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman|talk]]) 10:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC). |
|||
:::::::: I'm just trying to understand your reasoning seeing how leads (in my perspective) are not meant to be a short description of why a person is notable but instead a short summary of the article itself. If you then follow that reasoning (as you did in your second comment) and say that the mention of trans views should be removed because there are sections that are not summarized in the lead and should be before sub-sections are, but then refuse to name which ones you feel should be mentioned before the trans-related paragraph makes it hard to argue against your view as one would have to refute or counteract any of the possible suggestions you might have. {{pb}} In essence, I don't find your argument that the fourth paragraph does not merit inclusion compelling seeing how a) notability and fame are not the only metrics for including something in the lead ({{tq|It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, '''including any prominent controversies.'''}} from [[MOS:LEAD]], emphasis my own (fame is not mentioned, but one may assume it is part of notability)); b) your initial comment assumes that the controversy about her trans-related comment is not notable (it assumes so as it does not provide any arguments nor does it respond to the significant amounts of evidence provided in the rest of the discussion saying it is indeed notable); c) arguing that other sections have more merit for inclusion in the lead but not mentioning which ones should (so as to facilitate later discussion on this point and therefore improve the article) feels (if you'll pardon the simile) like setting many goalposts without playing the game, if that makes sense, as I described above in this comment; d) saying it is UNDUE means you are saying that it is not supported by a majority view, but so far all I have seen in this discussion are RS describing the controversy and none that do not refer to it at all. In my view if you wish to claim that the paragraph is UNDUE the burden is now on you to provide evidence for it not being a notable aspect of her coverage since she started making her views on trans people public. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::On a related note, saying "per SMcCandlish" is really more like saying per John Bullock seeing how Candlish relies on their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&type=revision&diff=1056943131&oldid=1056923005&diffmode=visual previous comment on the issue], so then saying doesn't pass notability test per Candlish really is more like saying the content is too recent to be included. The controversy about Rowling's views is neither breaking news, nor gossip, nor is it a brief coverage lasting a month. It is currently over three and a half years of consistent reporting by an overwhelming majority of RS news sources both in opinion pieces (relevant for my next point) and news articles. The [[WP:RECENTISM]] page describes a [[WP:10YEARTEST]] as a helpful thought experiment: {{pb}} {{tq|Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?}} {{pb}} The extent of the coverage, the influence her comments have had on the global discussion around trans rights (being quoted by US senators, [http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/blog/2020/10/20/terf-wars-2/ academic research into her tweets being used as a call for more research on how twitter spreads TERF ideology], [https://journal.nds.ox.ac.uk/index.php/JNDS/article/download/176/79 analysis about anti-trans rhetoric]) and her own work ([https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9#Sec5 academic analysis]), I think it would be immensely hard to argue that in ten years anyone would be confused about the inclusion of significant amounts of text describing the controversy around her views within the article, and therefore, some non-trivial mention within the lead. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:* That's just wrong on what ledes are for? They are meant to be a summary of the body of the article. There is a section on the subject in the article, so it should be summarized in the lede. SMcCandlish's claim is completely worthless for this discussion, as it has nothing to do with how ledes are made. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 02:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::* A lede is not required to touch on every point in the body - in fact this is usually impossible to do for a lenghty article. At some point you have to decide what are details fall below a threshold to be included. Or another way - the lede should be a sufficiently complete summary that if that is the only thing they read, they have a fairly comprehensive picture of the topic. Minor controveries compared to what makes one notable are the types of things that aren't necessary for that --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::* I honestly do not understand how anyone can refer to these as {{tqq|minor controversies}} given that most of the media coverage about Rowling in the past few years has been about her views on trans people. In what world does that constitute as {{tqq|minor}}? Yes, the lede is not required to touch on every point in the article – but to claim that this controversy, which –again– has dominated the media coverage of Rowling, falls {{tqi|below a threshold to be included}} seems dishonest to me. —<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd><sup> [ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span> 15:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' Delete. There seems to be an obsession with many to include views on transgender when it isn't what made the person famous and/or "notable". It has gotten enough press to warrant coverage in the article for sure, but the lede should summarize what it is that makes this person notable. Her political views simply aren't that. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 02:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** Her pseudonymous novels and her philanthropy aren't {{tq|what made the person famous and/or "notable"}} in this case, either, but they each occupy more space in this article's lead than the controversies - even though the controversies have attracted *much* more media ''and scholarly'' attention in recent years than those other topics. So you might want to recalibrate...[[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 03:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*** Fallacious reasoning. There's nothing controversial about including her other novels or philanthropy in the lead. But there is very certainly controversy about including this trans-related stuff, which is itself about controversy, so bound for tighter BLP and PoV scrutiny. If you genuinely think those other things should not be in the lead, then feel free to open a separate discussion about removing them. It's not germane in this discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 08:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**** There is nothing in [[WP:BLP]] to suggest that notable controversies should be excluded from the lead - to the contrary. This particular area of controversy has been responsible for most of the coverage of Rowling for almost four years now, and is reflected in high-quality and academic sources. The question for this RfC was ''intended to be'' finding the NPOV language to reflect this controversy on the lead - and it might have done so, if not for attempts to reroute (if not derail) the RfC into a referendum over whether to mention this notable controversy in the lead. |
|||
**** If you wanted to ask, "should this controversy be included in the lead of this article" there would have been ways to do that, beginning with a simple, neutrally worded RfC question, allowing for a straightforward presentation of the (quite massive) evidence that the controversy is notable, and then neutral notifications. You have chosen another path, though. Sigh. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****Your case would be stronger without exaggerations like "most of the coverage...for almost four years". That would be since early 2018. That is not the case. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****** [https://www.them.us/story/is-jk-rowling-transphobic Early 2018 is when the coverage starts]. So yes, that is {{tq|the case}}, as far as I can tell. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 13:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*******That's not "most of the coverage" for all that time. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** "but the lede should summarize what it is that makes this person notable." This is...false? Like, completely wrong on every level of what the lede is for. The lede is a summary of the body content of the article. It is not a summary of "notable" things, other than that '''everything''' included in the body of an article with references is by definition notable. You seem to want the lede to only mention that she made the Harry Potter books and Fantastic Beasts films and nothing else? I guess we could have a two-sentence lede and nothing else then. Is that what you're arguing for? [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 03:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**Plus/besides the point ....Many people are notable for more than one thing e.g. [[Donald Trump]], [[Jeff Bezos]], [[Richard Branson]] etc etc and this get included in their lead sections. ''Should we mention in the lead that she is also a philanthropist, film producer, and screenwriter ?'' <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 03:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*** There is nothing controversial about mentioning those things, and most of them are directly relevant to her notability (at least an order of magnitude more people have watched ''HP'' films than read the books). Philanthropy, maybe not. Lots and lots, maybe most, very wealthy people engage in at least some philanthropy, after all. But this isn't an RfC about those things; it's not the "what should be in the lead?" RfC. It's about one specific thing which has become a WP controvery, about something that is itself a social-media controvery, about an underlying socio-political controversy. It's controversial three times over, so it is not comparable to "and is a screenwriter and film producer". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 08:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****It has gone beyond social media, on the 10th June 2020 Rowling an author with an international platform purposefully published a 3,600-word essay on her website ~ on 19 June, the Equality Act was blocked in the US Senate after Republican senator James Lankford opposed it, citing Rowling's essay as part of his reasoning. Her views on transgender people have had a real world effect, her views have been covered internationally in countless reliable sources, with various levels of neutrality and criticism, I do not think we can simply dismiss it as a social media controversy. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 09:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' or '''Option A''' as second choice. Omission of a political position that while well-covered but which has mixed responses is a smart play (leaving the details to the body where there's clearly more room for discussion). But if it must be included, the current wording and position in the lede is succinct, neutral, and placed appropriately. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 03:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D.''' Don’t mention it in the lead at all. The earlier discussion found consensus to omit this subject from the first sentence, but there was no consensus to have it in the lead anywhere. The lead is supposed to reflect the article, in rough proportion to the coverage a given subject receives. {{tq|The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.}} So let’s look at the article’s contents. The main section is Life and Career; that constitutes more than half the article, with five subsections about her biography and eight about her writing; this justly makes up most of the lead. Subsequent sections are Philanthropy (a large section with multiple subsections, deserving of the single sentence it gets in the lead); Influences (not enough material to be mentioned in the lead); Views (has four subsections, one of which is Transgender people; a single subsection does not qualify for lead mention); Legal disputes (too little material for a lead mention); and Awards and Honours (a large section, mentioned in the lead). Bottom line, no, we do not single out one four-paragraph subsection and put a sentence about it in the lead. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 03:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**Consensus to include in the Lead with a variant of the existing wording was established following multiple previous discussions on this talk page, which you will find in the archives (amongst many [[Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 8#Transgender views controversy in lead redux]] and [[Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 8#Lede sentence rewrite]]) <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 03:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***Not to mention that the only reason that the paragraph is only 4 sentences is ''because it has [[Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people|its own section in Politics of J. K. Rowling]]'' that more fully covers those views. —<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd><sup> [ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span> 12:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*I vote for '''Option D,''' to not mention in the lead at all. [[WP:UNDUE]] provides that "undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." Including this sentence in the lead section would give a 'prominent placement' to Rowling's views on this matter (which, for what it's worth, I am personally against and find to be trans-phobic). Her views here are are tangential to her reason(s) for notability. Moreover, one could argue that if this were to be included, then other aspects of her views from the Politics, Religion, and Press sections should be noted in the lead as well. Although all are important to include for the balance of the entire article, none warrant inclusion in the lead. There, I think that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE require no mention of this in the lead, and vote for *'''Option D'''. Kind regards~ [[User:PinkElixir|PinkElixir]] ([[User talk:PinkElixir|talk]]) 05:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D'''. Do not include in the lede at all because it's [[WP:UNDUE]]. The claim that the issue was settled previously is irrelevant, since consensus can change, especially when a wider group of editors becomes aware of it. I also below that some entrenched page editors are already fishing for some wiki-lawyering ways of preserving the mention in the lede if the discussion goes against inclusion -- which tells me that this is a case of [[WP:RGW|righting great wrongs]] and further confirms my conclusion that it should be excluded from the lede -- and any admin closing this should ignore that. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:You have it backwards. This is a case of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], as evidenced by editors ignoring Wikipedia policies like [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY|LEADFOLLOWSBODY]], misinterpreting [[WP:DUEWEIGHT|DUEWEIGHT]], and not following [[WP:LEADBIO]] which states {{tq|Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole.}} Removing this content, given its extensive coverage in the body, is blatant suppression. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 07:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**<sup>(I did not claim that it had been settled previously, I simply replied to the assertion that the was no consensus to include, by saying that the had been a pre-existing consensus to include resulting from several past discussions, and i never implied that consensus could not change.) <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 08:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)</sup> |
|||
***''You have it backwards.'' Bullcrap. Your response is quite literally what I said was happening: a wiki-lawyering attempt at asserting the non-existent bureaucratic authority of citing Wikipedia guidelines as if they were black-and-white unambiguous requirements, AND proclaiming that a previous discussion is written in stone and cannot be altered. Congratulations on proving my point for me, and '''my choice stands'''. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 08:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****{{u|Calton}} [[WP:TONEITDOWN]]. Warm reminder this page falls under the discretionary sanctions under Gender & Sexuality. You've made your point. As someone with as much experience here as you have, please be more civil.<span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 09:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****{{u|xxx}} ''Warm reminder this page falls under the discretionary sanctions under Gender & Sexuality'' Really? And this has WHAT to do with my comments, how, exactly? Be specific, "warm" or otherwise. |
|||
*****''You've made your point.'' Really? Perhaps given the badgering of editors choosing Option-D, by you and others, you should think twice about wagging your finger. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 11:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
******I was just saying "Bullcrap" and "congratulations" and other patronizing language was unnecessary. I wasn't "wagging [my] finger" and I hope my message wasn't taken as passive-agressive or tone policing. As I said in [[User_talk:Calton#A_kitten_for_you!|your talk page]] and in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=1057754256&oldid=1057752759&diffmode=visual previous comment], I recognize the bludgeoning that's been going on, and just wanted to try and remind you not to let the wikistress from this discussion get the better of you. I apologize if you felt insulted by me doing so, {{u|Calton}}. I only mentioned the sanctions because under them we need to make an extra effort to be civil and impersonal in discussions like these, I hope it wasn't seen as some kind of veiled threat or anything. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 11:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' - Remove from lead per WEIGHT. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 06:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**This comment should be ignored as it gives no justification to how WEIGHT applies. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 07:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***At the end of the day, a lot of what counts as "prominent", etc., has a great deal of unavoidable subjectivity. I disagree that any comment should just be ignored and I say this as someone who chose a different option from GreenC. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****On Wikipedia we make policy based arguments to form consensus. If you cannot do that basic minimum, your comments should be ignored. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 09:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****You are confusing -- I suspect quite deliberately -- guidelines with requirements in order to reach a predetermined conclusion and trying to impose it by bureaucratic fiat. [[WP:IAR|NOt how Wikipedia works]], and, bluntly, YOUR well-poisoning should be ignored as irrelevant to forming an actual consensus. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 08:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****** An argument that the trans-related controversies should be excluded from ''a 4-5 paragraph lead'' while longer discussions of Rowling's pseudonymous writing and her philanthropy - which have received much less attention from recent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] - should be retained, seems a counterintuitive application of [[WP:WEIGHT]]. And I don't think it is {{tq|well-poisoning}} to point that out. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D'''. Remove from lede. I saw this advertised at a village pump. Pretty much everything about this drama is Wikipedia at its worst, in my view. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 07:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**{{Re|Alexbrn}} Typically you have more constructive input than this... ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 09:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***{{u|FormalDude}} To elaborate, then, to me this is obviously a judgement call about what's [[WP:DUE]] summary in the lede, and - despite the protestations of various POV-warriors - is not [[WP:CLEARLY]] decidable one way or the other in the context of the [[PW:PAG]]s. I gave my judgement. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 18:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**** This topic has been mentioned in the lead section for almost a year, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1004962299&oldid=1004031889 in various formulations]. The idea that {{tq|drama}} or {{tq|POV-warriors}} were involved is, ahem, unproven. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****''This topic has been mentioned in the lead section for almost a year...'' And this hasn't received wider attention in that time. Did you have something resembling a point, then? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 09:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****** I don't see any way in which the {{tq|wider attention}} of RfC participants who show no sign of having read the lead section they are !voting about is helpful to the encyclopedia. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''E''', '''B''', '''C''', '''A''' in that order, though I would be open to rewordings. '''Oppose complete omission or removal in strongest possible terms''' and I strenuously urge that anyone supporting that without a policy-compliant rationale be disregarded (since many of the people arguing for that have flatly and unequivocally presented no policy-based rationale; and an RFC is not a vote.) B isn't perfect, so I'd prefer workshopping something better, but of the presented options it is the most precise and most accurately reflecting who has said what according to the best available sources. C is a more verbose version of B that doesn't add much that I can see. A is less precise and downplays the level of coverage, but is still acceptable. Removing entirely is unacceptable given the level of coverage - while it is not the thing she is ''most'' notable for (and therefore doesn't belong in the lead sentence), it is a major aspect of her notability and her reputation today - a quick [https://news.google.com/search?q=Rowling&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen news search], for instance, shows that it not only makes up the bulk of coverage now, but that if you go back it makes up much of the coverage of her for the past year, in a plainly [[WP:SUSTAINED]] fashion; this is far beyond the level we would require for coverage in the lead in most other contexts. Just a quick summary of sustained coverage includes [https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2020/07/31/harry-potter-fans-grapple-j-k-rowling-transgender-remarks/5471834002/][https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html][https://ew.com/celebrity/eddie-izzard-defends-j-k-rowling/][https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9][http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/111828/][https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/15/entertainment/jk-rowling-troubled-blood-book-trans-gbr-scli-intl/index.html][https://www.insider.com/harry-potter-series-hbo-max-backlash-jk-rowling-reactions-2021-1][https://www.mic.com/p/how-did-j-k-rowling-whose-books-championed-inclusion-become-so-transphobic-52376970][https://www.ign.com/articles/how-harry-potter-fans-are-coping-with-jk-rowling][https://www.today.com/popculture/dave-chappelle-criticized-defending-j-k-rowling-new-netflix-comedy-t233495][https://www.vulture.com/article/hogwarts-legacy-controversy-j-k-rowling.html][https://www.thecut.com/article/who-did-j-k-rowling-become.html][https://www.mylondon.news/news/celebs/emma-watson-daniel-radcliffe-rupert-22033571][https://www.avclub.com/the-legacy-of-harry-potter-and-the-sorcerer-s-stone-and-1847980850][https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html][[https://www.vox.com/culture/22254435/harry-potter-tv-series-hbo-jk-rowling-transphobic][https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm][https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351][https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/790319846/why-author-j-k-rowling-is-facing-backlash-from-lgbtq-activists][https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-tried-make-her-work-more-inclusive-then-she-tweeted-support-an-anti-trans-researcher/]. Note that these cover over a year of coverage, many of them themselves noting the overwhelming impact it has had on her reputation. It has been extensively covered (with entire articles devoted to it) in places like the ''New York Times'', ''The Guardian'', ''NBC'', ''NPR'', and ''CNN'' for years on end. It's one thing to argue over how best to word it, but arguing for complete omission is difficult to defend. On top of this, the relevant controversy is a substantial section of the article itself, which requires inclusion in the lead per [[WP:LEAD]]. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 07:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B''', '''C''', '''A''', '''Oppose complete omission or removal in strongest possible terms''' along with Aquillion. For reasons I have explained at length many times before. It has been an inseperable and major part of her activism for a while now, and that part only seems to be growing bigger. I understand that as an encyclopedia we inevitably lag behind what people are doing at any given point in time, but I don't see why we should ignore what is clearly becoming a very major part of her activity. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 11:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' (leave as is) or '''Option D''' (drop it from the lead completely). Given the amount of recent press reports around and the section in the article's body a short mentioning in the lead seems certainly justified. However given her general notability (to audiences at large) this seems a marginal issue, which means Option D might be a valid option as well (or might be again in the future). Personally I have the impression that with regard to (alleged) transphobia of various celebrities, that it is getting hyped to the point of hounding in some cases with little sense of nuance (and disregard for anybody not sharing the orthodoxy). Hence considering [[WP:BLP]] I tend to be hesitant to include too much of it in the main article/biography of a person.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose to options B and C, Prefer option D (remove), but am also Happy with A''' - options B and C suggest that she doesn't get any support from non-radical feminists, but this is contradicted by penultimate paragragh of the [[J._K._Rowling&oldid=1057548853#Transgender_people|transgender section]], so B and C are misleading. Option A is the most neutral wording, in my opinion. However, I don't see how her views on transgender issues are [[WP:DUE]] for the lead. The lead is supposed to sumarise the main points of the article. Focussing in on one aspect of the "views" section of her article, whilst completing neglecting to mention the other sections there fails [[WP:NPOV]] in my opinion. I also reject the counter-argument to this, that the length of the transgender section means it is due, it is roughly the same length as some of the other sections ("politics" and "press").{{nw}} [[User:SSSB|SSSB]] ([[User talk:SSSB#top|talk]]) 11:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option B''', though it may need some slight tweaks so adding '''Option E''' as a second choice. I think dropping the "mainstream" wording like [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] suggested would probably suffice. I also '''oppose complete omission or removal in strongest possible terms''', this idea of removing it seems ludacris to me, given that lately the only times I seem to hear about Rowling is when she makes these kinds of comments, or people are referring to her in respect to those comments. Most recent media coverage of her is also in regards to her views on trans people. —<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd><sup> [ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span> 12:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''', <s>with one of two possibilities</s> or '''Option F'''. Deleting it from the lede would be acceptable <s>and might be preferable per [[WP:RECENT]]</s>. Alternatively, it might be [[WP:DUE]] to write a short paragraph about the "Views" section of the article, and include a briefer sentence (shorter even than Option A) about transgender issues there. That is, I'm suggesting it could be due to cover the whole of the Views section, but that summarizing only a negative subsection seems [[WP:UNDUE]] to me. I was brought in by the post at [[WP:Wikiproject Biography]]. [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 12:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::[[WP:RECENT]] ''can't'' apply - at least to this RfC. Per [[MOS:LEAD]], the content of the lead follows the content of the article body. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 13:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think that emphasizing events since 2019 in the lede is exactly the sort of thing that [[WP:RECENT]] is talking about. But my alternative suggestion is indeed to bring the lede into closer agreement with the article body. As her political views have gotten some broader coverage (not just recently), perhaps this is indeed the better policy-based option. I will strike "might be preferable" accordingly. [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Updated with Option F, per changed RfC options. I will expand to comment that her stance on trans issues is notable partly because of her liberal positions elsewhere. It seems to me that balanced coverage requires putting this in context. [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 14:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B, C, A or E'''. So far as I can tell, ~all current coverage of Rowling is about her stance on trans issues. Yes, this is 'recent' and not representative of the previous 20 years she's been in public life. But equally, it is significant. The lead section is very long, and a one or two sentence mention of this controversy in the lede is perfectly proportionate. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 13:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A'''. D is absolutely off the table. Them coverage of Rowling's newfound TERFdom is widespread, but has not (yet) had a demonstrable impact on her career or works. She is still primarily known as one of the most successful authors of the generation. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 13:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B''' or '''C'''. Option A is the sort of sentence that makes it seem there's good people on both sides of bigotry. Similarly, attempts to remove mentions of her immensely publicized transphobia from the lede when that dimension has almost overshadowed her career as a writer in recent years would be a disservice to the readers of this page, but a great service to the PR team of a billionaire. [[User:PraiseVivec|PraiseVivec]] ([[User talk:PraiseVivec|talk]]) 15:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|This is not a [[WP:FORUM]]. Continue this discussion somewhere else. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🔔]]</sup></small> 00:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)}} |
|||
**{{tq|Option A is the sort of sentence that makes it seem there's good people on both sides of bigotry.}} - funny, we used to call attackers of rights of women and gay people "bigots"; using "trans rights" as a shield to hide behind when attacking women's and gay rights so those defending them can be called "bigots" as a way around that seems to have been at least somewhat successful. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F|2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F]] ([[User talk:2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F|talk]]) 09:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*** <s>SchroCat,</s> If you believe that {{tq|using "trans rights" as a shield to hide behind when attacking women's and gay rights}} is a thing that actually happens, on-wiki or off, then you hold the viewpoint belonging only to a small minority of people; presenting this view as though it were as well-sourced an interpretation of consensus reality as more mainstream views would be purest FALSEBALANCE. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****That IP is not SchroCat/me. It comes down to someone in California. I am in South London. - [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 16:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***** Sorry; IP users are hard for me to tell apart. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
******No problems: thank you for striking my (old) name. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 16:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
******* I have done one better, now, since the above reply was from an actual sock (it seems). [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****Newimpartial, it is not place to be collapsing comments you happen to disagree with, seeing as how '''involved''' you are in this discussion. My comment was not off-topic, nor was it an ''attack'' (no more so than the comment it was in response to was an "attack"). Accusations of bigotry are rampant, against this BLP and a long list of others, e.g. Stock, Forester, Bindel, the list goes on and on. Nearly all of these organised mob campaigns (off Wiki) are against women, and ''most'' are against lesbians. I'm not going to argue with you over what are "mainstream views", but needless to say I don't agree with your assessment. And '''please strike your sock comment'''. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BDD5:3580:625A:3321|2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BDD5:3580:625A:3321]] ([[User talk:2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BDD5:3580:625A:3321|talk]]) 00:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***** Given your ability to misquote comments I made years ago, the obvious explanation is that you are a sock of one indef-blocked editor or another. If there is another explanation, you could provide it at my personal Talk page: I am all ears. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 00:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
*'''A''', leave as is. The fatal problem with B and C is that the article does not currently support a statement saying that TERFs defend her position. To the folks rehashing the previous RfC, the huge problem with removing this stuff from the lead section is the guideline at [[WP:LEAD]] telling us to summarize important points. Rowling's stance on transgender is very widely discussed. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 16:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A''' Leaving it out makes no sense--it's a significant part of her current coverage and has been for a number of years. And the lede follows the article. The rest are somewhat problematic given the current article and even the sources. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 16:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''D''' - omit from the lede. Not central to her notability. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**[[WP:LEDE]] indicates that the lede should "...summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Given that much of her recent coverage (over the last year+) has beenon this topic, I don't think there is an UNDUE argument to be made. And being "central to her notability" isn't really part of how we pick what to put in the LEDE as I read it. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 19:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***Ok, to rephrase… I don’t think this actually ''is'' a “prominent controversy”. While it should be mentioned in the body of the article, I don’t think it merits being called one of the “important points” of the article, and thus should not be summarized in the lede. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****Thanks. Given the massive coverage, I think it is fairly prominent. The sources provided seem pretty clear it's been a large part of her coverage over the last couple of years. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 14:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option D, remove'''. I find the arguments relating to [[WP:UNDUE]] more compelling here, particularly the analysis by [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]]. The arguments in favor, on the other hand, seem to come down mainly to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] with a dose of [[WP:RECENTISM]]. Arguments that "this has already been approved in previous discussions" ignore that [[WP:Consensus can change]]. If "lede follows body" to the point that these views need to be mentioned, why is no one insisting that we also include mention of her views on politics, religion, and the press in similar fashion? If we mention it at all, IMO that's the direction it should go: point out that her views on several topics have generated controversy rather than specifically calling out only the one that currently has activists (both here and in certain parts of the media). [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** {{u|Anomie}} if you read the subarticle [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] and the "Views" section of this article, it is one of two parts of her political views that is/has been significantly covered/commented upon ''by others''. As can be seen in the subarticle and the sources provided this coverage has been extensive and not limited to the types of sources that gossip around or use controversy as their main content (e.g. FT, Reuters, The Economist). The other view that has received much attention is her views on the press, and while I think that her being named as core participant in the [[Leveson inquiry]] means including her views on press in the lead might be worthwhile considering, per [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]] it is not covered extensively enough in the articled and subarticles of Rowling to have a strong case for inclusion in my opinion. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 17:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**Additionally, the religious controversy is not about her as much as it is about [[Harry Potter]], where the controversy is mostly by hyper-religious POVs so I'm not sure how notable that would be in an article about her (a member of the [[Church of England]]). <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> |
|||
**Absolutely nobody has based their arguent on [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]], folks arguing for inclusion have done so mainly due to [[WP:DUE]] to the [[WP:SUSTAINED]] and widespread coveraged in the international media that has gone beyond a brief burst of news coverage in the [[WP:RSP]], and because [[WP:LEAD]] [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]] and [[WP:LEADBIO]]. Other notable aspects of her life could be added to the lead, nobody has argued against that, but it is a seperate matter to the current discussion. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 18:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC) (Add ...Regards simple size comparisons the Trans section compared to other sections, the Trans sectionm has been kept short in this article simply because [[WP:SPLIT]] it is more fully covered in the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] article were it accounts to close to half of its content, with only a brief summary kept in the main article. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 18:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC) ) |
|||
*** Right. People invoking [[WP:RGW]] in contexts like this, as Anomie has done here, are almost always motivated by misinterpretations they have made, both of the sourcing of this article and of the motives of *other* editors - they misunderstand what NPOV and DUE call for in a given case and therefore throw their !votes (or other interventions) in support of a specific POV that they mistake for NPOV. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****Given your own track record of past POV pushing, I can see why that bit of self-serving mind-reading denigrating other editors is appealing, but perhaps you ought to take this as a wake-up call to examine your own actions. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 09:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***** That's an ungrounded ASPERSION; don't do that. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{Re|Anomie}} {{tq|why is no one insisting that we also include mention of her views on politics, religion, and the press in similar fashion?}} This is irrelevant to whether we should include her transgender views. Each section/topic should be evaluated on its own merits. That said, it is true that likely the entire views section deserves some mentioning in the lead. You yourself haven't made any argument against that, so I'm not sure why you're against this proposal which gets the ball rolling on a more accurate lead in general. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:102%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|17px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:75%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 19:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:: Re: getting the ball rolling, I've actually become pretty curious about the "philantropist" mention in the lead, because bodney mentioned it somewhere in here. What qualifies her to have such a positive qualifier compared to other individuals who have her kind of money to throw around? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it's a question I don't have an answer for. Richard branson is not called a philantropist in the lead, bill gates is, despite both having a header about their activities around science and humanitarian causes. Are there rules about this on wikipedia? --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Rather a tangent, but I oppose use of "philanthropist" in Wikipedia's voice almost everywhere, as it is an implicitly political term with non-neutral connotations. We can describe that some people viewing the spending of Rowling, Branson or Gates positively with attribution, but then must make sure that we're giving [[WP:DUE|due weight]] to criticisms of that spending. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I also support the removal of "philanthropist". She is far better known for her anti-trans activities than any "philanthropy". If her anti-trans activities can't be mentioned in the first sentence, there is no reason to include a much more obscure and even dubious descriptor as "philanthropist." --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 06:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::[[User:FormalDude]] Is this the "brief consensus" you mentioned in your edit? I only see two comments arguing for the removal of "philanthropist", and one of the two expresses a general stance rather than being opposed to use it for Rowling in particular. It doesn't seem like much of a consensus to me. [[User:Natuff|Natuff]] ([[User talk:Natuff|talk]]) 17:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Strongly oppose excluding from the lead''' - [[MOS:LEAD|the lead should summarize the important points of the article]], and this has received widespread coverage in reliable sources for an extended time. Less strong opinions on what wording to use, assuming the same information is also present in the article body and backed up by RSs.--[[User:Alexandra IDV|Alexandra]]<sup>[[User talk:Alexandra IDV|IDV]]</sup> 19:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Option D - Delete from lead per [[WP:WEIGHT]]. [[User:LondonIP|LondonIP]] ([[User talk:LondonIP|talk]]) 20:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''': I was torn between this an Option D per MelanieN, however CupOfTea does note that the current format links to it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling own page], and therefore is weighty enough to include in the introduction. Option A is best per [[WP:NPV]]. --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 00:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A > B > C''' and '''do not remove'''. A plethora of sources are provided by A. C. Santacruz, Aquillion, Crossroads and Sideswipe9th, who are all on the right page here. As far as I can see, D voters do not really dispute that this widespread coverage is dominant in contemporary discussion of Rowling, making it more relevant to include than what else we would consider: not ''Harry Potter'', ''Cormoran Strike'', Rowling's wealth or even ''The Ickabog'' (all in the lead already), but something very minor like ''The Christmas Pig'' or her opposition to Scottish independence. I really can't understand SMcCandlish's argument that the lead should not include this because it's not related to her initial notability, as if [[WP:LEAD]] does not quite clearly say we should {{tq|summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies}}, or as if ''Coromoran Strike'' would have made her notable without her pre-existing fame (it would [[The_Cuckoo's_Calling#Sales_and_reception|testably not have]]). If it was an argument about what to say in the first sentence, I'd get it, but this is the fourth paragraph. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A''', followed by '''B''' and '''C''' in that order, per {{u|Bilorv}} just above. The lede is there to summarize the body, and the phrasing of each option is acceptable. Inclusion in the lede doesn't depend upon what a person first became famous for. That would be like cutting off the lede for [[Richard Feynman]] after it mentions his work on [[quantum electrodynamics]] in the 1940s and refusing to include his role investigating the [[Space Shuttle Challenger disaster|''Challenger'' disaster]] just because it happened later. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 01:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''D''', leave it out entirely. She's notable as creator of Harry Potter. Her flirtation with TERFism may just scrape through as not [[Wikipedia:Recentism]] but is still not important enough to go into the lead. [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 07:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:*Many editors are conflating how Rowling became notable with their general notability. There are a lot of generally notable things about her besides Harry Potter, especially including her views on transgender topics. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:101%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|18px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:80%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 08:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:*Not important enough? People are using it to inform legislation, anti-trans "protesters" are carrying placards with her name on it, and transphobes are making posts about her on social media that border on worshipping her like some kind of deity. Give me a break —<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd><sup> [ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span> 12:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::*I didn't mean leave it out of the article - just the lead. See for example how the lead of [[H. P. Lovecraft]] makes no mention of his racism and even the lead of [[Richard Wagner]] only touches briefly and circumspectly on his anti-Semitism. [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 09:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::*That is more an arguments ''against'' the H.P. Lovecraft article than it is one in favour of removing this from the lead imho. Over the last few years, most of the media attention Rowling has been getting has been in relation to her view on trans people — leaving it out of the lead just seems like downplaying the level of coverage and impact of it. —<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd><sup> [ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span> 21:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''D''' Remove from the lead (undue). [[User:Pavlor|Pavlor]] ([[User talk:Pavlor|talk]]) 08:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''D''' Remove from the lead per Betty Logan. [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 12:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A''' The lede is meant to summarise the body of the article, and leaving this out would fail to do that. Oppose both B and C, for the same reason. [[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]] ([[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|talk]]) 14:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' I would argue that this controversy is definitive of her personal life/views but not toward her career. Her career as an author is 99% defined by the Harry Potter universe, books and film of which the topic is in some ways superseded by her existence in and of itself. Her views ''probably'' warrant it's own section, but without [[WP:UNDUE]] weight. [[User:CaffeinAddict|CaffeinAddict]] ([[User talk:CaffeinAddict|talk]]) 16:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A'''. There are simply no valid arguments for removing from the opening section the reference to Rowling's involvement with issues involving trans persons. This is why there has not been so far and can never be any suggestions to remove it that are clearly based on [[WP:POLICY|policies]] or [[WP:GUIDELINE|guidelines]]. |
|||
:Per [[WP:MOS]], {{tq|the lead section serves as a summary of its most important contents}}. Inspecting the main text of the article, we trivially find that it contains a significant amount of information about Rowling's views & actions regarding issues involving trans people. The significance of that aspect of Rowling's life rightfully begat a separate section dedicated to that subject, titled "Transgender people." Moreover, in the Wikipedia article dedicated to and titled "[[Politics of J. K. Rowling]]", there's an even larger section dedicated to the same subject. In both instances, the subject is covered through extended references to [[WP:RS|sources]], per [[WP:V|policy]]. In conclusion, it cannot be reasonably disputed that the subject of Rowling's involvement in issues of trans people is "{{tq|important}}" - and, therefore, according to the [[WP:MOS]] wording cited above, a brief reference to it in the lead section is essentially mandatory. As a matter of fact, ignoring and omitting that reference would constitute a gross violation of a foundational guideline. |
|||
:The proper way forward is to establish mention, i.e. do away with D-suggestions to "delete," and then decide on a possibly better wording. Hence, the current necessity for option A. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 16:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option E''' the lede section should say what her views are, not what other people's commentaries on her views are. If I have to pick one from A-C for use in the interim, I choose Option B as the best. [[User:力]] (powera, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 00:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option A, but not in its own paragraph.''' This is important enough to deserve a mention in the lead, but putting it in its own paragraph strikes me as [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. Options B and C are inappropriate for reasons others have already given. [[User:RisingStar|RisingStar]] ([[User talk:RisingStar|talk]]) 03:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option E''', but given this is a BLP '''Option D''' for now until this new language is formulated. Editors above asking for inclusion are saying lead follows body, which is true. This has to be done proportionally though and there is two sentences in its own paragraph relating to one view when the article has a whole heading covering multiple views. This is clearly [[WP:UNDUE]]. A paragraph needs to be formulated that summarises the whole section, not just one aspect. [[User:Aircorn|Air<b style="color: green;">''corn''</b>]] [[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 10:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D – Delete''' I'm not sure this is lead-worthy, given what she's actually [[WP:NOTABLE|notable]] for. Yes, it should be included in the body, but not in the lead at this stage. (If there is further controversy it may be worth visiting again, but not at the moment. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 12:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Because [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]]. You appear to have forgotten to log in, btw. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 12:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::LEADFOLLOWSBODY is a straw man (and it isn't even a policy, let alone a guideline). It doesn't say you need to cover every single aspect of an individual; there are four sub-sections in the "Views" section and this is the only one mentioned. It fails [[WP:WEIGHT]] massively. I haven't forgotten anything, btw: I do not have an account. (And interesting, if predictable to see it too just six minutes for this D-voter to be [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ed. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 13:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::<small>— [[User:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|contribs]]) is currently under [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{#if:|{{{2}}}|SchroCat}}|sockpuppet investigation]]. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 13:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:...could you please post a link to this article? Or at least the title? [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::You opened an idiotic investigation without knowing the policy. You should also have looked at the previous investigation which pointed out no breach of the policy. There seems to be a lot of effort going into cancelling !votes people don't like. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 14:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::/shrug. You asked, I answered. Sure, LEADFOLLOWSBODY may not "even be a policy, let alone a guideline", but it '''is''' how pretty much every article in WP is written, so... [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes and no. Although the lead follows the body is a truism, it points to the obvious position that the lead should summarise the main points of the article. It does ''not'' mean that every point or fact in an article is repeated in the body. It also doesn't mean that we ignore [[WP:WEIGHT]] and give undue emphasis to one aspect of a biography while ignoring the wider context. Much of the information on Rowling that is covered in the body is not covered in the lead, so it's a strawman to keep pushing this point. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 15:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I actually agree: the relevant aspect is WEIGHT, but given the preponderance of coverage of this issue in recent years, WEIGHT is on the side of inclusion, IMO. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::No need to call me an idiot. If the SPI is wrong then it's wrong and that's my good-faith mistake. In any case, I don't see why if the reason you're using dynamic IPs is that your previous account's password got scrambled why you can't just create a new account? As has been seen above it makes it hard to account for which IP is saying what, and as the ANI thread discussing you shows makes accountability a bit harder when being disruptive (not that I'm saying you're being disruptive here in any way). <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 16:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You need to actually read what was written: I did not call you an idiot. I said it was an idiotic step, which you would have realised if you had actually looked at what happened last time someone tried that, when the clerks ended it with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SchroCat&diff=1030564363&oldid=1030564271 this closing statement]. Perhaps you should have taken a couple of minutes to actually look into something properly before jumping to the wrong conclusion because you don't know wheat you're doing. |
|||
:::::I scrambled my password for a reason, and I choose not to open an account. I do have to do so, and I prefer to now operate as an IP, as I am fully entitled to do so. (See [[WP:IP users]]). - [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 16:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Od}} [[WP:WCA]] > "{{green|You don't need to be registered to contribute}}." [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 12:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::[https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/jk-rowling-labour-has-dismissed-women-like-me-ill-struggle-to-vote-for-it-rrgbcrkd6 Sure.]—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 18:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D:''' [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not ''E! Online''.]] As has been correctly stated by many editors, this incident is not what makes Rowling noteworthy. It quite properly has a section in the article. (Never mind in the staggering craziness that is [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] -- good grief, there are any number of national leaders for whom it wasn't felt necessary to have a spinoff article on their political beliefs.) No, I'm not interested in answering shrill questions in ''this section'' from the editors who are [[WP:KEEPCONCISE|bludgeoning every 'D' proponent]], especially with buzzwords that [[Inigo Montoya|don't mean what they think they mean]] -- LEADFOLLOWSBODY, for instance, is neither a policy nor a guideline, and ''does not stipulate that every fact listed in the article must therefore be summarized in the lead''. We already get that you don't like our position; live with that. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 13:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]], @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]: There's a summary and context at [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cndd65k06x8o this BBC article]. [[User:Bazza_7|Bazza <span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 18:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**The [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] article needs to be AfDd in my opinion. As you say, she is hardly [[Che Guevara]] (who inexplicably does not appear to have his own politics article). [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 15:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Everyone agrees the current draft is much better, and nothing says we have to stop work on drafts once we put something up. If we're going to suspend, let's implement the current draft. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::True. But if Che had written a popular series of children's books as well as being a famous revolutionary, it's quite possible the coverage of his endeavours in YA literature would have been split off into a separate article. I'm not sure why exactly the ''"Politics of..."'' article was spun off as a separate article, though it's normal practice when parts of a particular article get too long. I wouldn't read anything into it. ''But'' if one were to attempt to delete all of that notable, due, and reliably sourced content, one would imagine it would be merged back into ''this'' article. Which would make it very long indeed. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 15:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: |
::::I agree, and would like to point out that while I haven't been a big fan of the allegations of [[WP:RECENTISM]] so far, relying heavily on breaking news about Rowling's comments about a currently happening election really ''would'' be RECENTISM. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::Rowling is in the public eye on this matter. Coverage isn't going to miraculously stabilize at any point. It is likely that we will need to periodically revisit this, especially as scholarly sources come out. That isn't a reason not to adjust the present wording, which is sub-optimal and considerably worse than the draft above. I support implementing it, my quibbles above notwithstanding. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I'm of a mind with you on it. Part of [[WP:UNDUE]], in my mind, is that there just is a point where an article reaches the limits of its encyclopedic length. Rowling, for instance, is a highly documented author. It does not therefore follow that we need to have article/s on her that are ten times as long as those of other celebrated authors. We are not here on Wikipedia to write comprehensive and complete biographies, and the answer to "But there are thousands of sources and so much to say!!" ought to be "Whatever, we still ought to get this down to a reasonable length." [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 03:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option D, otherwise option A'''Her notability is due to her authorship of HP. 'A' isn't as bad as the other options, which are clearly loaded and biased. That said, 'A' is very vague and I would support leaving it out.[[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 14:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''': I notice that a lot of D-suggestions are supported by notions such as "Rowling's views on trans persons are not that she's notable for" and "There are a lot of articles on equally or more important persons in life with no separate article in Wikipedia for their politics." Let me just say that (a) a biography is not restricted to what a person is "mainly notable for," but what [[WP:RS|sources]] get busy with about the biography's subject, and (b) again, this is a matter of what sources do. As it happens, I also find it a bit funny that Wikipedia has a whole, separate article on Rowling's politics. {{smiley}} But I acknowledge the fact that, in our day and age, the media, obsessed as it is with Rowling, dedicates an inordinate (for me) amount of reporting to Rowling's politics. Therefore, we cannot but dedicate in turn an analogous space in Wikipedia. (The [[Che Guevara]] analogy is wrong, by the way. We do not have a separate article for Che's politics for the same reason we do not have one for Rowling's writing. {{smiley}}) -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:[[Hobbes's moral and political philosophy|I see...]] so an "English philosopher, considered to be one of the founders of modern political philosophy" shouldn't have a separate article for his philosophy then. Gottit. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 09:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:Oh, and there is [[Guevarism|this]] of course. Good to see Che in there with philosophical heavyweights like Marx, Hobbes, and Rowling... [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 10:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***Guevarism refers to a political school of thought based on Che's politics, not a description of his political views 1-to-1. In any case, I do disagree with the idea that we don't have articles about J.K. Rowling's writings, however they are articles on each franchise/book itself not a global overview of them. I'm quite confused as to why referring to Calvin or Hobbes contributes to this discussion, in any case. An article about Hobbes' political theories, which are very complex, influential, and the source of significant scholarly analysis over the course of centuries is orders of magnitude more important and valuable for Wikipedia than an article about the politics of a children's fantasy and divorcee's crime author (even if increasingly influential in the UK and US), to the point where I almost feel like comparing them would be comparing completely different beasts. However, the J.K. politics article seems necessary per [[WP:SPLIT]] length. (Small comment: I feel like the Hobbes article is in dire need of expansion. Sadly I'm not an expert in Hobbes except when [[Calvin and Hobbes|explained by Patterson]], so hopefully someone else can pick up that torch). <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 11:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****"When nothing else is turn'd up, Clubs are Trumps" - my personal favourite Hobbes quote. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****Nice quote, {{u|Tewdar}} :D <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 12:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::Thanks for the response, [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]]. [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A._C._Santacruz]] addressed your point about Che & Guevarism before me. As to the Hobbes article, I truly find it inexcusable that, for a ''philosopher'', we have such an extremely detailed biography of him but a separate article for his philosophy! The bio should be expanded. (I note that in the Hobbes biographical article there is not even a direct to the "main article" on his philosophy: it's demoted to the "see also" section.) -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 13:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::: Wait, am I reading this correctly... you want the ''moral and political'' philosophy of one of the most important founders of modern political philosophy to be merged with his own article, but you want someone who writes fantasy about wizards and a poxy essay on transgender people to have her own standalone article about her undergrad-level political beliefs?! Surely I cannot have that right? [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 13:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::* I see nothing untoward in merging Hobbes' bio article with the article on his philosophy, except for the issue of ''size''. Since, as we can all agree, Hobbes is a major figure in the field, an extensive presentation of his thought would both take a lot of space and crowd the bio article. As to Rowling's politics, the fact is these get a truly extraordinary quantity of coverage in acceptable, reliable sources. (This is, I'd speculate, because of her prominence as an author and, in particular, an author in children's literature.) Here too, I see nothing untoward in merging, but for the question of size. I'm afraid that, as often happens in Wikipedia, such things happen, though for [[WP:VNT|a good reason]]. I could personally not care more about Rowling's thinking than I could by any random person but that's how things are done here. |
|||
:::::P.S. We should try and maintain, I believe, a more neutral attitude here. Being dismissive about the subject itself robs us of the [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] that must shape out input. Your strong dismissal of her politics ("poxy essay", "undergrad level") and even her main work ("fantasy about wizards") does not help. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::* I can't possibly see how we could merge Hobbes' ''political and moral philosophy'' (n.b.) with his bio - if anything, the philosophy part could do with quite a bit of expansion. The Politics of Rowling article, on the other hand, seems to exist purely to describe her views on trans issues, and could easily be integrated into her biography, with suitable brutal pruning. Finally, I am sorry for my lack of neutrality. I just wanted to make clear that, far from being a HP fanboy, I have little time for Rowling, her work, or her politics. PS I think someone accidentally removed some of your edits a little while back. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 17:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::* For what it's worth, I think the ''Politics of J K Rowling'' article is a solution in search of a problem. A more appropriate treatment of the DUE content of that article would be an expanded section within the parent article (this one). [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::* Once we're done here, we should AfD that nonsense. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 17:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::* I think a Merge and Redirect proposal on the relevant pages (clearly proposing that content be trimmed back based on DUE) would be more on-point. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== For easy discussion. == |
|||
::::::* I should have known better than insert that wretched sorbet aside about Hobbes in my remark above amidst the lava. {{smiley}} Seriously though, I suggest we keep trying to untangle the tangled web we weave instead of piling up more contentious issues on the J.K. Rowling saga. It may or may not be kosher to have a separate Wikipedia-article on her politics. I'm sure that, sooner or later, said article will appear on the guillotine carriage. Let's do away first with the still-open RfC's and then initiate a [[WP:MERGE|Merge]] proposal, if you feel like it. Just a thought. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 13:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I mentioned this above, but: |
|||
*<s>D.</s> '''F''' - remove from body and lede, otherwise '''D'''. Reviewing coverage by recent news isn't particularly useful; it is distorted by recent events, and to follow the example they give would result in issues of [[WP:RECENTISM]] and result in significantly different context than what is being proposed, and as such we need to consider other sources. |
|||
:Reviewing a random sampling of academic sources on JSTOR about her and her work, we find that the coverage of her in this context is virtually non-existent, and as such the most appropriate option under [[WP:DUE]] is to remove her position from the lede entirely, and possibly the entire article. If someone is interested in reading some of her recent biographies, and summarizing how much coverage is given to this matter in relation to other topics, then please ping me with the result and I will likely change my position to match. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: BilledMammal: what you describe isn't what I see at all: most of the academic references I see to Rowling since 2019 are precisely about this controversy. What are you finding that differs from this? |
|||
:: Also, I can't find any biographies of Rowling published since 2019, so your homework assignment to read {{tq|some of her recent biographies}} seems to be addressing a null set. If you mean that we should read ''the recent biographical coverage'', most of that since 2019 deals with these controversies. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I went and briefly reviewed all results for JK Rowling since 2018 on JSTOR for you; of them, I could only identify one that seemed to mention her position on this, although I do not have access that I could give further details. To put this in context, this is less coverage than her positions on other political matters such as Trump, Brexit, and the Migrant Crisis received, as well as considerably less than the influence of theology on her work received - none of which is included in the lede, and only the latter of which is included in the body. Based on this, I've updated my position to explicitly support removing it from the body as well as the lede. |
|||
:::Regarding the biographies, I was not aware. Perhaps we can review this in a few years when a couple more have been written? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 14:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|digression, in which scholarly sources are listed and discussed}} |
|||
:::: I don't use JSTOR, but it seems not to have pointed you to [https://dx.doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v13n2.44 this paper], or [https://journal.nds.ox.ac.uk/index.php/JNDS/article/download/176/79 this one], or or [https://makingsjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Valentina-Anania-2021.pdf this one], or [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41296-020-00457-7 this one], or [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9 this one], or [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40841-021-00220-5 this one], or [https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0886260517715026 this one], etc., etc., <s>or [https://www.proquest.com/openview/f4c1aa20a21d0ccb42fad8c4b20ecf1d/1 this dissertation],</s> or the [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-97134-6_40-1.pdf Palgrave handbook of popular culture as philosophy] or the [https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/skpromo/uCw7vK/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-trans-studies/i2901.xml SAGE encyclopedia of transgender studies], for that matter. Perhaps your search was mis-specified in some way? |
|||
:::: I mean, sure, we can wait for all of the grad students who recently completed master's theses on Rowling and gender issues (which of course are not SCHOLARSHIP on en-wiki) to finish their dissertations or get their articles peer-reviewed, but really, it seems clear that Rowling's tweets are ''already'' a touchstone in academic writing on transgender issues such that it seems foolish to exclude them from Wikipedia, as you (with no policy justification) propose. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Search was "JK Rowling", and it didn't point me towards those sources, but I see no reason to believe that the sources outside of JSTOR exist in a significantly different ratio, impact adjusted or not impacted adjusted, from the sources inside of JSTOR. And I had thought I did lay out the policy-based reason drawn from this ratio, which is [[WP:DUE]]. |
|||
:::::On the topic of thesis's, I seem to have sparked one between you and Tewdar, so in the interests of not making this any discussion any longer, I will now leave this RfC and article. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 22:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::JSTOR is usually rather more selective than other academic journal repositories. It's a bit élitist... [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 16:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Or perhaps just retro. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Not really {{tq|retro}}... they just prefer to only host those very highest-quality, reliable sources that you're always talking about... 😁 [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 16:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Don't be snide, Tewdar. When editors distinguish between RS news outlets and trash tabloids, you insist that the news outlets covering Rowling and trans issues are effectively no better than trash tabloids. When we distinguish between scholarly sources and news sources, you insist that peer-reviewed work that isn't on JSTOR isn't good enough, either. But you are perfectly willing to look at irrelevant tertiary sources, like Britannica, when they ignore what you want to ignore. It is almost as though you were moving goalposts based on your own personal [[WP:POV|opinion]]. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Didn't say {{tq|peer-reviewed work that isn't on JSTOR isn't good enough}}. I'm just telling you that JSTOR tends to host higher quality, very notable articles. Some (not all) of the sources you gave are certainly good enough. The fact that Rowling's views on trans issues receive minimal coverage in other encyclopedias and JSTOR may indicate that this topic is not really notable enough for the lede, however. Which happens to be my {{tq|own personal [[WP:POV|opinion]]}}. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 17:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{tq|"But you are perfectly willing to look at irrelevant tertiary sources, like Britannica, when they ignore what you want to ignore."}} - this is a complete falsehood, and the exact opposite of my approach. I wondered how other encyclopedias might handle this topic, looked, and found nothing. If I'd found something, I would have said so, and possibly changed my vote. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 17:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: And finally, the idea that JSTOR is "retro" is preposterous. And do you really want them to host [https://doi.org/10.17615/k92h-zw67 MA dissertations] now? [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 17:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: I wouldn't rely on JSTOR being an authoratative source for whether a piece of published work is or is not of the highest quality. Though it has been a few years since I left academia, JSTOR has [https://support.jstor.org/hc/en-us/articles/115004879547-About-the-Moving-Wall embargos] set upon them by publishers like [[Elsevier]] and [[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer]]. Depending on where the these articles about Rowling are being published, it is entirely possible/probable that they are still within the JSTOR embargo period. In these circumstances it is better to assess the actual publisher per the regular [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] criteria. I only mention my history because when I was in academia, this embargo made accessing recently published research in my field and those of my colleagues in all departments across my university a real pain in the proverbial backside. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 18:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::: Yes, we have similar trouble with the archaeogenetics articles - every so often, this crackpot shows up, screaming "it's not on JSTOR, so it doesn't exist, IDIOTS!!!" [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 19:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: Tewdar: I admit I was conflating your appeal to Britannica here with Crossroads' use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_race_theory#Britannica elsewhere]; my apologies to you both. The fact remains that it is strictly irrelevant in both cases; the only meaningful thing that we could learn from Britannica is the advantage of updating our article less often. I am not strictly opposed to that, actually, because I have no doubt that by 2024-5 the inclusion of these controversies in monographs will make its exclusion from our lead seem absurd, and presumably some of the herd of POV editors who can't see their own POV will have passed on from editing. But in spite of NOTNEWS, Wikipedia generally aims to be up to date, so why it will cover the Omicron outbreak up to the minute while denying the prominence of a controversy that began in early 2018 seems, ahem, opaque to me. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Sorry accepted. Whether to include certain things in the lede is rather subjective, I think, especially in this case. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 19:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Od}} I meant to say, I don't know why you brought up that Master's thesis since I had so carefully excluded them from the links I provided. There are ''many, many'' masters' theses on this, which is one of the reasons I am so confident that the peer-reviewed work on this topic - which is already easy to show - is likely to flower more fully in the next few years. You didn't have to point "over there!" at a colorful herring just because I hurt your feelings by pointing out laugh lines on JSTOR. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: You linked to [https://doi.org/10.17615/k92h-zw67 "Cancel Culture: An Examination of Cancel Culture Acts as a Form of Counterspeech to Regulate Hate Speech Online"] in your source list. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 19:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: Where? Not im this section, where I listed scholarly sources. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::https://www.proquest.com/openview/f4c1aa20a21d0ccb42fad8c4b20ecf1d/1 "this dissertation" [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 20:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: I see my mistake; I saw it listed in the Proquest entry as a "dissertation", not "dissertation or thesis". That entry didn't tell me enough; that one change, however, doesn't alter the point made by all the other references. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: Some (not all) of the others are a bit dubious too, tbh... [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 20:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Resist the urge to engage in mocking nit-picking, I implore you. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/ gives me a 404 error, so there's that. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 20:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The "Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities" has an h-index of 6. Maybe one day, eh? [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I fixed the broken link. And the h-index literally doesn't matter, when there isn't any scholarship saying that this issue *isn't* important, or even that some other aspect of Rowling's career *is* more important. I would love to see some good work that would put her IP strategies in the context of the mousers at Disney, etc., but that hasn't happened yet, that I've seen. |
|||
::::: Anyway, pointing to index weights seems to be a thing you do when it seems convenient as a way of dismissing something you'd rather ignore, and it is a dammed tedious habit. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Totally false - I also do it when it seems convenient as a way of entertaining something I'd rather acknowledge. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 20:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::And have you actually read the [https://rupkatha.com/V13/n2/v13n244.pdf "Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities" article]? You would fail your GCSEs if you turned that in around here! [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: More ruddy salt herring. I mean, if I sat omnipotent on all committees, there would be no [[Jordan Peterson]], PhD (sic.). And if Crossroads sat on all committees, there would be no humanists at all AFAICT. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: That article is an unscholarly rant that looks like it was written by two angry twelve-year olds. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 21:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Still better scholarship than Peterson. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Tewdar, as you no doubt realize, the sources they listed are a [[Gish gallop]]. That's why there's junk in it. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I mean, it's ''almost'' as though someone Google searched for "Rowling transphobia scholarly article" and then copied a bunch of hyperlinks without reading their content! [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 10:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: No; not a gish gallop. The question at hand was, do scholarly sources address these controversies? The answer to that question is demonstrably, yes. The question, are these sources as good or better than the sources on X other Rowling topic, hasn't been asked, and in fact no high-quality sources have been provided for the philanthropy or the pseudonymous authorship, to name two topics that take up more space in the lead section ''status quo'' than trans issues. And I have repeatedly expressed the wish that certain topics - like Rowling's IP management - should receive better scholarship, but I can't find it. |
|||
:::::::: And no, Tewdar; don't be sarcastic, and that is not how I search. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Also, [https://journal.nds.ox.ac.uk/index.php/JNDS/article/view/176 this] so-called {{tq|high-quality}} article from the "Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences" by one "Emily Hotine" appears to have been written by somebody whose sole qualifications are that she is a "data analyst" and "trained Mental Health First Aider", unless I am mistaken, and is almost as bad as the one from the Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 14:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Od}}So much IDONTLIKEIT; so much ''ad hominem''. Sigh. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Ad hominem? You claim these are scholarly articles, and offer trash from the "Journal of Wherever Whatever", written by the bloody janitor? You're right, IDONTLIKEIT. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 15:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: the "Nuffield Departmetn of Surgical Sciences" is a [https://www.nds.ox.ac.uk/about-us multidisciplinary team that serves as the academic department of surgery at the] [[University of Oxford]], and its journal is [https://journal.nds.ox.ac.uk/index.php/JNDS/about double-blind peer-reviewed]. Your argument that the article is unreliable seems to ignore both the reputation and reliability of an institution like Oxford for academic research and the editorial process of the Journal. {{u|Tewdar}}, if you spent as much time finding sources that support your view that the coverage is not notable as you do nitpicking sources against your view the quality of this discussion would be significantly improved. Yet again we provide more sources, yet again you (plural) provide none, yet again the goalposts move. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 15:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not a research article, though, so not peer-reviewed, which is why it is written by a data analyst. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 15:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Your point was there was no significant scholarly attention to the controversy. The journal is obviously a reliable journal from a reputable institution. If they consider the publication of an article on the controversy worth including, then they consider the topic worth scholarly analysis. The qualifications of the author matter not if a reputable source believes they do not when publishing their analysis. What exactly is your criteria for scholarly attention? Is it not being published in scholarly sources of high reputation and strong editorial policy? At this point I'm running out of patience with you. ''You'' still haven't provided sources that back your perspective, ''you'' keep nitpicking endlessly those that do not, ''you'' are endlessly disrespectful to those that are putting in significant amounts of time to improve the discussion here through the provision of sources with your sarcasm and ridicule. Until you provide ''damn'' good sources that agree with your perspective that there hasn't been notable, on-going, reliable coverage on Rowling's remarks about trans people and their effects on society, I refuse to give your opinions any merit at all. I believe me and other users have gone way past the necessary burden of proof to support the views her coverage has been notable, reliable, and sustained over years. We've done our part. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 15:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I merely pointed out that JSTOR tend to be more selective with the articles they host. Unfortunately, Newimpartial decided to describe JSTOR as "retro", which led to the current discussion on sources. I have not said that coverage has not been {{tq|notable, reliable, and sustained}} - just that it has not been {{tq|notable, reliable, and sustained}} ''enough'' for the lede. Unfortunately, some of the primary sources provided do not appear to be written by experts, or are published by non-notable journals, or both. Which is why I do not 'respect' them very much. Finally, perhaps you shouldn't have started this RfC if it's making you so grumpy. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 16:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Tewdar said: '''{{tq|Some (not all) of the sources you gave are certainly good enough.}}''' - please read the whole thing again. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 16:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::And presenting, from the world-renowned New Jersey English Journal, ''An Argument for Affective Inquiry'' by the legendary BRIAN KELLEY says [https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=nj-english-journal J. K. Rowling's transphobia] is a "small moment." There you have it. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 16:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: If you intend to moonlight in reception studies, I'd suggest that you not give up your day job. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Hey, at least he's not a bloody data analyst. 😂 [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 17:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: So much ''ad hominem'', so little policy-based reasoning. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::A. C. Santacruz, academic reliable sources are not generally considered reliable if for whatever reason they publish an article that is clearly outside their field of expertise. This is not a surgery-related topic whatsoever, so this is a poor source. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 08:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Trans surgery is an important and complex field of work, but in any case I cited that and other articles to show that it is receiving scholarly attention. See, additionally, [https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/1997/2931 this], [https://www.ijyal.ac.uk/articles/10.24877/ijyal.32/galley/59/download/ this], [https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/224/11/1990/6425127?login=true this], and I could go on and find more. The only scholarly source any of you have provided dedicates half a parenthetical to mentioning Rowling. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 09:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I'm very concerned about the ad hominem against the author of [https://journal.nds.ox.ac.uk/index.php/JNDS/article/view/176 this] paper. Hotine is not ''just'' as {{re|Tewdar}} said a {{tq|data analysit}}, she is also that [https://www.nds.ox.ac.uk/team/emily-hotine department's co-ordinator] to [[Athena SWAN]], and whose day job {{tq|involves analysing data to devise and deliver effective initiatives to improve equality, diversity and inclusion within the department}}. [[WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH]] heavily applies here, as this goes far beyond reasonably questioning the reliability of a source. |
|||
:::::::: As <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]]</span> said, the paper is double-blind peer-reviewed, and from an institution of good repute. There is nothing in the [https://journal.nds.ox.ac.uk/index.php/JNDS/about/submissions journal's submission guidelines] that state the Equality, Diversity, Inclusion section is less rigurously vetted than any other. In fact, the submission guidelines very clearly state the following: {{tq|'''All submissions''' undergo an initial Editorial board review. Only those manuscripts deemed of sufficient quality and meeting the aims and scopes of JNDS will progress to a second review. The second tier review is a double blind process by external reviewers, whereby the credentials of the author(s) will not be available to the reviewers. The Editorial team will make final decision on the submission. Editorial decisions are final.}} Emphasis mine. |
|||
:::::::: I'd also like to re-emphasise the point I made previously for why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1058141194 inclusion/exclusion from JSTOR should not be authoratative]. JSTOR's [https://support.jstor.org/hc/en-us/articles/115004879547-About-the-Moving-Wall embargo] on recent research varies per publisher, and has historically been anywhere between [https://web.archive.org/web/20151101061315/http://about.jstor.org/librarians-faq-archival-journals#What_is_a_moving_wall three and five years] post publication in the original journal. Other search methods like [[Google Scholar]], [[ResearchGate]], [[BASE (search engine)]], and [[Web of Science]] are often more relevant for recently published research. |
|||
:::::::: {{re|Crossroads}} do you have proof that this is {{tq|an article that is clearly outside their field of expertise}}? Having looked through the [https://journal.nds.ox.ac.uk/index.php/JNDS/issue/archive journal's archive], the only non special issue that does not have an Equality, Diversity, Inclusion section is the inaugural issue. Furthermore, the author of this paper has appeared in that section for each issue of this journal in which it appears, and her primary role is an Athena SWAN co-ordinator. Now you could make an argument on bias as I have seen you do frequently on other talk pages, however [[WP:BIASED]] states that {{tq|However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.}} So I think that argument made so far for dismissal is invalid. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: Apologies if I missed out any of Hotine's credentials. Good to know that articles written by authors such as this are suitable sources for Wikipedia as long as they pass "peer" review (edit - in a reputable journal). This is actually great news, thanks. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: That is quite an impressive sarcastic strawman of my reply. That was not the point I made. I was addressing your ad hominem against the author of the paper, as a means of dismissing the paper, as it seemed as though you did not consider the broader picture of what her job role actually entailed. I did not say that any source is acceptable if passes peer review, that is obviously false becuase of the existence of [[Predatory publishing|predatory journals]] of which this most certainly is not, and I would like you to strike that from your comment {{re|Tewdar}}. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::: Fixed - sorry, for once I am not being sarcastic, I really do consider this to be great news. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 21:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::: Just a quick return from retirement to point out that the source given above, "Hate Crimes Against Trans People: Assessing Emotions, Behaviors, and Attitudes Toward Criminal Justice Agencies" (https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517715026) by Walters et al. (2017) does not seem to mention Rowling at all, unless I am mistaken. Sorry if pointing this out seems 'nitpicky' to you... [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 09:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
"She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased. |
|||
==== Arbitrary Break 2 ==== |
|||
*'''Option C is preferred but principal concern is it not being removed''' frankly, regardless of ones opinion of Rowling and her views on civil rights, this has been her principal source of notoriety beyond a few forgettable mystery books and increasingly unwatchable spin-off films for several years now. It should not be elided just because it might be embarrassing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D (now), then take the time to come up with a proper alternative (option E)''', else, if it absolutely positively must be included without being significantly altered then option A (as the least problematic, if still poor, of the three). Leads should be brief and neutral. Rowling apparently has many views (including in plenty of other topics entirely unrelated to her writing). Including this one in the lead but not the others seems to be more the outcome of the current ''Zeitgeist'' than of any actual valid way to write an encyclopedic article. I disagree that this has been "this has been her principal source of notoriety [...] for several years now" - not only out of personal intuition, but because it's clear from a look at the article and its structure that this is not a massive element of this subject's notability, given that most of the article is spent on her creative works. Leads should follow the body of the article, not unduly put to prominence a relatively minor element (even if it's controversial, even if it offends some people). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 00:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC) edited 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' , but it is OK for there to be brief mention in the body of the article. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 14:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Note. After making the above edit I was contacted at my talk page [[User talk:Thincat#Standard ArbCom sanctions notice]]. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 10:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option E,B,C or A''' almost all recent coverage of her has been related to this issue—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 15:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{ping|blindlynx}} Then why is this "almost all recent coverage" confined to a few paragraphs in the views section? Even if (for the purpose of argument), one conceded that your statement might be partly correct, focusing on recent events would be undue [[WP:Recentism]] and would miss the forest for the trees (as some suggest, writing that Rowling has held many views which generated controversy, without unduly focusing on any one of them, might be a more acceptable solution). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::Per the hat note on that section it is covered in more detail elsewhere, namely it makes up a significant portion of the article devoted to her politics [[Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people]]. By recent i mean the last two years, honestly i don't see this as a blip or a news spike at this point—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 19:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::: Also note that some editors think the time has come to collapse the "Politics of" article back into the main article (and trim it accordingly). I for one feel that it has outlived its usefulness. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::A future in which there is nothing but debate over what to merge over and what to delete, and then in the future debates over what stuff is noteworthy every time Rowling says a word on the topic. Truly a wikidystopia that would be. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 08:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::: Compared to the zombies currenrly running rampant, I fail to see how this "dark future" would be in any way worse than the rather dim present. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 11:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::At this rate this discussion is going to meet [[WP:GNG]] soon—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 16:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::: I would find that amusing if it weren't for the recent "Death by Communism" AfD, which actually does meet the [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::yikes, i'm happy i stayed out of it—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' I think the current presentation as a standalone paragraph gives [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] to these issues. They may well be why Rowling has been in the news recently, but that doesn't mean they should be singled out for such prominent treatment, as [[WP:NOTNEWS|Wikipedia isn't a news service]] and considers the enduring notability of events. Is Rowling going to be known in large part for expressing views on gender a few decades from now? Nor is this paragraph accurately summarising the article. The "Views" section includes as much discussion of Rowling's views and activities on other political issues, religion and press regulation as it does on gender issues. If gender issues are going to be mentioned in the lead then the lead needs to summarise the entire section instead of singling out gender issues. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*: Re: {{tq|Is Rowling going to be known in large part for expressing views on gender a few decades from now?}} This is a [[WP:CRYSTAL]] question that, per policy, is not supposed to affect our editing decisions; however, I think based on recent and ongoing scholarship the clear (provisional ) answer would be ''Yes!'' At least compared to her philanthropy and pseudonymous works, both of which take up more real estate in the lead section than the issues addressed in this RfC. |
|||
*: Also, you are misreading the "Views" section - the content summarized in the lead is also from [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]], which is dominated (as is the RS coverage) by the transgender-related controversies. I for one believe that these articles need to be merged, for clarity to all readers. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::[[WP:CRYSTAL]] certainly does not prevent us from weighting content according to how significant we think it is going to be in the future. We do that all the time when we decide that we don't want an article to be dominated by something which gets a flurry of news coverage. CRYSTAL only says that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be based on unverifiable speculation, and I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I disagree with how significant the transgender controversies are likely to be in the long run, in my experience controversies which mostly consist of people yelling at each other on social media generally have a very short shelf life. The lead of this article should be trying to summarise this article, which certainly isn't dominated by discussion of transgender issues, and even [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] only devotes about half of its prose to discussion of that issue. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 19:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::: I don't believe that many social media controversies ever receive the amount of scholarly attention that these utterance by Rowling already have, so I think there are strong reasons to question your assumptions here. Also, none of the RfC options would result in the lead section being {{tq|dominated by discussion of transgender issues}}, so that herring looks rather crimson from here. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I never said that anything would result in the lead section being {{tq|dominated by discussion of transgender issues}}. I was responding to your statement above in which you said that transgender issues should be mentioned in the lead of this article because [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] is {{tq|dominated...by the transgender-related controversies}}. This article doesn't devote very much space to these controversies, and we're discussing the lead of this article. I am also rather sympathetic to those who suggested above that having an entire article on her political views is excessive as she's not a politician, political commentator or a public intellectual. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 19:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|digression, mostly over whether this article lead section is to summarize the article, J. K. Rowling or the topic, J. K. Rowling}} |
|||
*::::: I'm not sure I made myself clear about the discussion of these controversies in the ''Politics'' article. My point was (1) these issues dominate the coverage of Rowling in high-quality, reliable sources, including scholarly sources, for the last couple of years; (2) right now they are covered primarily in the child article, not the parent article; (3) this article's lead section is supposed to give an overview of Rowling as a whole, including the "special topic" of politics; and (4) this would all be clearer to our readers if the ''Politics'' material were trimmed in terms of DUE and BALANCE and merged into the parent. |
|||
*::::: The sources on the trans-related controversies exceed those on other matters included at length in this article and its lead section, e.g. her philanthropy, in terms of their quality and quantity. Arguing, as you seem to, that this interest will cease while other aspects of her career become more prominent, looks to me like CRYSTAL indeed. We need to address the sources as they are, not as we wish they were. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::The lead isn't intended to summarise Rowling as a whole, it's supposed to summarise the rest of the article. If the article was changed to include a lot more coverage of transgender issues then it might make more sense to mention them in the lead, but the way to do that is to get consensus to change the article first. You've assumed that I'm in favour of philanthropy being discussed in the lead, which isn't true. She is notable overwhelmingly as an author, and if she is still remembered years from now it will be as an author. The lead is right to focus on her writing and the recognition she's received as a result of it. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 20:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::: I am not aware of any policy basis for excluding the subtopics covered by child articles from the lead of a parent article. Could you point me to where you got that idea? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::: I'm not saying that subtopics should be excluded from the lead, only the fact that we have a more detailed article about a subtopic doesn't mean we have to mention it in the lead of the parent article. If the subtopic isn't considered to be important enough for lots of coverage in the article then it's hard to argue it should be mentioned in the lead. [[MOS:LEAD]] (the relevant guideline) says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Article, not topic. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 20:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Od}}I mean yes, a more appropriate RfC would have presented the sourcing on these controversies in relation to the coverage of Rowling and asked, how prominent should this be in the article and then, as a derivative question, should it be presented in the lead and how. But to be fair to the RfC mover, the lead had consistently mentioned the controversies for over a year and this had been supported by consensus on this Talk page (until the recent <s>Zombie invasion</s> effort to attract editors inexperienced in gender-related controversies). So the need for that overarching RfC wasn't evident to the mover and the sources about the important controversies have not been brought to the attention of all participants. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:So now you're making ad hominem attacks against the people who disagree with you - I must be wrong because I'm "inexperienced in gender-related controversies", whatever that means. I think we're done here. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#b50000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: I didn't mean to imply that you were in that category - you have apparently read the lead section and at least some of this article, which places you well ahead of the zombie hordes, even though I doubt you have read any of the sources on the controversy judging by your comments above. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
*'''Support A, B, or C; oppose D'''. Slight preference for B or C over A. This is the only thing we hear about Rowling in recent news and social media, and is (properly) the subject of a four-paragraph section in the article. The lead should summarize this content, briefly, just as leads of articles generally summarize significant subtopics of article content even when they are not the main piece of article content. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{ping|David Eppstein}} "is (properly) the subject of a four-paragraph section [sic. - it is a subsection] in the article": as are also Rowling's views on politics, religion, and her relationship with the press. Yet neither of A, B or C mention any of that. This seems more like putting [[WP:UNDUE]] prominence on [[WP:RECENTISM|recent events]], than the usual way leads summarise content. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 18:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::None of the Options A to E, including D have anything to do with Rowling's views on other political matters, religion or the press etc, if you think they should be included in the lead surely they are entirely separate debates. Whether her views on Religion are included has very little to do whether we include the much more extensively covered trans views. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 20:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{ping|Bodney}} Many people arguing for option A or close cognates argue that "this is covered in article, therefore DUE, in this format, in lead". That is simply an overly simplistic argument, which selectively ignores the rest of the article in favour of focusing on recent events. It's possible to mention that Rowling has controversial views on different subjects (of which transgender issues are but one, and not the only one, so as such singling this out and putting it in the lead but not the others is effectively [[WP:UNDUE]] and an inaccurate summary, both of the subject as a whole and of the article as it stands). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 23:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::[[WP:CIVIL]] Please can we leave out belittling accusations of simplistic arguments. |
|||
*:::: The lead section of [[MOS:LEAD]] clearly states that we should summarize the most important points of an article, {{tq|'''''including any prominent controversies'''. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, <u>according to reliable, published sources</u>''}} (note: not simply the amount of words in the article itself). The argument for [[WP:DUE]] is based on the [[WP:SUSTAINED]] and widespread coverage in the leading high quality global reliable news media that has gone well beyond a brief burst of news coverage in those [[WP:RSP]]. Further if we go back to those simple section size comparisons i.e. the Trans section compared to other sections, the Trans section has been kept short in this article simply because of [[WP:SPLIT]] , the topic it is more fully covered in the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] article were it accounts to close to half of that articles content, with only a brief summary kept in the main article. The comparative volume of RSP sources on this issue compared to any other topics clearly means that this 'controversy' satisfies [[WP:WEIGHT]] to be in the lead. So yes we can and should selectively include this very highly notable topic according to the RSP in relation to the articles subject, compared to her other views. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 11:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::{{ping|Bodney}} This is a discussion about the [[J. K. Rowling]] article, not some sub-article which goes into more depth and thus reasonably gives more weight to aspects that are more relevant there. What I see is that this is an article about the author, and as such should give a general summary of the author. As far as I know, Rowling is best known for her Harry Potter books (which is the only reason why her views on other topics are even reported on by the press?). There's no [[J. K. Rowling transgender controversy]], because that is not a good article topic, and because it is not one of the most important aspects of this person's life, however much recent attention it might have gotten. The lead, as it stands, gives a summary of the "Life and career" and "Philanthropy" sections of the article (giving much more weight to the former, as warranted). I see no summary of the "Views" section, yet I see a prominent focus on this. Prominent, because it stands alone in its own little paragraph; and because it alone of all the other stuff in that section is in the lead. There's no good reason to single this out like that. If it is really so prominent that it and it alone deserves a mention in the lead, then I'd expect it to be important enough for a stand-alone section, not for a few summarised paragraphs. Ergo, it isn't, so that's that. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 16:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::: No, RandomCanadian, {{tq|that}} isn't {{tq|that}}. I've seen the argument made in this discussion that when an article is split between parent and child, the material of the child article should be excluded from the lead section of the parent article, but I haven't seen anyone present a policy basis for this idea. As I have said before, my preferred resolution to the quandary would be to merge the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] content into the main article (trimmed according to DUE), and as I have said before, it seems to me better to determine the BALANCEd place of the transgender controversies in this ''article'' before arriving at stable language for the ''lead''. But I don't see any basis in policy for what amounts to "''Politics of'' is a different article so we exclude it here, and neither the coverage of these controversies in good sources nor the inclusion of this topic in the lead (by consensus of people whose opinions of the controversies themselves are diametrically opposed) should affect [[WP:ILIKEIT|what I have decided is right]]". I know my posts have taken up enough electrons already in this discussion, but your ''ergo'' just doesn't follow from any WP policy that's been cited here when it comes to parent and child articles. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::The very obvious WP guideline (which I didn't feel the need to cite) is [[WP:SUMMARY]]. Parent and child articles can, and usually very much do, cover the same topic to different levels of depth; as appropriate to their respective topic (this can include even major aspects of the child article: for example, while international involvement and the political ramifications of the [[Spanish Civil War]] are definitively important aspects to mention in an article about [[World_War_II#Spanish_Civil_War_(1936–1939)|World War II]], the precise course of that war is not relevant in the WWII article. While Rowling's controversial statements might be an important aspect of this person's "politics", they might not be that important of an aspect of this person's biography. The corollary of this is that people should always try to take a distanced look from the subject, even if they personally feel offended by it, and especially if it involves an almost knee-jerk mass-media reaction to recent events. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 18:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::The Spanish Civil War is not a child article of World War II. I'm not sure how that is relevant here, {{u|RandomCanadian}}. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 20:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::{{ping|A._C._Santacruz}} It is an article which covers a topic mentioned on the "main" page to more depth than what is necessary or DUE at said page. You can pick any other example, I don't know, [[The Holocaust]] (which, despite it's undisputable significance, gets only a single mention in the lead, in a sentence about many other things ({{tq|Tens of millions of people died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.}}) and not a whole paragraph to itself; or the whole [[World War II#Advances in technology and warfare]] sub-section, which does not get mentioned in the lead at all (although it has a sub-section to itself; and also has a child article). In short, the mere presence of a child-article, and the contents of said child-article, are entirely irrelevant here. The lead '''must be a summary of this article''', not a summary of some other one. If Rowling's controversial views are not that significant in the context of her biography, then no, they don't get preferential treatment to be mentioned in the lead, even if people are offended by it. An encyclopedia should cover topics of lasting significance, not change at every whim of the current ''Zeitgeist''. In the long-term, Rowling is clearly more encyclopedically significant due to her books and everything associated with them than due to some badly received comments. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 20:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::I'm not entirely sure if I'd agree with using a topic as complex as WWII as reference for how to model a BLP article. Other BLPs such as [[Walt Disney]], [[Richard Wagner]], etc. might be much more appropriate for comparison. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 22:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::::Additionally, the idea that her trans views are not significant in her coverage has been overwhelmingly disproven through the sources provided in this discussion. I warmly invite you to provide numerous sources from the past few years where this is not the case. Surely it is what the RS feel is important to mention and not your own opinion is the most "encyclopedic" description of Rowling. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 22:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::::{{ping|A._C._Santacruz}} Let's take Wagner, then. His antisemitic writings have a sub-section in the article; there's even a dedicated article on [[Wagner controversies]] and on [[Das Judenthum in der Musik]], and yet, it's unambiguous that this is not a defining aspect of its author (nor is it expounded upon at length in the article), and as such it only gets a short mention in the lead, along with other stuff [like the Holocaust example from WWII] ({{tq|His controversial writings on music, drama and politics have attracted extensive comment – particularly, since the late 20th century, where they express antisemitic sentiments.}}. As you can see, the comparison, with Wagner [there's surely lots of writing on antisemitism in Wagner, probably a fair bit of it quite recent: yet another similarity] or even with WWII, is entirely on point [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 22:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::::I fail to see how this means that Rowling's controversy should be removed from the lead. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 22:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::::::{{ping|A._C._Santacruz}} It shouldn't be allowed to stand as is in a standalone paragraph without anything else, due to the fundamental issue (UNDUE apparently-negative criticism on a BLP) which it represents. Since option E is unlikely to result in its prompt removal, and since that would entail yet another discussion as to how exactly to include it (keeping the unbalanced coverage in the article for even longer), then it needs to be removed until a proper paragraph which gives a more comprehensive outlook can be prepared. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 22:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Od}} To frame the issue as {{tq|UNDUE apparently-negative criticism on a BLP}} is quite misleading, in my view. The only questions relevant to policy are whether it is DUE to mention the criticism, based on the (quality, independent) sources, and whether the lead text represents how the sources depict the controversy in relation to NPOV and BALANCE. |
|||
I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.) |
|||
Some editors believe that {{tq|apparently negative criticism}} is subject to different standards of evidence than more flattering statements, but [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:NPOV]] don't actually support that, as far as I can tell. Given the large amount of high-quality coverage of these issues in recent years, I believe it would actually be a BLP and NPOV ''vio'' to remove mention of these controversies from the lead section, particularly when aspects of the subject's life supported by fewer or lower-quality sources - but more flattering to the subject - are included. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 00:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want. |
|||
: I agree with the part about negative vs. positive statements being treated equally by [[WP:BLP|the policy]]. That policy statement starts out describing what type of material is subject to "{{xt|immediate removal}}", and that type is "{{xt|contentious}}" material. If this interminable Rfc ends up as "no consensus" and proves nothing else, it does prove one thing: namely, that including this material is '''contentious''', therefore subject to immediate removal if not adequately sourced, and the burden is on those (including me) wishing to include it. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: I haven't seen any (good faith) arguments in this discussion that the material about these controversies is {{tq|not adequately sourced}}, but a transparent presentation of the citations underlying the eventual text will doubtless be required. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 01:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have not seen any argument which adequately addresses [[WP:UNDUE]]. {{tq|Undue weight can be given in several ways}}; and "prominence of placement" and "depth of detail" both apply here, especially when brought into contrast with the whole rest of the section this is apparently supposed to summarise (a job which it currently does quite inaccurately and ineffectively). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 14:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Where we two Canucks seem to disagree is whether to take into account the content of the ''Politics of'' article (and its sources) in determining DUE content for the lead section here. My proposed resolution to this - merging and trimming the ''Politics of'' article - would also have the advantages of heading off POVFORK issues and cutting back some of the more poorly-sourced topics (those other than the Trans-related controversies) to better align with the quality sourcing. We won't have any lasting agreement on this lead, I fear, without agreement on what it should be summarizing. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Newimpartial}} Is this lead a summary of the [[J. K. Rowling]] article, or of the "Politics of" article? If it's a summary of the former (as it should be), then you've got your answer. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 18:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: But you haven't presented any reason to believe that the treatment assumed by your rhetorical question is undergirded by policy. And none of the [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] examples you provided even concern a (child) topic that is a strict subset of a (parent) topic, which is the case under discussion. So I'm just getting wikistatic from this intervention. |
|||
:::::: Another way to phrase your question would be: is this article's lead section supposed to provide an overview of the article "J. K. Rowling" or the topic "J. K. Rowling". My understanding, based on a reading of policy and of other parent articles, is that the lead is supposed to summarize the topic. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Go look at [[Richard Wagner]], then look at [[Wagner controversies]] (which is a direct child topic of the parent); then realise it is the exact same relationship as this article and the politics one (not just in form but in nature of topic, which in both cases includes controversial views of their subject); then realise that, in the same way that an extensive summary of [[Wagner controversies]] would be unsuitable in the lead of [[Richard Wagner]], an extensive summary of [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] would be unsuitable in the lead of [[J. K. Rowling]]. The lead is indeed supposed to summarise the ''whole'' topic, not focus unduly on a single element of it. I've given a suggestion below which shows how this could be done (and I note that, like at the comparative articles I gave, it similarly points out the most important element [transgender issues; compare with Wagner and antisemitism; or WWII and Holocaust] without ignoring the rest). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 20:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It doesn't help your case that {{tq|Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists.}} is nearly identical to what is currently in the lead of this article. Somehow, the same sentence is an appropriate lead-worthy summary both in a specific sub-article and in an article which deals with a broader topic? [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 20:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Neither the lead section of [[Politics of J.K. Rowling]] not that of [[Wagner controversies]] is a model of encyclopedic writing. However, I would point out that the topic of the "Wagner controversies", and antisemitism in particular, is addressed in the lead section of [[Richard Wagner]], while you have been arguing somewhat strenuously for the removal of the equivalent mention from [[J. K. Rowling]]. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{ping|Newimpartial}} Go read my comment immediately below (dated 18:34, 6 December) to see why I'm arguing for removal ''at this time''. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 06:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Od}} You are pointing to what, logically, is a rationale for an "E" vote, while you are still voting "D". I can't really help you with that. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::While I agree with [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] that the two articles would be better merged back together, trimming less well sourced/developed areas, I feel rightly or wrongly the need to point out the obvious that a lead is not a mere shrunken summary of an article or sections in proportion of its physical constituent parts. Some areas of an article or section are deemed more notable by the reliable sources than others. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section]] Relative emphasis [[MOS:LEADREL]] {{tq|''According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources''}}. This in no way undermines that Rowling primary notability as a extremely successful author, but we do not need to include every other aspect of her life in the lead, only that considered most notable by the sources. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 17:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|Bodney}} "Relative importance" - I do not see how the specific sentence on the trans controversy is due weight in its present form (due to the issue of prominence by depth of detail and by placement), if all of the rest of the section it is contained in isn't even mentioned. An acceptable solution could be {{tq|Rowling is also well known for her outspoken and sometimes controversial political views, including, notably, transgender issues. [plus probably something about the other big element of the "Views" section, which isn't relevant at this time]}} This would be an apt summary of what is in the article, putting emphasis on the most well known part without unduly singling-it out. I still !vote D because "E" is unlikely to achieve consensus (due to the lack of any concrete proposal) and because I'm pragmatic, and this can be added back in later, once there is a clear and neutral proposition. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 18:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::A brief introductory mention of her other more notable views can easily be added, though following [[MOS:LEADREL]] her out spoken views on transgender people should have the main emphasis. As this is easy I have ''**changed the fourth paragraph**'' to reflect this (i hope doing so is OK and not too early). <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font- |
|||
family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 10:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Adding a brief introductory mention does not fix the "depth of detail" aspect of UNDUE. The sentence which follows is literally copy-pasted with minimal adaptation from the lead of another article. It is practically impossible for it to be appropriate for both the lead of this article (the main article on the subject, which should offer a broad overview) and for the politics article (which, being a clear sub-topic, should offer a more in-depth overview on that aspect). The usual relation between child/parent article is adapting the lead of the former (if it is suitable to do so) for a section/sub-section on the other, not selectively copying the lead of one into the lead of the other. Is this something that will really be that important and that defining on the long-term, to justify such an unusual and unencyclopedic approach? I don't think so, and nobody has presented a coherent policy-based argument why the lead of this article should summarise the contents of another (something practically never done). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 14:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I honestly don't see how your argument works here. IIRC you voted D, with A as a second option, but this argument doesn't work for either of those. After all, the trans thing is mentioned in this article too. at lenght even. So clearly not including it at all would be just as bad as spending too much space on it relative to the size of the relevant portion, which means, according to you, that we should keep it in the lead in a reduced form. The correct option for that would be E, rather than D or A. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 15:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::A is not my second option. A is the "if I'm wrong and there's consensus to include this without significantly altering it, then A is the least unacceptable option". [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I still don't see how that leaves you with D as your first option, since it so clearly contradicts what you are arguing here. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 15:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::My bold-ish addition of additional views to the section was chiefly based mostly use your own wording. I did not change the specific wording which is the question of this huge RfC on purpose. That should not be done until after the RfC. Though a few editors have said her other views should be represented, most have expressed no opinion, personally I thought it was a separate matter. I believe the current wording more than satisfies inclusion of Rowling's other views for the lead coverage of the views section [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section]] Relative emphasis [[MOS:LEADREL]] {{tq|''According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources''}}. The simple reason why the two articles have similar wording is that they have often been edited in tandem...a strong pointer that the two articles should be merged, ''not that the text which is subject to this ongoing RfC'', which is covered in the body here and in finer detail in the sub article should be deleted. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 15:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::There's certainly no need nor valid reason to merge anything to this article, which is already too long. That the two article were edited in tandem (if they indeed were) could be a sign of many things, including but not limited to A) lazy writers who did not bother to alter the scope of their summary for this article or B) writers who are too passionate about the thing they wrote about to realise it is not appropriate here. Interpreting this as being only a sign that the articles need to be merged is [[motivated reasoning]]. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' seems to me to be the most neutrally worded and DUE option. When I think about Rowling, I think about Harry Potter, her charity work, Cormoran Strike, her disputed and changing status as a billionaire, the 2017 Birthday Honours, her work as a bilingual secretary for Amnesty International, her divorce, the birth of her first child, and of course that time her train was delayed. All of which is given appropriate coverage in the lead. Has coverage of her statements about trans rights reached the level of those other weighty aspects of her life? I think so. Though I am hesitant to weigh in at all, as summarizing an article into a lead requires a dispassionate approach and cool heads, and this discussion long-since devolved into an unproductive battleground, which we as editors should try harder to avoid. I would ask that the closers address the non-neutral notices of this discussion posted in multiple locations, making unfounded accusations of vote-stacking and canvassing users to come here to counter it.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 20:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' The lead is generous to begin with. If her philanthropy and accolades are being listed in the lead, this is definitely DUE enough to also be included. Many sources are listed in discussion below. Also, Rowling is very active about this issue on Twitter, in an ongoing way. She often gets engagement there at 10x her usual engagement. Back on July 25 she said that “since speaking up about gender identity theory, I’ve received thousands of emails – more than I’ve ever had on a single subject.“ [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option A'''{{snd}} (then '''E'''; not '''B''' or '''C'''). Options B and C both say, "{{xt|criticized as transphobic in mainstream media}}" but this is POV and highly misleading at best; MSM sources do not say anything about JKR being criticized in their own reporting voice, rather, they report what activists, bloggers, or social media have said. Per [[WP:DUEWEIGHT]], to include this phrase would imply that the majority of mainstream media criticizes her as transphobic; besides being false, it is a violation of [[WP:BLP]]. It's not that it is merely a violation of [[WP:BLPBALANCE]] because, let's say for the sake of argument, that a significant minority of MSM have actually labeled her as transphobic, it's that with respect to reliable secondary media voices, it is fringe, or non-existent. [[Gedankenexperiment]]: If a bunch of media sources report social media, activists, pundits, bloggers, or even national figures saying that [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-tibet-xi/insight-does-chinas-next-leader-have-a-soft-spot-for-tibet-idUSBRE87T1G320120830 the Dalai Lama is a separatist] Tibetan nationalist, that would not justify a sentence at [[Dalai Lama]] saying that he has been "criticized as a separatist in mainstream media", and that kind of language would never survive there. '''Option A''' is the best choice here; next would be '''E'''. For options B and C, to avoid a massive [[WP:BLP]] violation, the [[WP:BURDEN]] would be on supporters to show that MSM have actually said this, and until they did, per the policy, such wording "'''{{xt|should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion}}''' (bold in the original). [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''E > B > C > A; strongly oppose removal'''. Rowling's views on trans people are increasingly becoming a major part of her notability. They make mainstream news repeatedly. They are extremely well sourced. They are a major part of her notability and very well sourced even in comparison to other facts about her already in the lead, such as her philanthropy work or where exactly she came up with the idea for Harry Potter. I am dumbfounded that there are any people who think that they should be removed from the lead, much less as many as there are. |
|||
: I don't think any of the current wordings quite hit the exact balance I'd like which is why I prefer to hash out the wording later, but of the options provided I think B is best (but dislike the phrase "criticized in mainstream media"), C is overly wordy and typo-ridden but has the basic gist I'd like, and A is a bit too weasel-wordy for my liking. If I had my way, it'd be: {{tq|Since 2019, Rowling has received significant attention for her views on transgender people and transgender rights. These views have been widely criticized as transphobic by LGBT rights organizations and many feminists, but have received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists as well as some artists and politicians.}} [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 10:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option B''', '''Option C''', '''Option A''', '''Option E'''; '''oppose removal'''. Rowling is very well known for her transphobic views. This should definitely be mentioned in the lead. [[User:Nosferattus|Nosferattus]] ([[User talk:Nosferattus|talk]]) 19:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:Unsupported assertion which isn't more convincing than a bare 'WP:ILIKEIT' argument and does not address how B or C are not blatant BLP violations. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 21:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::The burden of proof is on you to say that they are, actually. And most of the points made here have already been hashed out extensively in earlier votes. If you feel this vote is lacking in explanation you can always take a look at the extensive discussions going on elsewhere on this Rfc where this user's points are hashed out more. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 22:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{u|Licks-rocks}} This is a discussion, [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], and you can't just make the same arguments as others if they have since been countered, as that does not help achieve a reasonable consensus. {{u|Mathglot}} made a comment (just a few above) explaining how B or C are not appropriate, which due to it's proximity I don't feel like quoting at length. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Actually, per policy, the [[WP:BURDEN]] of proof that B and C are verifiable rather than BLP violations is on you. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::That they are verifiable, yes, But if you're going to demand we refute every possible argument in advance in our !votes, we'd all be here for quite a while. If you want to talk about how you think they're blatant BLP violations, that's fine, but there's no "burden of proof" to mention something you believe has been addressed sufficiently elsewhere. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 09:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::There are plenty of Option D !votes that aren't more convincing than a bare WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but you're not commenting on those, RC. I'd hope the closing admin will be able to weigh up the relative merit of participants' arguments, though. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 09:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::(Nosferattus), I'm not exactly sure as to which option(s) you're supporting. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Seems pretty simple to me to be honest, especially looking at some other !votes in this thread. A lot of people are listing the options in order of preference. I'm honestly not quite sure why you're trying to talk to this particular editor so much? --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 20:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::First time I'm requesting clarification from the editor. Don't know what you're going on about with the "...this particular editor so much" bit. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yeah I confused you for Canadian above. Disregard, and my apologies. It's hard to keep track of everything going on in this RFC. Let me rephrase then, I'm confused as to why this particular comment, which mostly restates opinions already expressed much more at lenght elsewhere, is receiving so much attention. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 22:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' [[User: Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] / [[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!]] 15:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Anything other than Option D''' – when you're the subject of ridicule in a Family Guy manatee gag, then it shows a certain amount of relevance to inlcude in a ''précis'' of her career, although more on the level of [[Orson Scott Card]]'s souring his reputation than [[Graham Linehan]]'s destroying his reputation (and marriage). '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 22:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''D - Leave it out of the lead completely'''. Irrelevant and [[WP:UNDUE]]. Her views on the trans community do not define her. When I think of Rowling, it's not for her ''views'' on transgender people.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:red">''(talk)''</b>]] 07:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''B/C > A''' To imply anyone agreeing with what she says isn't by definition a TERF seems a bit silly to me, regardless of which side of things you stand on. But my main concern here is that it remain in the lede in some capacity. This issue has been an enormous portion of her social relevance post-Harry Potter and her vocalizing her views on trans people has been enormously influential with potential huge implicaitons for the overall trend of trans acceptance in the UK as well as other Western countries. It is absolutely of sufficient notability to be within the lede. |
|||
*'''C or A''': given that the issue is given so much [[WP:WEIGHT]] in RS that it not only takes up a sizeable portion of this article (and the [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY|lead must summarize the body]]) but also has its own article, censoring any mention of it a la D is out of the question. The current wording is decent, but the weight this has continued to get since the RfC that resulted in that wording, and the level of detail the body has accordingly been revised to have since then, does suggest more detail a la C is merited. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 03:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*: PS, in the seemingly-unlikely event that option B carries the day, surely "These views have [...], yet ''has'' [...]" should be "yet ''have''". [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 03:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option D''' then '''A''' and Strongly '''oppose B and C'''. I oppose B and C as it completely [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:SYNTH]] as labelling/highlighting those feminists who agree with Rowling as TERFs , and those indivduals who support Rowling as conservative is a complete violation of SYNTH. I support D (then A), as labelling her as "transphobic" like there fails to be enough sources in balance labelling her as such violating [[MOS:LABEL]] and [[WP:BLP]], in addition to [[WP:UNDUE]]. Most of this is repeating what others above like SMcCandlish, Crossraods, and Pyxis Solitary but I belive they are far more grounded and policy and reflective of sources then B/C argument. Do not ping me to this discussion. [[User:Spy-cicle|<span style='color: 4019FF;'><b> Spy-cicle💥 </b></span>]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|<sup><span style='color: #1e1e1e;'><b>'''''Talk'''''?</b></span></sup>]] 20:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*: The D !vote in particular seems to be at, errr, considerable tension with the same editor's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=1059982484&oldid=1059867969 !vote rationale] in the philanthropy section, below. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::Not 100% what you are saying here but those two discussions are distinct. [[MOS:LABEL]] applies to something terms like "transphobic" unlike the term "philanthropist". [[User:Spy-cicle|<span style='color: 4019FF;'><b> Spy-cicle💥 </b></span>]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|<sup><span style='color: #1e1e1e;'><b>'''''Talk'''''?</b></span></sup>]] 23:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::: I don't agree with the LABEL argument, but I see why you might see that as a reason to !vote against B or C. It certainly isn't a rationale for a D vote, however, given that A and E have also been proposed. Also, the MOS does tell us not to use peacock language, which some editors hold to apply to "philanthropist" where it is nota term commonly applied to the BLP. Let's not pretend that the MOS instructs us to say nice things and not mean things: it tells is to say well-sourced things using NPOV and BALANCEd language. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 23:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option A / F'''. It's easily notable enough to warrant inclusion in the lede. The lede should not however coatrack about what kinds of people (conservative? feminist? queer?) line up pro/con Rowling. All kinds of people are on both sides, and that's not the point of the article anyway. '''A''' goes into the least detail on those lines, but it would be possible to do an '''F''' that says even less. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen|talk]]) 02:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Primarily NOT Option D - Do NOT remove'''. I believe that emotive, non-policy advocacy for removal should be ignored, as these are not votes (abbreviated !votes). Statements that her views are incidental to her notability are flat out contradicted by the weight of the section in the article, and the fact that we had to [[WP:SPLIT]] off a new article just about her views! As for what text to use? I would suggest '''Option C, B, or A''' in that order of preference, but I'd find ''any'' of the options preferable to removal. I find that options C and B offer the most information summarized in the most compact way, while option A is a bit vague and seems to be wishy-washy-- weak writing overall. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] ([[User talk:Fieari|talk]]) 04:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option B''' or '''option C''' please, either's fine! (I hope I'm voting correctly, Wikipedia editing is messy at the best of times, let alone on a looong talk page...) It shouldn't be controversial to say that she's frequently and very publicly writing articles ''against'' trans civil rights; that the people who disagree with her are [[Intersectionality|''intersectional'']] feminists in particular (the more mainstream third wave branch, I believe) and LGBT groups (who are inherently pro LGBT rights); and that the people who agree with her are mostly conservatives, including [[Exclusionism|''exclusionary'']] feminists (more fringe, I believe) and anti-LGBT groups, such as the "LGB Alliance" hate group supported by mostly cishet people. If you remove certain editors' cis bias, this is all pretty axiomatic stuff. [[User:ZoeB|ZoeB]] ([[User talk:ZoeB|talk]]) |
|||
*: Oh sure, once we get rid of all that {{tq|cis bias}} we could probably just automatically generate BLPs and GENSEX articles by creating a neural network and feeding it old articles from PinkNews and The International Journal Of Tourism Sciences for training data. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 23:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::Tedwar, is this hostility really nessecary?.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 15:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::First of all, my name is Tewdar, not Tedwar. Secondly, it is utterly ridiculous to accuse me of 'hostility' when replying to an editor who has essentially just claimed that anyone voting for option D is guilty of {{tq|cis bias}} with a sarcastic piss-take. Can you imagine the {{tq|hostility}} if someone accused an editor here of {{tq|"trans bias"}}? Newimpartial would have written a couple of megabytes of 'hostile' text by now and taken them to AE within a few minutes tops. And yet, nobody seems to have even noticed this claim of {{tq|cis bias}} at all. I'm not sure what sort of bias that is. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 16:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: I think it's safe to say most of us here are biased in one direction or the other. This discussion wouldn't be so loaded otherwise. ZoeB is just sharing her opinion. As I interpreted it, all she basically said was "I think the situation is a bit more simple than it's being treated as because a lot of people aren't that immersed in the subject matter". Which, yeah, that counts as a bias, so I think that's an entirely fair thing to say. Though I am, of course, a little biased -*GASP* because I agree with her on the bias thing. To summarize, I think you interpreted "bias" as an insult, where I suspect it was intended as more of a descriptor. sorry about your name btw, I misread/typed. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 18:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::: Again, if I were to say that option D or F were "{{tq|axiomatic}}, my dear Watson" were it not for {{tq|"certain editors' trans bias"}}, would this be interpreted as a mere {{tq|descriptor}}, or more of a massive behavioural problem requiring immediate sysop and ArbCom involvement? I think we all know the answer to that. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 19:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::I do believe several people have said that exact thing before on this very page. In fact, I just did a very quick search on this page for the word bias and yeah, that is very much a thing that happened. Several D !votes explicitly mention bias. None of the ones I bothered to go through here go so far as to put trans in front of it though. I do think claiming that "a minority being biased about their own topic just because they're in that minority = bad" is a bridge too far, in a way that saying "people can be biased due to *not* being in a minority" isn't. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 22:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::As a member of a [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cornish-granted-minority-status-within-the-uk recognised UK minority group], I still think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACornish_language&type=revision&diff=1060930565&oldid=1045294640 "a minority being biased about their own topic just because they're in that minority = bad"] [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 22:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::I don't think being cornish and being trans are entirely comparable. That's a little besides the point however, and I don't think it leads in a very productive direction. More importantly I already pointed out several people on this page have already done what you claim would lead to immediate arbcom intervention to very little fanfare, so I think this entire point is somewhat moot. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 13:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::: You're right, my nationality bias definitely outweighs my gender bias. I couldn't care less if people misgender me, as long as nobody ever dares to call me English. 😡 [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 23:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::: <sarcasm>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1060625630&oldid=1060624697 But people can identify as Cornish just as they can identify as space aliens, and surely there's no harm in that.]</sarcasm>. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 13:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::: <not sarcasm>Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that identifying as Cornish, multilingual, space alien, or indeed anything else are qualitatively different.</not sarcasm> [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 23:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Od}} But you do understand, I hope, that that is just your personal view. Some people would presumably risk their lives to defend their Cornishness but not their multilingualism. And I am reasonably confident that no-one on earth is an actual space alien, so those who believe themselves to be such, are mistaken. Aspects like these make such identities {{tq|qualitatively different}} from each other, at least from my (non-Qanon) perspective. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 23:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:Please, define Cornishness for me, to ensure I can present as ''truly Cornish'', against the constant mockery I must endure on an almost daily basis every time I identify as Cornish to some emmet incomer from Pow an Sowson, who insists I am {{tq|mistaken}}... [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 00:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: <small>Though I'm not the editor Tewdar was replying to, I thought it was pretty funny. Beep boop!</small> [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 17:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::: That's just your Heaviside function misbehaving again. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 17:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::: [[No true Scotsman|No true Cornishman]]... [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 10:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::: But... but I [[Cream tea|put my cream on the top!]] [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 11:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* Prefer option A (although I don't think it's perfect). I have quibbles with the "mainstream media" bit in B and C as the majority of the UK mainstream media are clearly on Rowling's side of this. Oppose D - this is what she's known for these days such that it's always brought up even in relation to HP. – [[user:filelakeshoe|filelakeshoe]] ([[user talk:filelakeshoe|t]] / [[special:contributions/filelakeshoe|c]]) [[user:filelakeshoe/kocour|🐱]] 13:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* {{strong|Option E}}: per [[MOS:LEAD]], we should include {{tq|summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies}}, and Rowling's controversial views on this topic are extraordinarily prominent. This is also a [[WP:DUE]] argument, with the weight of years-long, international coverage being sufficient for a couple of lines in the lead. {{pb}}There are too many deletion rationales to succinctly counter, but I'd like to focus on:{{blist|Any argument mentioning notability: the notability policy is inapplicable here, and it says so specifically in its lead.|''D'' voters who want the trans controversy removed from the whole lead but her philanthropy retained in the first sentence are presenting us with irreconcilably dissonant arguments.|Arguments for removal that present no policy basis whatsoever, of which there are many, should be discounted by the closer.}} This controversy has been so prominently covered for such an extended period of time that removal would create a major NPOV violation. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:Hopefully, the closers will evaluate ''every editors'' argument & not dismiss ''any editors'' argument. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::This comment contains no substance, but I still disagree with it. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 02:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::See further down in the discussion sub-sections. We don't like to cast a bad light on any group of editors in this RFC, with the hope of influencing the closers' decision. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::No "bad light", just arguments based on personal opinions only, which I continue to urge the closer(s) to discard. I do see in the discussions below you insisted that {{tq|{{" '}}discussions/challenges' are suppose to take place in the 'discussion' subsection."}} [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 04:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::You support 'E', that's your choice. But, you didn't have to complain about a group of editors who support options, that you don't. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Your choice to use 'complain about' where I'd use 'rebut arguments (or lack thereof) of' is a minor annoyance to me. I imagine the disruption to focused discussion on the content issue will be annoying to other readers. I'll do my best not to reply further here, though I'd be happy to debate further in the discussion section or a user talk page. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 04:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::It's literally ''the job'' of the closers to dismiss editors' arguments, where those arguments aren't based on policies on guidelines. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::The closers will do it the way they wish to, collectively. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option A '''. Nobody has come up with a rationale for the change, and if it ain't broke, why fix it? I endorse Sennalen's comment, which summarises my opinion well- {{tq|It's easily notable enough to warrant inclusion in the lede. The lede should not however coatrack about what kinds of people (conservative? feminist? queer?) line up pro/con Rowling.}} Most of the other options appear to be hideously coatrack-ed in order to present the ''(wholly false AFAI can see)'' case that only a handful of bigots have defended Rowling ''(Conservatives like Tony Blair? Gordon Brown? Eddie Izzard? Great swathes of trans-sympathetic UK media is at least prepared to discuss the issues raised rather than "shoot the messenger")'' - similar numbers have defended her right to express opinions which are substantially seen as pro-women, and pro the rights and dignity of ''(natal)'' women ''(not to be defined and referred to for example as 'menstruators')'' by many in the UK, but characterised as inherently anti-trans by others, paricularly by activists. There may be a difference of coverage between UK and US, where the issue seems even more hideously polarised than it is in the UK, but ''(mainstream)'' UK coverage is a great deal more sympathetic to much that Rowling has argued than many of the options above suggest. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 10:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option A'''. The lead reflects the body, and her campaigning on this topic is clearly a major portion of her current notoriety. It is [[WP:DUE]] because of her influence on this topic, and repeated statements to that cause. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Options E>B>C>>A>>>>>D'''. I don't think the wording of B or C is ideal (e.g. "mainstream media", mentioning politicians), but B is more concise. A violates [[WP:UNDUE]] by giving equal billing to pro-trans and anti-trans feminists, when the former are solidly in the mainstream of feminist thought. However, it is significantly better than D. ''Coverage of JK Rowling in the last couple of years by reliable sources across the breadth of the political spectrum has overwhelming been about her views on trans rights'', and the controversy over her trans views is well-covered, sourced, and is the polar opposite of a fringe topic. This is reflected in how the trans section of [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] is by far the single-largest section, and makes up about half that page. Per WP:UNDUE and [[MOS:LEAD]], ledes are not restricted to the topics that initially made the subject notable, but are meant to summarize the contents of the article, and if necessary, articles split off from the parent article. Rowling's trans views are a significant portion of the article content that should be reflected in the lede, though in a manner less wordy than B or C, but more neutral than A. ---- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A''' will do - it reflects the body and is sufficiently neutral. See previous RfC for why ''not D''; there already is consensus for inclusion in the lede. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 16:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Footnote [a] is mispositioned, if we accept my change, put it with footnote [b], otherwise, it should be a sentence earlier. |
|||
=== Discussion === |
|||
Rather than the (rather similar) options B and C, I think it would be helpful for one of the pre-formulated options to emphasize support from literary and entertainment industry figures. Not that there is uniform support for Rowling from these quarters, but the writers' letter and the indications of support from actors and comedians are at least as prominent as the declarations of Conservative politicians, at least from my perspective. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: I wasn't aware of the letter, will add another option. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 14:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: Decided to append the options instead. Decided on "artists" but "entertainers" would work too. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 16:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Suggestion''' While I've gone for option A, can we reword options B and C to remove "a few", as this sounds rather casual and not particularly encyclopedic. I think changing it simply to "some" is fine. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 18:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Sure, {{u|Czello}} 👍🏼. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 21:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Note to closer:''' The premature closure and evaluation of the [[#RFC on lead sentence|Rfc above]] by the OP who created it, as well as the [[Special:Diff/1057175564|presupposition]] of its outcome, taints this Rfc. Please see further details [[User talk:A. C. Santacruz/Archives/2021/November#Closing an Rfc|here]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 03:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{RE|Mathglot}} {{tq|"So if the consensus is clear, any editor—'''even one involved in the discussion'''—may close the discussion.}} ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:101%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|18px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:80%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 21:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*We don't need all these endless ill-prepared RFCs. The paragraph at the end of the lead section on her trans-related views wasn't even under debate in connection with the former RFC, and as I understand it, it has already been carefully crafted/developed over a long time through discussion here. If it needs further adjustment at some point, it's better to have a discussion before starting any unnecessary RFCs. I don't view this as a legitimate RFC for the reasons explained by others. Of course, removing the paragraph on the activity that has ''by far'' received the most media coverage over ''several years'', and that not only has its own section in this article but that also is the dominant issue in the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] article, is not a serious proposal, and is completely unacceptable, non-encyclopedic and contrary to relevant content policies. If anything, this issue needs far more weight in this article based on how Rowling is covered in third party sources. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 04:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**Which other encyclopedias mention JK Rowling's "transphobic views" ''at all''? [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 11:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::Great point. [[User:Masterhatch|Masterhatch]] ([[User talk:Masterhatch|talk]]) 11:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Who, me? Or Amanda? If you mix asterisks and colons, it messes up the indentation... [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 11:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::{{re|Tewdar}} no, you can mix asterisks and colons. You just need to have an asterisk before the first colon. You also need to make sure there isn't any blank lines between asterisks, as that will break indenting. It's partially why I prefer colon based indenting, it handles blank lines between paragraphs far more gracefully. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**{{u|Amanda A. Brant}} I agree completely that removing the paragraph on her transphobia is [[WP:UNDUE]] removal both per the coverage within the body of the article and in sources. I also agree that it needs more weight in the article based on third-party sources. [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-j-k-rowling-book-raises-more-allegations-transphobia-n1240057 this] [[NBC]] article, for example, goes into very long detail about her history of transphobia and links to [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351 other articles] they wrote about the topic. If I dedicated more than 10 minutes to this I could probably find the same for many other news sources and other RS. When 90% of readers of an article only read the lead, it should include more description and context than the current lead does. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 12:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***{{re|A._C._Santacruz}} what is the procedure if a wholly policy non-compliant option (ie option D) achieves consensus at the time of the RfC closure? Is it raised to a dispute resolution noticeboard? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****{{u|Sideswipe9th}} that depends (I'd imagine) on how the RfC is closed. If the closer identifies the consensus as against policy I have no idea what would be done (maybe keep status quo? I honestly am not near experienced enough to guess). If the close is such that it would violate policy, one can challenge the close using the proper procedures and follow that sequence. However, other more experienced editors probably have a better idea what would happen than I do. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****Side-note, Option D is not deletion, just "other". <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****You might want to update the options list, as everyone who is voting for option D is doing so based on the proposal by <strike>SMcCandlish</strike> GoodDay, which is deletion of the paragraph, and not proposing further options. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 14:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****** I do not think we can presume that, i maybe wrong but i doubt that is [[User:Always forever]] intention. (I am unclear if i is it getting too late to change options or to wish it had been worded differently). <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 15:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
******* {{re|Bodney}} I agree on [[User:Always forever]], as their comment does seem somewhat ambiguous. However GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Xxanthippe, Masterhatch, Unnamed Anon, Springee, Tewdar, and Pyxis Solitary are all clearly in favour of deletion. This is part of why I dislike RfCs that have an open ended "suggest another option" as part of the survey. Having been in another RfC recently where a similar situation happened, adding an explicit option D for deletion, and then pinging all who have voted for the ambiguous option D would resolve this somewhat. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 15:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
******** To confirm, I do not support removing references to Rowling's trans views from the lede, to me that's far and away the worst option. [[User:Always forever|<b><span style="color:DarkTurquoise">always forever</span></b>]] ([[User talk:Always forever|talk]]) 19:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***** I don't like updating the options for an RfC after significant discussion has been made per complaints raised other times I did that. In any case, the closer will have to weight the discussion in terms of what was actually said and not only straight up voting so I don't think it's a big issue in this instance {{u|Sideswipe9th}}. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****** I believe "delete from lede entirely" was originally proposed by {{yo|GoodDay}} [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 15:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
******* Thanks {{re|Tewdar}}, I misread the dates there. Corrected now. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 15:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
******Nor do i think we should sanitise/white wash a lead paragraph that simply and correctly reflects the body and reliable sources just because a group of editors WP:IDONTLIKEIT/They don't like it when inclusion is abundantly supported. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 15:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****D being "policy non-compliant"? That would apply to B and C which are riddled with BLP and [[WP:NOR]] violations. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 17:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***** {{re|Crossroads}} B and C are policy complaint. They are neither BLP nor NOR violations. They are complaint, and supported by reliable sources in this area. Option D however would fall afoul of [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]] and [[MOS:LEADBIO]]. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 00:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****: No, it would not; LEADFOLLOWSBODY is an explanatory supplement (neither guideline nor policy), and in any case is more concerened with proper sequencing of edits, and not about what *belongs in the lead*. The latter is covered by [[MOS:LEAD]] (*guideline*; first paragraph:), which says that the lead is "{{xt|a summary of [the] most important contents}}" covered in the body. So it depends whether you feel that reporting on JKR's comments on transgender issues are an '''important''' part of her life story or not. Clearly, you do; so your vote and your comment above are consistent, and that's fine. But saying that Option D "would fall afoul of [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY]]" is merely a reflection of where you stand on the importance of Rowling's comments relative to the arc of her whole life story, and in no way negates Crossroads' comment above yours, who clearly has a different view of it. Just because you have one interpretation or preference of "importance", does not negate the fact that others view it differently, and when they do, their views, including the Option-D supporters, are entirely in line with LEADFOLLOWSBODY. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mathglot|contribs]]) 23:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</span> |
|||
**** Omitting ''anything'' about Rowling's statements on trans in the overall article would be a policy violation of UNDUE, but we have ''no'' policy that says this has to be in the lede. The lede should be written neutrally, impartially and dispassionately, and should cover the major parts of the body. Not mentioning that she is an author and tied to the Harry Potter books would be a clear mistake. Whether the transphobia stuff is "major" is something to be decided by consensus because of how relatively small that section is compared to her authorship and other details. Also, we should be writing ledes towards what a person's enduring coverage, not what is "hot" about them at the moment. Now I do know that these views of hers have been going on for a few years, but whether that is enduring at this point is debatable. In other words, arguing that omitting transphobia stuff from the lede only is a policy violation is simply not true, though there is also no policy that says it has to be omitted. It's all based on consensus. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think it's also worth looking at it another way. Is her current transphobic bent likely to continue going forward? if it is here to stay (which I believe it is) not including it in the lead would just lead to this discussion coming back every few months. I think if we want to future-proof this article and create a lasting, stable version we need to look into the future as well. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 12:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Commentary on Rowling's transphobia has been a thing since [https://www.them.us/story/is-jk-rowling-transphobic since early 2018], and I'm not sure appeals to [[WP:RECENTISM]] are justified over something that has been pretty constant for almost four years now. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It has not been "constant" since early 2018. There was very, very little mention of it in sources until the Forstater tweets in Dec. 2019, and even then it didn't pick up more until the June 2020 tweets and essay. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Multiple RS reacting in early 2018, followed by more coverage in 2019 and even more in 2020 certainly makes this a prominent issue IMO and would justify !voting for its inclusion in the lede - which you did, above. :) [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* Why is nobody asking for Rowling's "anti-press activism" to be included in the lede? The article seems to have rather a lot of detail on this aspect of her views. It's almost as though nobody here is interested in "publisher's rights", or something... [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 15:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**Views on press=479 words 3,050 characters |
|||
**Views on transgender people=497 words 3,313 characters [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 15:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***Valid point, but I feel separate from current discussion. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 15:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****{{re|Bodney}} is it though? The transgender people subsection in the article is a stub which links to a much more substantial piece on [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]]. Her anti-press views have no such related reading, and don't seem to have been mentioned at all post 2014. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 16:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****Fair point. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 16:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*For those that are saying that there is not widespread coverage of her being characterized as "transphobic" in the media, I'd argue that when: |
|||
:# [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/3/2/new-harry-potter-video-game-will-allow-trans-characters Al Jazeera] ({{tq|after several recent controversies stemming from comments by series creator J.K. Rowling that were seen as transphobic}},{{tq|Last summer Rowling made several comments that were widely viewed as demeaning toward transgender people and denounced by many}}, |
|||
:# [https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-lifestyle-ap-top-news-4b2f01c2e0ff15010c1536ba1e31f93a AP News] ({{tq|J.K. Rowling is facing widespread criticism from the transgender community and other activists after tweeting}})[https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-lifestyle-daniel-radcliffe-us-news-media-6d99e691c88a5631cc8c2aa2b39ff3c1 2] ({{tq| She has been under hefty scrutiny about her thoughts on transgender identity from the LGBTQ community}}) |
|||
:# [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/07/why-millennial-harry-potter-fans-reject-jk-rowling/613870/ The Atlantic] (note, paywalled but the piece is called "How J.K. Rowling Became Voldemort" and is about the backlash) |
|||
:#[https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/harry-potter-reunion-jk-rowling-anti-trans-backlash/ Daily Dot] {{tq|stars face online criticism for reunion amid J.K. Rowling’s anti-trans controversy}} |
|||
:# [https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/09/24/britains-gender-recognition-act-wont-change The Economist] |
|||
:# [https://www.ft.com/content/44bfa943-b7c0-46b2-9d70-7579a00009f1 Financial Times] |
|||
:# [https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/10/26/reaction-to-tampax-tweet-highlights-transphobia/ Forbes] {{tq|Tampax was clearly trying to do what we’ve been asking all of our large corporations to do, be more inclusive. Still, some women perceive that including trans means erasing the identities of cisgender women. Earlier this year, Harry Potter series author J. K. Rowling tweeted in response to an article [...]}} (that's right, she is being mentioned in an article about Tampax ad campaigns) |
|||
:# [https://www.insider.com/jk-rowling-doxxed-response-trans-activists-2021-11 Insider (formerly Business Insider)] {{tq|Rowling has been widely criticized by LGBTQ people and allies since 2020 when she tweeted about her belief that trans activism hurts women and lesbians.}} |
|||
:# [https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/dave-chappelle-finds-mocking-transgender-people-can-revive-career-n1281245 MSNBC] |
|||
:# [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/arts/transgender-comedy-uk.html?searchResultPosition=4 New York Times] (article titled "Britain’s Transgender Stand-Ups Find Comedy in a Hostile Climate") |
|||
:# [https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/we-need-to-change-the-terms-of-the-debate-on-trans-kids New Yorker] |
|||
:# [https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1056645248/hary-potter-cast-reunion-j-k-rowling NPR] |
|||
:# [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harry-potter-cast-reunite-20th-anniversary-tv-special-2021-11-16/ Reuters] |
|||
:# [https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism Vanity Fair] |
|||
:# [https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/11/17/harry-potter-20-reunion-jk-rowling/ Washington Post] |
|||
:all cover events related to the Harry Potter franchise or herself with mentions of the controversy she's caused and the criticisms of transphobia she's received, I'd find it hardly convinving to say that the current public image (and thus understanding) of J K Rowling is not one tied to her trans-related opinions. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 15:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I can also add the following sources to this list. |
|||
::# [https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-rowling-idUSKBN2682SB Reuters] {{tq|Critics of the “Harry Potter” author accused her of revealing prejudice through a transphobic trope, while supporters defended her right to write fiction without people jumping to conclusions about her beliefs or abusing her.}} and {{tq|Rowling has long faced accusations of transphobia, which she rejects, because of some of her tweets.}} |
|||
::# [https://time.com/5855633/jk-rowling-gender-identity/ Time], though opinion piece {{tq|Rowling’s views are not new to me. There have been discussions online about her transphobia for quite some time, both public and private.}} |
|||
::# [https://inews.co.uk/news/jk-rowling-transgender-tweets-people-angry-harry-potter-author-434826 iNews] {{tq|Harry Potter fans have voiced their disappointment with JK Rowling over a series of tweets about menstruation, gender and sex that some users have deemed transphobic.}} |
|||
::# [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557 BBC News] {{tq|Critics accused her of being transphobic, but Rowling said she stood by her comments, saying it "isn't hate to speak the truth".}} |
|||
::# [https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/19/21029852/jk-rowling-terf-transphobia-history-timeline Vox] {{tq|Now, in response to a significant UK court case, Rowling has provided what might be the ultimate, upsetting confirmation of her perceived transphobic leanings}} |
|||
::# [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jun/08/daniel-radcliffe-jk-rowling-transgender-tweets The Guardian] {{tq|Critics accused her of being transphobic, an allegation Rowling strongly denies.}} |
|||
::There is understandably less sources on this within UK media, due to the rather strong anti-transgender culture war currently happening in the UK. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 15:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Maybe remove the Metro as it is not considered a RS (a free daily mail offshoot). <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 16:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Done! I had no idea Metro was linked to the Daily Mail. Thanks! [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 16:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::<sup>It is better than its parents for being briefer and having less opinion and it has claimed a general neutral political stance <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 16:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)</sup> |
|||
:::This source pile does not support what you think it does. For one, the Forbes article is by a contributor and hence unreliable per [[WP:FORBESCON]]. The MSNBC article is an opinion piece and hence unreliable per [[WP:RSOPINION]]. As for the rest, they ''do not say she was "widely" criticized'' but attribute it to her critics. They almost all do not say she was transphobic in their own voice, so "by mainstream media" is not supported and hence POV OR. Lastly, these sources are not necessarily representative, and seem to have been cherry-picked specifically for using the word "transphobic". <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 17:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: [https://ew.com/celebrity/eddie-izzard-defends-j-k-rowling/ Entertainment Weekly], however, says in its lead paragraph that Rowling's comments {{tq|have widely been criticized as transphobic}}. [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/03/18/harry-potter-voldemort-actor-ralph-fiennes-j-k-rowling-comments/4745316001/ USA Today] refers to her {{tq|transphobic comments}} in its own editorial voice and [https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/books/2020/07/31/harry-potter-fans-grapple-j-k-rowling-transgender-remarks/5471834002/ says] that {{tq|Rowling continued to double down even after the posts were widely perceived as transphobic, misinformative and hurtful}}. [https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/09/jk-rowling-transphobia-new-novel-troubled-blood-controversy Vanity Fair] says that Cynthia Nixon {{tq|called out the Harry Potter author for her transphobic comments}} and refers, in its own editorial voice, to {{tq|her transphobic opinions}} and {{tq|her TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) logic}}. A mainstream Canadian [https://bc.ctvnews.ca/j-k-rowling-billboard-condemned-as-transphobic-and-removed-as-advocates-speak-out-1.5102493 news source] says in its lede that Rowling {{tq|has widely been accused of transphobia}}, and the [https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-06-09/daniel-radcliffe-jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-response LA Times] refers to {{tq|J.K. Rowling's tweets widely condemned as transphobic}} and also, in [https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2020-06-10/eddie-redmayne-condemns-jk-rowling-defends-transphobic-anti-tran another piece], to {{tq|her history of anti-trans comments}} and {{tq|her latest anti-trans tweets}} in its own editorial voice. [https://revuumagazine.com/2020/11/16/in-defence-of-cancel-culture/ This literary journal article] refers to her {{tq|transphobic comments}} and {{tq|transphobic tweets}} - these are all RS, and none are opinion sources. Et cetera, ad infinitum. Like it or not, this is a major strand in the coverage of Rowling over the last three years or so. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Another few sources to add. This time scholarly/scholarly adjacent. |
|||
:::::# [http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/blog/2020/10/20/terf-wars-2/ TERF Wars] Masters of Media, New Media & Digital Culture M.A, University of Amsterdam {{tq|Coming from the British environment of transphobia it is not unsurprising that [Rowling] has adopted this radical pseudo-feminist stance on trans rights. Although her tweets garnered great media attention this year this is not the first time she has tweeted or been associated with transphobic sentiments.}} |
|||
:::::# [https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/33114/ Terfism is White Distraction: On BLM, Decolonising the Curriculum, Anti-Gender Attacks and Feminist Transphobia.], Alyosxa Tudor, London School of Economics {{tq|This brings me to JK Rowling’s essay in which she defends her transphobic tweets.}} and {{tq|Do Rowling and other TERFs really believe that trans people and trans women in particular are a danger, a menace, a threat to others?}} and {{tq|How bored and annoyed must JK Rowling be that she thinks the perfect moment in which she can reheat her transphobic comments is the height of Black Lives Matter?}} |
|||
:::::# [https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/handle/123456789/11695 Alive but Cancelled: The Public’s Response to the Controversial Author], Fleur Heiltjes, master's thesis, Radboud University. While this thesis doesn't state the author's opinions on Rowling's commentary as far as I can see it does include an analysis of 120 non-opinion news articles, twenty opinion pieces made up of ten professional media and ten blogs, and reactions on social media, published in the days following Rowling's "People who menstruate" tweet in June 2020, that may be useful to the discussion here. |
|||
:::::{{re|Crossroads}} I would remind you to [[WP:AGF]] before you accuse multiple editors of [[WP:CHERRYPICKING]]. You may disagree with the weight of the evidence, but don't ascribe motive to other editor's contributions. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::(Crossroads can speak for himself very well if he chooses to.) Since this is your go-to finger-wag, as has been displayed in other discussions, you need to be reminded that WP:AGF is a guideline — not a policy. The mirror has two faces, and for you to assume that an editor's comments are not made in good faith shows that ''you'' need to be reminded to read the guideline. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 03:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Source 1 in your list is from a blog - it even has "blog" in the URL. Source 2 is described as "Opinion Pieces / Media / Blogs" and is from [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/gender/2020/06/19/terfism-is-white-distraction-on-blm-decolonising-the-curriculum-anti-gender-attacks-and-feminist-transphobia/ this blog]. Now I'll grant that since these are from institutional websites they aren't exactly like some random blogspot, but they are equivalent to [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion pieces]] at best. Source 3 is a master's thesis which is unreliable per [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Somebody ''pinged'' me in this discussion. What's the problem? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Awfully sorry, I should not have pinged you. I was just pointing out that it was you who suggested "don't mention anywhere in the lede" and used the "yo" template. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 19:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::No prob - Option D was available & I took it. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
These two sentences come right before a remarkably readable and clear statement of her positions (most of the rest of that paragraph). And they are in no way as clear or readable as those statements. At the least, it shouldn't come first. |
|||
Those adding 'Option D remove completely' should note there's an RfC '''immediately above this one''' that was snow-closed as "Keep mention in the lede but not the lead sentence." [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 17:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The RFC you mentioned, should've had the 'remove completely' option. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::So? Consensus can change, and invoking the previous discussion as if it were some sort of court ruling is irrelevant. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 06:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I do think it's important to be clear about at least some of the specific bills she opposes, since she does oppose specific bills and not just the general concept of gender self-recognition. But I also agree that sentence 3 should come first: we should say the general thing first, which is that she opposes gender self-recognition and then progress to more specific things she's said, like the specific bills she's opposed. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::What difference would that have made - only 2 people out of 18 suggested it wasn't suitable for the lede. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 18:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::The option was "Option A: Do not mention them in the lead sentence." - nothing about keeping any mention in the lede AFAICT... [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==Draft 8== |
|||
'''Note:''' Because it seems to be within the scope of the relevant WikiProjects, and they had not yet been notified as far as I could tell, I've just made notifications on [[WP:WPWW]], [[WP:WO]], [[WP:FEM]] and [[WP:LGBT]]. I don't know if there's any others that should be notified or not. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 00:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I'm starting to see consensus to go ahead and implement this, but it would be a pity to do so without Sandy's forthcoming commentary.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh jeez, there's gonna be a ''huge'' figurative crash up. Particularly if notified WikiProject members have conflicting views. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|GoodDay}} perhaps, perhaps not. But the content of this RfC is unquestionably within the remit of those projects. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::My 16+ years of experience, recommends we all strap on our figurative helmets. This BLP is quickly becoming a battleground for which group of editors views will prevail. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's been that way for over a year, GoodDay. This is why after the effective if not intentional canvassing mentioned above, I notified Village Pump, the BLP noticeboard, and wikiprojects on fiction and such, to get broader input in this RfC. It's been going on far too long that a pair of [[WP:FACTION]]s have been using this page as one of their [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]s. Those of us who are centrists on the underlying issues are tired of being caught in the constant crossfire. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 08:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force]]. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 04:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --> |
|||
::{{in5}}<small>Thanks; you beat me to a couple of those. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 08:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:I believe this means all this article's WikiProjects have now been notified. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 04:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::This is gonna be the most widely attended RFC in Wikipedia's 20-year history & increasingly, the most difficult to post in, due to its continuing growth. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's fine. The topically related VPPOL RfC about how to refer to Caitlyn Jenner back in the mid-2010s ended up turning into three RfCs and taking several months, as I recall, and it resulted in a lot of stabililty at MOS:GENDERID and at various trans-related articles. This particular thread isn't as much of a proxy for other related disputes as that one was, but it needs to be settled with a broad and firm consensus or disruption at this article will go on indefinitely. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 08:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks for notifying the other Wikiprojects. I suspected there were more, but I wasn't aware of an exhaustive list of them. Hence why I stated which ones I had notified, and left it open for someone or someones else to cover the gaps in my knowledge. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 03:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
'''More quotes from sources showing the variety of ways in which the situation is summarized''' in short overview sentences much like we would do for an article lead, and balancing out the sources selected above by showing it is often ''not'' saying "widely" and/or 'transphobia'. Note that this fact also applies to some of the sources quoted above. |
|||
*{{tq|Rowling's opinions on transgender issues in the last year have been a cause of controversy, with some in the LGBTQ community accusing her of transphobia.}} [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harry-potter-cast-reunite-20th-anniversary-tv-special-2021-11-16/ Reuters] |
|||
*{{tq|The author, who has been criticised for her views on trans issues}} [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-59372838 BBC News] |
|||
*{{tq|Rowling caused a social media storm last year after she shared her opinions on Twitter and months later wrote a lengthy personal essay on transgender issues, and some in the LGBTQ community accused her of transphobia.}} [https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/11/17/harry-potter-20-reunion-jk-rowling/ Washington Post] |
|||
*{{tq|Rowling has attracted criticism for her views on gender identity}} [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/downing-street-jk-rowling-prime-minister-twitter-trans-b967661.html Evening Standard] |
|||
*{{tq|The author of the Harry Potter books, who has been the subject of death threats since voicing her views on the importance of biological sex...Rowling, 56, caused controversy last year when she published a 3,700-word essay on why she was concerned about children being encouraged to transition and the tension between women’s rights and trans rights.}} [https://archive.md/stsuY The Times] |
|||
*{{tq|JK Rowling...her controversial statement on trans and women’s rights}} [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/nov/22/eddie-redmayne-playing-a-trans-character-in-the-danish-girl-was-a-mistake The Guardian] |
|||
*{{tq|In a series of tweets in June, Rowling said she supported trans rights but did not believe in “erasing” the concept of biological sex. Rowling said she refused to “bow down” to a movement seeking “to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it.” Actors from the Harry Potter franchise, including Daniel Radcliffe, have previously criticized the author.}} [https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-lifestyle-europe-58c2513e756215577fd4764516740a8b AP News] |
|||
*{{tq|While the writer has been under scrutiny by trans activists since 2019...The recent tweets are the latest in an ongoing series of offenses and defenses about her views on gender.}} [https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jk-rowling-says-threats-trans-activists-203717514.html Yahoo Entertainment] |
|||
*{{tq|J.K. Rowling, who has faced backlash and fallout over her comments about transgender people}} [https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/harry-potter-cast-reunite-films-20th-anniversary-rcna5730 NBC News] |
|||
*{{tq|Rowling's controversial tweets about gender identity, which some labeled as transphobic}} [https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/entertainment/harry-potter-special/index.html CNN] |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
<span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC) <small>added 5 more <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Draft 8.2: 407 words |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Draft 8.3, with extra paragraph: 444 words |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Historical: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1202117364#Transgender_people 429 words] |
|||
|- |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
:This is useful. Option E, so? [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 11:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* Since we don't want use other encyclopedias as a benchmark, let's take a look at [[Elvis Presley|this]] internal source (a FA, no less, with a related [[Cultural impact of Elvis Presley]] page with a subsection "Danger to American culture"). Here's a man who caused moral outrage, facing widespread accusations(!) of being a danger to young women, corruption of young people, undermining racial "stability"(!), being a danger to the security of the United States, and the "personification of evil"(!). And how does Wikipedia summarize this notable widespread criticism in the lede for this subversive and dangerous individual? "Initial controversy." And he's not even alive! (so they say...) [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 14:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elvis_Presley&oldid=345968878 Elvis version] promoted to featured article status, there's a one line description in the lead of his controversy. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 14:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::That would probably be the equivalent of something like, "her views on transgender issues have been controversial", which I suggested a variation of, with minimal support, at a previous RfC. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 14:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::: {{re|Tewdar}} I'm sure you understand the difference between someone being controversial because they challenged the status quo (in the 1950's), and someone being controversial for their views on minority communities (today), so I hope you can see how your example isn't very relevant and doesn't really contribute much to this discussion. —<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd><sup> [ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span> 14:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::: Nope, I totally disagree. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't say much about Elvis controversies, because they occurred in the 50s and YOULIKEIT, but we should say a great deal about Rowling controversies, because they are happening now and YOUDON'TLIKEIT. Isn't this the very definition of RECENTISM and POV? Please explain. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 15:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::: Surely we should base our treatment on how recent, reliable sources treat each of these issues? Or hasn't that occurred to you? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::: All of the very utmost highest quality premium reliable scholarly and popular biographies of Elvis continue to provide significant coverage of the extreme controversies that Elvis was part of back in the 50s and 60s. And yet "initial controversy" is all he gets in his lede. He hasn't been up to much lately, though, so perhaps that's why. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 15:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::: {{re|Tewdar}} My main point was actually that there is a difference between challenging the status quo and existing power structures and having controversial views on minority people. But that part you seem to have conveniently ignored. —<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd> <sup>[ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span> 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::: {{yo|CupOfTea696}} Wikipedia doesn't give two hoots whether a BLP subject is {{tq|challenging the status quo and existing power structures}} or has {{tq|controversial views on minority people}}, because that's just WP:YOULIKEIT vs WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. If you had a point, I'm not sure what it is exactly. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Od}}As with many of the recent, reliable sources on which it depends, norms at Wikipedia do actually distinguish much of the time between what the kids call "punching up" and "punching down". If you are at loggerheads with community norms - as many frustrated editors are - it might be healthier for you to contribute to an encyclopaedia that more closely aligns wirh your values. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Not convinced that you understand either my point or my values. My point was that a BLP subject's controversies will be covered in WP according to whether they are ''notable'', not according to whether they "punch up" or "punch down". As for my values, Gnome has cautioned me to be neutral, but let's just say I'm not exactly Rowling's biggest fan. You don't see me trying to remove Stock's "harmful rhetoric" from her lede, do you? Oh yeah, I forgot, ''I wrote that part!!!'' [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 20:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: I was objecting to your {{tq|Wikipedia doesn't give two hoots}}, which doesn't reflect current Wikipedia values. We simply do cover the two kinds of controversies differently, largely because the sources do, and we also treat them differently outside of article space. I wasn't extrapolating about your values beyond that statement you made. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
Continuing from the list of sources that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=1057426111&oldid=1057425370 Santacruz] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=1057428685&oldid=1057428644 I provided] previously, it seems as though J. K. was tweeting again yesterday, and this has been picked up by the media. |
|||
Rowling has [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical]] views.{{sfn|Whited|2024|loc= p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'."}}{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|loc= pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs"}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|loc= pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)"}} She opposes the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the [[Equality Act 2010]] in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} and suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} In April 2024, responding to [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021|Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act]], she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".<ref name=Brooks2024>{{cite news |last1=Brooks |first1=Libby |title=JK Rowling’s posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/03/jk-rowling-comments-scotland-non-crime-hate-incident |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 April 2024 |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> |
|||
:# [https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jk-rowling-new-trans-war-25683438 Daily Record] {{tq|Harry Potter author JK Rowling has become embroiled in a new trans row following comments from a top Scottish cop.}} |
|||
:# [https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/j-k-rowling-faces-backlash-for-sharing-another-anti-trans-tweet/ US Magazine] {{tq|Not staying quiet. J.K. Rowling faced backlash from social media users after sharing another controversial tweet about trans women.}} |
|||
:# [https://www.themarysue.com/anne-rice-support-trans-fans/ The Mary Sue] {{tq|After More Rowling Transphobia, Internet Remembers Anne Rice Supporting Trans Fans}} and {{tq|J.K. Rowling’s determination to constantly choose violence against the trans community was continued over the weekend, when she posted more anti-trans propaganda while referencing George Orwell’s 1984.}} |
|||
:# [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/harry-potter-jk-rowling-transphobic-terf-b1974984.html The Independent] {{tq|Social media users are criticising JK Rowling for posting a new “transphobic” tweet.}} |
|||
:# [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-attacks-orwellian-transgender-rape-policy-hxs7mw76h The Times] {{tq|JK Rowling has reopened the row on gender after characterising as “Orwellian” a police policy in which a rape can be recorded as being committed by a woman if the attacker “identifies as a female”.}} |
|||
There may be more to add to this list later, as the articles are still being published. While this particular example certainly fits the bill for [[WP:RECENTISM]] as the tweet in question was made a little over 24 hours ago, it certainly shows that Rowling is not going to stop tweeting anti-trans words any time soon. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: But surely if we cover our eyes ''and'' plug our ears ''at the same time'', we can ignore the issue until after we're dead? [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Like I said elsewhere on this page. No matter what result this RFC reaches, the trans section of this article is going to continue growing. If we vote to exclude this from the lead now, we're going to be here again in six months, with exactly the same RFC, and yet more evidence for inclusion. She's been at it for two years now. I wonder at what point our current D voters who decided on recentism will finally flip. Because I don't see her stepping away from this postion anytime soon. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 19:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: If that is the trajectory, I hope the ''Politics of'' material has been trimmed and collapsed into the main article by then, in line with the WEIGHT of the sources, because that split/fork has produced some of the most pointless digressions in what would always have even a somewhat "diffuse" discussion. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Regarding this specific incident, a lot of celebrities constantly are in the news for every little thing they say. But we have [[WP:NOTNEWS|a policy]] telling us we don't need every little bit of ephemeral drama like this. |
|||
::And ''The Mary Sue'', really?? "Constantly choose violence"? Obvious sensational trash and literal fake news. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I mean it's a minor source on an even more minor incident. Did you expect the washington post to cover this? What this demonstrates is that this is very much a continuing thing that Rowling is doing that just is not going to change. The point me, sideswipe, and newimpartial made here is that this ''will continue''. It's a ''trend''. This specific incident doesn't really matter. Sideswipe doesn't appear to be arguing for inclusion, neither do I, or Newimpartial. What matters is that these incidents ''continue to add up''. This trend has been going for two, three years now. When, you think, will the people who currently stick their heads in the sand finally admit that this is part of her brand now? --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 12:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: [[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] has it right. I'm not aruging for inclusion of this new material. Of course I recognise [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. I'm using those recent sources as evidence of a trend in behaviour that Rowling is showing no signs of changing. While I could have linked the tweet directly, we do prefer secondary sources here. Hence the selection above. |
|||
:::: As for The Mary Sue, there is no consensus on whether they are or are not unreliable per their entry on [[WP:RSP]]. The last discussion on it was in 2016 though and is marked as stale. So while that may have changed they aren't for the moment considered unreliable except in the same way The Daily Mail, or The Sun would be. If you feel they are a promoter of {{tq|obvious sensational trash and literal fake news}} you're of course more than welcome to start a discussion at [[WP:RSN]]. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 13:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Now that you mention it, I feel like it needs explaining that "chooses violence" is a bit of a [[neologism]] for "not evading discource". They're not claiming she's literally fighting people in the streets, just that she's choosing to start/stir up/continue a conflict. "loaded language" yeah probably. "Literal fake news" not so much.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 13:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: Crossroads, this seems to be the same blind spot for pop culture that has troubled you before with ''PinkNews'' - making a pop culture reference simply cannot be interpreted (by a [[WP:CIR|competent]] reader) as {{tq|literal fake news}}. "Choosing violence" is a reference to [[Game of Thrones]] (and the character who utters the line Cersei, happens to he the role that most fans would be most likely to cast Rowling in, if given the chance). You can say what you want about ''TheMarySue'' and its pop culture references, but it is silly to call them "literal fake news". [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 13:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====Bludgeoning of D-preference editors==== |
|||
I'm noticing that ''many'' editors who've chosen '''Option D''', are being constantly questioned about their choice. This amounts to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] & I wish it would stop. PS - If anything, such browbeating will only make one 'more determined' to stick to their option choice. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: Well, to be fair, previous Talk page discussions and RfCs had concluded, for almost a year, that the last three years of controversies (covered in media and scholarship about Rowling) were DUE for inclusion in the lead. It may therefore have been unexpected by the RfC creator that this issue would become the focus of this RfC. If it had been anticipated, presumably the question "should these controversies be discussed somewhere in the lead?" would have been asked prior to the rather more specific question that was posed. And many of the "Option D" !votes have been ill-informed and/or void of a basis in policy, even more so than is usual in RfCs. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::There was no previous RfC on this matter, let alone "RfCs" plural. And this RfC clearly already has far higher attendance than any past discussion on this page. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 02:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, they are being questioned because they are avoiding answering this RfC and instead are rehashing the previous RfC. I don't think anyone is changing their mind from already quite determined to "more determined". They were already there. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 19:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:When one holds an unpopular opinion, then challenges are to be expected. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 19:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry but "popularity" of inadequately [[WP:V|supported]] opinions here holds very little water. A proposal might have many "fans" and thus be "popular" and then promptly get defenestrated. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 19:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: [[Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]] If editors argue a point, other editors are allowed to respond to their reasoning in good faith. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 20:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Also, you're clogging up the 'survey' subsection. Those 'discussions/challenges' are suppose to take place in the 'discussion' subsection. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: Given that some of the contributors are explicitly here because of {{re|p=|SMcCandlish}}'s notification, and the notification that they posted was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Literature&diff=1057506856&oldid=1057506494 not neutral] and arguably non policy compliant in multiple ways, I would not consider it browbeating or bludgeoning to challenge questionable opinions. If anything, it should be the default. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: Wow that notification wasn't even trying to be subtle in its motivations, was it? —<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd><sup> [ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span> 12:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{re|CupOfTea696}} Yeah. It's definitely regrettable that one of the standard neutral templates for that set of notifications, for which there were 9 in total, was not used. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Deleting the sentence is not even an option in this questionable RFC. None of the comments that call for the deletion of the material have any kind of policy-based rationale, and such comments should be completely disregarded, and it is reasonable to point that out. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 05:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
:I'm not familiar with the history here. Where is the prior RfC? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 23:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]],{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6–8}} whose [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|Forstater's employment contract was not renewed]] after she shared gender-critical views.{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=230}} In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} According to ''Harry Potter'' scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} In June 2020,{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} Rowling mocked the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=14–15}}{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} |
|||
::{{u|Springee}}, it is right above the FAR section in this talk page, caalled "RfC on lead sentence" for reference you can also see the discussion that happened in the section above that. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 08:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::That RfC was SNOW closed as not in lead sentence. That only means we have a clear consensus that this content should not be in the opening sentence of the article. That RfC does not say the content should be anywhere in the lead as it didn't ask that question. Is there a RfC that actually asks if this content should be in the lead at all? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 12:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am not sure if the was an RfC but the have been multiple previous discussions [[Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 8#Transgender views controversy in lead redux]], [[Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9#Should we mention the controversy over her remarks on trans people in the lead paragraph?]], [[Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9#Lede sentence rewrite]] that ended in consensus. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 13:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm not at all surprised there were prior discussions. However, a number of editors are saying this is an invalid or poorly scoped RfC because of prior RfCs. Talk page consensus is always a good starting point but isn't always a good finish since it's not uncommon for the local page to be dominated by a few motivated voices vs a larger view that uninvolved editors may provide. Note that absent reviewing the prior discussions I can't say if that was the case here. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:'''No more than in the politics article''': The article [[Politics of J.K. Rowling]] contains two lines in the lede on her trans-related views, along with various party political and referendum declarations. None of these views should be more represented on the main article than on the specific Politics article. [[User:Munci|Munci]] ([[User talk:Munci|talk]]) 05:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Munci}}If this was intended as a !vote, it is currently in the wrong section. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Newimpartial}} Thank you for clarifying. I shall copy it above. [[User:Munci|Munci]] ([[User talk:Munci|talk]]) 04:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|GoodDay}} They're being questioned because they either didn't provide any motivation, or because their arguments for omission don't hold up. It's not unreasonable to question arguments that don't make sense. <span style="white-space: nowrap">—<span style="color:#666"><kbd>{{u|</kbd>[[User:CupOfTea696|'''CupOfTea'''<small>696</small>]]<kbd>}}</kbd><sup> [ [[User talk:CupOfTea696|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/CupOfTea696|contribs]] ]</sup></span></span> 12:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: :{{ping|CupOfTea696}} Here, let me fix that for you: "They're being questioned whether or not they provided any motivation, or because their arguments for omission don't agree with ours. It's our intent to question arguments that don't make sense, in our blinkered opinions." Please don't pretend that Xxanthippe, SMcCandlish, Springee, Tewdar, Pyxis Solitary, Only in death does duty end, Cavalryman, Dennis Brown, MelanieN, Calton, GreenC, Alexbrn, Russ Woodroofe, Blueboar, Anomie, Daveosaurus didn't set forth their rationales.<p>Seriously, '''sixteen editors''' get hammered, and you're pushing the narrative that there's no bludgeoning here? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 14:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: To be fair, several of these editors have made POV edits in the past, on trans-related issues, that are not backed by policy; some of them have launched [[WP:NPA|attacks]] on trans and nonbinary editors on Wikipedia fora (sometimes while insisting that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_racist,_I_have_black_friends have trans friends]), and a number of them in fact ''have not'' set out any policy-compliant rationales in this discussion; [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is not a policy-compliant rationale. Does this mean all these !votes should be ignored by the closer? No, it doesn't, but it does give rise to some deserved skepticism, and it is not unreasonable to query when editors appear to be making !votes without reference to policy - and in this case, seemingly without having even read the lead of the article the RfC is on, in a number of instances. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::And, to be fair, exactly the opposite could be said about POV edits in the past, on trans-related issues, that are not backed by policy. ''Not'' bludeoning people would take a lot of heat out of the situation, and the bludeoning policy does not give any guidelines that suggest people who have been active in discussions on related topics are somehow open to being bludgeoned. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 15:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I don't agree that questioning inaccurate, misleading or policy-tangential statements in !votes, on a bespoke basis, counts as [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. On the other hand, composing a misleading notification and posting it to multiple pages does strike me as a fairly serious behavioural violation, particularly when it casts ungrounded [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] at another editor. But evidently, not all editors agree about the relevant norms. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I see no monopoly from either side of the argument in posting inaccurate, misleading or policy-tangential statements, but I ''do'' see people !voting for one option being bludgeoned: that is not conducive to reasonable discussion. |
|||
::::::The 'aspersions' point is a behavioural issue that should be addressed to ANI for further action, complete with any diffs or other evidence. It does not mean people should be bludgeoned here. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: When editors arrive here to !vote without reading any of the evidence, being familiar with the relevant policies ''or even having read the lead the RfC is about'', I don't see why replies to those !votes should be construed as BLUDGEON. As far as I can tell, these editors are typically not present to participate in {{tq|reasonable discussion}} but to express a pre-judgment they have made about an issue without having either gathered evidence or examined reasoning about the factors relevsnt here. Frankly, the previous (sometimes divisive) discussions about the lead were of higher quality than many of the !votes here, which amount to ''J K Rowling is known as the Harry Potter author'': as if that point has anything to do with the lead in either its current or any imaginable amended form. Reiterating an irrelevant point does not contribute to {{tq|reasonable discussion}} in any way I can see. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Do you have any proof that editors don't read the evidence or know the policies? Are you sure that those voting for other choices ''have'' read the evidence and know the policies? You can't '''know''' the position of any of the others, so you really can't justify the bludgeoning; as always on WP, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Leave it to the closing admin to weigh the comments and decide the balance of the consensus - that's what they are there for and some of them are fairly good at it. Bludgeoning leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth and only ramps up the heat, without providing any light. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 15:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: The argument I paraphrased in italics makes no sense in the context of this article's actual lead section. So I AGF, supposing that those making said argument have not read said section. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|several of these editors have made POV edits in the past, on trans-related issues, that are not backed by policy; some of them have launched [[WP:NPA|attacks]] on trans and nonbinary editors on Wikipedia fora}}. Wow. Talk about [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I have linked an example of the former, above, im response to a !vote, and others have noted the personal attack embedded in the non-neutral notification that seems to have brought many editors to this discussion, which is an example of the latter. If your issue concerns my use of the plural, I can produce other diffs on request, but would rather keep that to my personal Talk page since they would be off-topic here. But I have made factual statements that are easily demonstrated to be true, not cast ASPERSIONS, nor am I making claims without having any evidence at hand as some editors make a habit of doing. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Let folks chose the option they wish & leave'em alone. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: GoodDay, this is supposed to be a determination of consensus based on WP policies and reliable sources; it is not a pizzeria. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::You're annoying editors who've chosen an option that you oppose. Relax & let the process continue forward. When the RFC is closed, an uninvolved editor(s), preferably an administrator will make a decision & we'll <u>all</u> respect that decision, no matter what it is. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: If I am annoying anyone, it is not by design. And I am holding out some hope for a panel of three admin to close this one; the recent "death by communism" AfD close was quite well done. Maybe those folks will be available lol. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Let's hope that the chosen triumvirate are as far-removed from this topic area as possible. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 19:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::: {{re|FormalDude}} and myself have already made contributions on this over at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:J._K._Rowling#RFC_on_how_to_include_her_trans-related_views_(and_backlash)_in_the_lead Closure requests]. Feel free to add your voices in support over there. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|:::::::::::}} Just have. Thanks {{u|FormalDude}} for listing it there, much appreciated. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 20:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Well that's rather comical. A subthread titled "Bludgeoning of D-preference editors", and look who the first to respond is lol I think one should take a hint. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red">''<sup>2</sup>''</span>]].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: blue">'''''O'''''</span>]].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red"><sup>''Boxing''</sup></span>]] 00:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* Mm, I was away for a couple days for a relative's funeral, so I fell behind in responses. So, for {{replyto|Newimpartial}} ... sorry, I call [[WP:BULLSHIT|bullshit]]. Strange though it may seem to you, editors can and have disagreed on what constitutes "inaccurate, misleading or policy-tangential statements," and there is '''zero''' scope on Wikipedia to exempt yourself from the norms of civil and productive debate on the premise that you don't think the other guy's arguments hold water. There's also a catchphrase I use as a .sig that bears repeating: it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that I don't ''agree'' with what you're saying. It is damn arrogant to claim that failure to agree with you here must mean that the voters are ignorant of the facts,≥ ignorant of the relevant policies or are casting knee-jerk votes. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 03:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** You can call whatever you want, and call it CIVIL if you like, but I haven't {{tq|exempt}}ed myself {{tq|from the norms of civil and productive debate on the premise that (I) don't think the other guy's arguments hold water}}. I haven't been unCIVIL or violated Talk page norms (although I have been the recipient of multiple unCIVIL comments here). Nor have I replied to most of the !votes with which I disagree - only the ones that did in my view rely on "inaccurate, misleading or tangential statements", like all the editors who clearly haven't read the lead ''section'' they were voting on, and the editors who are clearly refusing to read the RS on the topic at hand. If you believe that these issues are out of scope for the RfC, then that is your view, but please don't mistake mine. |
|||
** To be absolutely clear, I have never said or suggested that {{tq|failure to agree with (me)here must mean that the voters are ignorant of the facts}} - I have left alone all of the Option D votes that seemed to be based on policy or where other editors have raises the relevant issues already, and also ignored the pure parrot !votes as best I could. I only responded to what I can only read as arguments articulated either out of ignorance of facts or policy - mostly the argument that "Rowling is best known for Harry Potter" which, while true, has ''no policy-based relevance to this RfC''. |
|||
** The current lead section, which mentions the transgender controversies, is clear that Rowling is best known for Harry Potter, and so do all conceivable implementations of all the RfC options. What is more, the current lead and all conceivable alternatives to it ''also provide more information about Rowling, beyond her Harry Potter authorship''. The intended question for this RfC was supposed to be, how can we meet BALANCE, DUE, and NPOV requirements as we incorporate the reliably sourced information on this article's topic into the lead section. I simply do not understand how editors who refuse to read this article and its sources - or even the lead section - can hope to help answer this question. But here they are, !voting and hoping to "win" the day by head count rather than policy-based argument. The situation is absurd, and while I don't assume that everyone who sees the situation differently is {{tq|casting knee-jerk votes}}, some editors demonstrably are. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 04:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*** Really. Well. Suppose you identify the editors you claim to have not read the article or are hoping to "win" the day via head count, and the basis for your claim. Me, I have no idea, but I don't pretend to be a mindreader. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 16:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**** I believe I have been specific enough in my <s>BLUDGEON</s> ''detailed'' comments, above. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*****Perhaps yourself and your Bludgeon Buddies could indicate which of the Option D votes above are well-argued enough to be taken into account by the closing admins? Or is the answer "none of them"? 🤔 [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 17:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****** The answer, of course, is: ''the closer(s) will decide that''. But it would be an act of sheerest optimism to expect closers to take into account points that have not actually been made in the discussion. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****** Newimpartial is, of course, correct: the closer(s) will decide. I would trust, too, that the closers are cognisant of the fact that [[WP:NOTABILITY]] does not apply to the contents of an article; [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:BALASP]], however, do. And we do have a ''lot'' of 'D' preferences saying "Not notable for this." But when mainstream newspapers are speculating that the reason she didn't appear in ''Return to Hogwarts'' is because of her views on transgender issues (see [https://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/celebrity/jk-rowling-opted-not-to-appear-in-harry-potters-return-to-hogwarts-reunion-special/ar-AASiUJT?ocid=msedgntp here], [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/harry-potter-reunion-jk-rowling-b1984199.html here], [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2021/12/28/harry-potter-20th-anniversary-return-hogwarts-review-jk-rowling/ here] and a good roundup [https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59816888 here], for example), I think we've established beyond all reasonable doubt that coverage is warranted. (Not sure where I stand on the [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/quidditch-set-to-change-name-in-jk-rowling-trans-row-bmb5k5gwq renaming] of [https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59726281 Quidditch], myself, though... 🤔) [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 10:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
=====Response count===== |
|||
After seeing the slightly excessive discussion my response provoked, I was curious how much of this conversation had been dominated by just a few voices, so I got a list of the top ten editors on this page, and counted the number of separate comments they had made in this RfC. Of the ten, five had made few or no responses to this discussion, so I did not include them. The number in parenthesis is the response count once responses in that single "slightly excessive discussion" have been omitted. |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
|+ Caption text |
|||
|- |
|||
! Editor !! Comment count (3 December) !! Comment count (15 December) |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]]|| 71 (64) || 83 (76) |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[User:Bodney|Bodney]]|| 19 || 25 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[User:Crossroads|Crossroads]]|| 16 || 20 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]]|| 46 (24) || 47 (25) |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[User:A. C. Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]]|| 36 (33) || 39 (36) |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]]|| ? || 17 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]]|| ? || 22 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]]|| ? || 30 |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]]|| ? || 21 |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
For Bodney and Crossroads, this is relatively small and makes up only a small fraction of their their overall posts on this page, but for the others listed, could I suggest that you refrain from commenting further on this discussion and not risk bludgeoning it to death? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 21:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC) <small>Expanded for various reasons to the top 30 editors with more than 15 comments in this discussion; see below for details. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 17:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:<small>I will note that I was asked to add a column regarding the number of comments in the "survey" section, rather than in the entire discussion. This has merit, as posts outside this section as less likely to be problematic, and for some editors, particularly GoodDay, almost all of their posts are outside this section. However, I haven't found myself with time to do so, and so instead I've chosen to leave this note. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 22:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC) </small> |
|||
:You're right, I'm hereby retiring from that discussion, this RfC, and the entire topic area. Please, nobody ping me to this discussion or any like it ever again. Bye. [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 22:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Apologies for the ping [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] despite the content of the post I am replying to, but I wanted to apologize if the table made you feel targeted, and say that I don't think retiring entirely is necessary; while your contributions did contribute to the excessive size of these discussions, and I do think it is time to step back from this discussion, I would note that the number is significantly reduced when we exclude the outlier discussion from the count, and of the rest I would note that I did observe that they were typically in reply to one of the other users listed here, rather than a direct reply to a !vote. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 22:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Newimpartial}} I was going to ask you (in light of the more recent comments) if you could stop the "bludgeoning of D-preference editors", but I see BilledMammal has already made the same case as me... Got the message? On top of that, {{tq|you have apparently read the lead section and at least some of this article, which places you well ahead of the zombie hordes, even though I doubt you have read any of the sources on the controversy judging by your comments above}} is demeaning (by implying other editors are incompetent "zombie hordes") and out of line (per the usual guidelines which prohibit personal attacks and uncivility of any kind, and instead favour discussing content and not contributors). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 17:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: Irrespective of what some editors may have done, I don't see any way a table like this or its attendant comments (which I happen to mostly agree with) are appropriate to this discussion, or this page, given [[WP:TALK#COC|what a talk page is for]], which as RC already noted above, is about [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Focus on content|discussing content]]. In the unlikely event an uninvolved editor wanders by here, I certainly think they'd be justified in [[WP:TPO|collapsing]] this entire subsection, which I would do myself as off-topic, out of process, and contrary to [[WP:TALK|Talk page guidelines]], were I not involved. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 19:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
::I have no problem with the table. It provides knowledge. As for the comment by [[User:RandomCanadian]]: we need transparency and we all need to know who we're dealing with in this (and any other) discussion. "Humor" is often a means to disguise hostility, and can be used as a tool for demeaning others and hiding personal animosity. Whether an aggressive comment is served as humor or as an unmistakable insult, everyone should be reminded of where the line is crossed: |
|||
Rowling's views have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
::* [[WP:CIVIL]] > {{green|Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, they very probably don't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping.}} |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
::* [[WP:IUC]] > {{green|(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.}} <br /> {{green|(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say....}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> She has been the target of widespread condemnation,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} insults, and threats, including death threats.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}}<ref name=Burnell4June>{{Cite news|last=Burnell|first=Paul|date=4 June 2024|title= Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o |access-date= 9 June 2024}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/><ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref><ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
::* [[WP:NOPA]] > {{green|Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.}} <br /> {{green|Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.}} <br /> {{green|Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.}} |
|||
::* [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] > accusing others/another {{green|of misbehavior ... without reasonable cause ... without evidence ... to besmirch reputations}}.) |
|||
::* [[WP:HARASS]] > {{green|singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.}} <br /> {{green|placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors....}} <br /> [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 08:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Pointing out hostility (or any other editor behavioral problem) is perfectly fine, as are any of the points you list above, as long as they are on the appropriate page, which is a User talk page. None of them are okay here, because they in no way tend to improve the [[J. K. Rowling]] article, which is the only thing this page is for. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 20:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Shedding light on the behavior of some participants may improve the discussion overall. That doesn't mean that it cannot be followed by a request on a user talk page for her/him/they to stop the behavior. And if an editor has an AN/I history of reprimands, editing restrictions, topic bans, etc., it may prove to be helpful in the future to have diffs about an editor's behavior in this discussion. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 04:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Concur with Pyxis. When one or a handful of editors is derailing a discussion, it's perfectly normal to bring that up in the discussion and ask that the behavior cease. It's a good idea to make such a request at the editor's talk page, too, of course. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 12:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I think the ''comment count'' table, needs updating. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Done. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Bastun]]; I've got no objection to you adding additional names to the table, but when doing so could you please state that you did so, so that the additions aren't mistakenly attributed to me? I would also ask that if you are going to add names to the table, you do so systematically rather than choosing individuals to look into. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: I assumed Bastun was responding to GoodDay's request for an update, above. And it seems that GoodDay has passed Crossroads in the league table, and is closing in on Bodney. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 13:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Does that mean Crossroads and Bodney are gonna get relegated? — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 13:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: As they were only on the list as the systematic method used to generate it resulted in their names being checked, and their counts were and are low enough that they aren't an issue compared to the size of this discussion, you could put it that way. |
|||
::::: I mention this because the systematic method is important, as it allows us to consider the impact on the discussion without focusing on the individuals involved, and so I would ask that if editors feel the need to expand the list, they do so systematically. Looking at the [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:J._K._Rowling#top-editors top 15 editors] would be an appropriate way to choose whose comments to count, as it would include all individuals currently on the list. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I notice when looking at my own edits that it seems to be counting all edits I ever made on this page, rather than just the ones in this discussion. How are you filtering for that?--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I used that list to find determine which editors to count the comments of; I then did the counting manually. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 14:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hopefully there's some sort of Champions League for the top <s>w</s>(r)ankers. :D /s <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 18:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: To be dispassionate for a moment, I actually expect to be taken out in the qualifying round by a strong BLUDGEONer from the "Death by Communism" AfD. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Oh yes, those are some scary opponents. They have too much experience discussing and providing sources to not be favorites, compared to this thread where uh... few sources came up from one of the sides. Who knows, maybe you get an upset victory. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I can only hope to prevent them from scoring, grind them down and win on penalties. Bloody commies. :) [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
To be honest I'm not sure what value this table has within this discussion. Surely if anyone is seriously bludgeoning the issue would be discussed in the proper noticeboards or in that user's talk page.<span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 13:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling denies being transphobic.<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= Dismisses>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy' |date= 22 February 2023|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}}<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title=J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} |
|||
:::Sorry, I acted before thinking. Note added above, now. I've also added myself. My count done manually, is just in this RfC section, and omits comments that were !votes. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 14:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::No worries. While I appreciate your efforts in expanding the list, I've deleted the three names you added for now; I don't believe there is a systematic method of adding the names you have chosen, and any systematic method that would include all the names you have added would make for a very long list. (To point out one of the issues with not using a systematic method, you missed the fourth highest comment count). |
|||
::::I also don't think that the issues this table was created to draw attention to have expanded beyond the table, given that outside of three of the names on the list there are no significant outliers when it comes to comment count, and while that holds true I don't see any benefit in expanding it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 16:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::And with all due respect, I've re-added the names. This section was started by someone complaining about the alleged bludgeoning of process by people commenting excessively. Given your own comments in the whole section, the numbers of edits by editor were added (presumably) to back up (or refute) that assertion. I believe it's of relevance that the edit counts of other editors is now surpassing those originally included in the table. If you'd prefer, by all means, let me know, and I'll add a new, separate table to yours. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 16:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The two lowest were included only because the systematic method I used required them to be included; I felt it wasn't appropriate for me to be selecting who to include based on a non-neutral criteria, though I did note that their comment counts were {{tq|relatively small}} and thus didn't include them in the three I suggested might want to step back. If you do choose to create a new table, then please feel free to do so in your own comment, though I would suggest you also use a neutral method to select who to include. For now, I've reverted my comment to how it was before other editors made their good faith edits. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 17:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I've reluctantly expanded the table. I checked the [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:J._K._Rowling?editorlimit=200 top 30] editors to this page, and included them if they had made more than 15 comments in this discussion. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 17:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Thank you. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 17:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I think my place in WikiTalk Champions League is fairly secure, based on my Shield performance, and at least I seem safe from relegation. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::<sup>I demand a recount!!! and Q: when does the editor transfer season start? <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 18:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC) </sup> |
|||
:::::::::: Given the amount of socking going on, I think the transfer season for WikiTalk never ends. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} I'm looking forward to the [[WP:CANVASS|winter break transfer market]], perhaps [[WP:SOCK|other teams will promote some academy players before then]]. We'll see /s <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 19:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
====Clarify what option D is?==== |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
In light of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=1057843117&oldid=1057842991 this diff] by {{re|力}}, could we clarify in the survey options what '''D''' actually is? With the exception of {{re|Always forever}} who clarified [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1057460663 here] that they do not support the option D as proposed by {{re|GoodDay|SMcCandlish}} but has yet to update their survey response, all other commentors who support D do so for the "delete from lead" option as far as I can tell. I don't think it would be too disruptive to change D to the version that either GoodDay or SMcCandlish has proposed, and either add on an option F for other, or just not mention it at all. If there are other contributors that have ambiguosly voted for D, I'd propose pinging them and letting them know of the clarification made since they contributed. Thoughts? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 00:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Option D, has to be -delete entirely from the lead-, in order for the RFC to be unbiased. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm happy with that formulation or the "Leave it out completely." or "Leave it out." as you and SMcCandlish stated in your initial survey responses. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::FWIW - I wouldn't object to the transphobia stuff being deleted from the entire article, however. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::That is somewhere between a can of worms and a Pandora's box best left unopened for now I think. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::And we'd need at least a short [[WP:SUMMARY]] left behind since there's a split-off article about it. Just how it works. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's in no way surprising, GD. But we won't be removing entirely [[WP:DUE|due]] content that's backed to multiple reliable sources. Insert links to usual policies and guidelines here, including NPOV, WP is not censored, Righting Great Wrongs, etc. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 10:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"That's in no way surprising", whatever. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I changed my vote above to avoid causing any confusion, thanks for letting me know {{re|Sideswipe9th}}. [[User:Always forever|<b><span style="color:DarkTurquoise">always forever</span></b>]] ([[User talk:Always forever|talk]]) 01:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Sideswipe9th, thanks for your advocacy here. I went ahead and changed Option D. {{yo|A. C. Santacruz}} as part of the edit, I moved your signed 'Other' option to Option F, and I hope that's okay. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 03:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Kudos to ''me'', for balancing the RFC ;) [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
====Merging Politics of J. K. Rowling back into this article==== |
|||
Rowling has [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical]] views.{{sfn|Whited|2024|loc= p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'."}}{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|loc= pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs"}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|loc= pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)"}} She opposes the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the [[Equality Act 2010]] in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} and suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} In April 2024, responding to [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021|Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act]], she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".<ref name=Brooks2024>{{cite news |last1=Brooks |first1=Libby |title=JK Rowling’s posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/03/jk-rowling-comments-scotland-non-crime-hate-incident |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 April 2024 |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
Adding a sub discussion for this, as it's a point I've seen raised a few times above, though it may work better as a fully separate subsection away from the RfC so feel free to move if needed. |
|||
Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]],{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6–8}} whose [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|Forstater's employment contract was not renewed]] after she shared gender-critical views.{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=230}} In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} According to ''Harry Potter'' scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} In June 2020,{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} Rowling mocked the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=14–15}}{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
A few editors have proposed the potential of merging [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]], along with the requisite trimming and removal of duplicate information. While I'm not opposed to the principle, I am concerned about the practice. [[WP:SIZESPLIT]] has some guidelines for when you may want to consider splitting an article. When an article is over 100kB in size, the recommendation is that it should be divided. If I'm reading the respective edit histories correctly, the main article is currently 200kB in size, and the split article is 66kB in size. Even if a review of the currently split article for duplicates and undue material reduces its size in half, we'd still be over the [[WP:SIZESPLIT]] recommendation. |
|||
Rowling's views have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> She has been the target of widespread condemnation,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} insults, and threats, including death threats.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}}<ref name=Burnell4June>{{Cite news|last=Burnell|first=Paul|date=4 June 2024|title= Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o |access-date= 9 June 2024}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/><ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref><ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
<!-- Nevertheless --> |
|||
I don't have any suggestions at this time, but I'd like to draw attention to this nonetheless, as it may be an important thing to consider if/when merging as it may have to be undone again shortly after due to length. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful. Sales of ''Harry Potter'' books grew during the [[COVID-19]] lockdown.{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=238}}<ref>{{cite news |first=Mark |last= Sweney |title= Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |work= [[The Guardian]] |date= 21 July 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In 2023, streaming series Max (formerly HBO) began to develop a television series<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 April 2023 |title=First ever Harry Potter television series ordered by new streaming service, Max |url=https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/first-ever-harry-potter-television-series-coming-to-max |access-date=2023-04-13 |website=Wizarding World |language=en |archive-date=12 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230412214511/https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/first-ever-harry-potter-television-series-coming-to-max |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=12 April 2023 |title=Introducing the enhanced streaming service: Max |url=https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/introducing-enhanced-streaming-service-max |access-date=2023-04-13 |website=Wizarding World |language=en |archive-date=12 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230412214510/https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/introducing-enhanced-streaming-service-max |url-status=live }}</ref> which will be released in 2026.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tapp |first=Tom |date=2024-02-23 |title='Harry Potter' TV Series Due To Hit Max In 2026: Everything We Know About The Cast, What J.K. Rowling Says & More – Update |url=https://deadline.com/2024/02/harry-potter-tv-series-max-release-date-cast-1235323284/ |access-date=2024-02-23 |website=Deadline |language=en-US}}</ref> |
|||
: i don't think this is the right way to frame this question. For one thing, the length of the subsections for ''Views'' here duplicate some of the material in the sections of the ''Politics'' article, but the length of the respective treatments (and therefore the amount of material duplicated) differs between topics. My sense is that most of the unduplicated, well-sourced material concerns the transgender issues section, so I'm not sure that it would be as difficult to merge and trim as suggested above. |
|||
: Also, I think it is at least worth considering whether BLP concerns would be better satisfied through some other split, rather than ''Politics of''. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 22:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Not only that, but it would be pretty much impossible to reach agreement on what to cut entirely and what to merge. We have a good enough [[WP:Summary style]] already. Some editors will want to include every little thing that ever got picked up on by the media, and therefore mess up the [[WP:WEIGHT]] on the main article. Her political views are [[WP:Notable]] at this point, so the status quo works just fine. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Isn't "people just willy nilly adding everything that comes up"(paraphrased) already a concern you have brought up multiple times on the politics offshoot too? It shouldn't make any difference in terms of inclusion worthiness whether it's added on the "politics of" article or here. Either it's E or it's not. It's more of a question of "will this article get too bloated if we add everything E-worthy from the politics offshoot." in my eyes. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 10:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
The [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] article, should be deleted. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
:{{Re|GoodDay}} Lol, take it to AfD then. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:101%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|18px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:80%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling denies being transphobic.<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= Dismisses>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy' |date= 22 February 2023|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}}<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title=J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} |
|||
::I'd rather let someone else, do that. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
:::Colour me surprised. On the actual issue in question, is there a recommended method of measuring articles? I've crudely (pasted the text (only) into Notepad, looked at file properties) measured this main article at 61kb; the 'Politics of...' article at 20kb, and the "Views" section of this main article at 13kb. So if I'm measuring correctly, on the face of it, a split wasn't necessary, and re-merging would add no more than 7-10kb. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 11:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::That does seem like they should be merged then. Does anyone know the actual reason for the original separation? --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color:purple;"> |
|||
:::::Just FYI |
|||
:::::The has been sections in the main article about her political views since ''early 2010''. A '''LGBT''' section in the main article appears in ''7 June 2020''. I personally can not see any discussion in the main article at the time of the creation of the 'sub' article regards a split, the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] article seems to have been originally created independently and then expanded largely by someone who has left Wikipedia with a line through their user name. |
|||
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref>{{efn|The UK laws and proposed changes are the [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]], the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] and the related [[Equality Act 2010]].{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} }} and her views on [[sexual identity|sex]] and [[gender identity|gender]], have provoked controversy.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} Her statements have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
:::::The earliest visible version of the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] article ''6 Oct 2018'' (though the first isolated date is 2 April 2015) did not include a section on her trans views. A section called '''TERF-sympathizer''' was added ''1st sept 2019'' |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
</span></div> |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
:::::The reason why i though an article merge was needed was simply it has been argued that J.K.Rowling's views in the sub article had absolutely nothing to do with J.K. Rowling's the subject of the main article, when this is absurd. Has the sub article become a place to hide all the negative stuff about the author as a person. Rowling the author is as least as notable as her creative works. However I agree with [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] and [[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']] merging would be an extremely difficult thing to do, with folks in polarised camps never mind the mammoth task itself. </sup> <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 17:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Well, what's gonna happen? A merge or does that other article get deleted. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: {{re|GoodDay}} discussions on this are clearly still ongoing. Have some patience. If you want the article gone, but don't want to nominate it for an AfD, poking the discussion where other people are trying to figure delete versus merge is kinda antithetical to that. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I've asked the ''big question'' over at the article-in-question. As ''this'' discussion 'may' belong there, as a proposal would be to (if not delete) merge that article into this one. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: Too Early for such a discussion...I think it would be helpful if we let the current RFC on this page finish first. One thing at a time is probably best or we might shatter the spinning arguments. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 22:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::You want to avoid a schism. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{re|GoodDay}} I know you like RfCs from contributions elsewhere, but do you really want to have two on a contentious topic (Rowling) running simultaneously? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I figured this sub-section, was better held over at the related article. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
Multiple discussions in multiple places about merging or deleting another article, while an RfC that would directly impact any such discussion is still ongoing, is counter-productive and inefficient. Let this RfC run its course ''first''. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 10:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
[[LGBT]] charities and leading actors of the [[Wizarding World]] franchise condemned Rowling's comments;<ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref>{{efn| [[Daniel Radcliffe]], [[Emma Watson]], [[Rupert Grint]],<ref name= Hibberd2021/> [[Eddie Redmayne]]<ref name=Lang2020/> and others expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments;<ref>{{cite magazine |first= Maureen |last= Lenker|title= Every Harry Potter actor who's spoken out against J.K. Rowling's controversial trans comments |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 1 April 2022 |magazine= [[Entertainment Weekly]]|url=https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-potter-actor-whos-spoken-out-against-j-k-rowlings-controversial-transgender-comments/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first= Maggie |last= Baska|title= Stephen Fry defends 'friendship' with JK Rowling: 'I'm sorry that people are upset' |date= 20 May 2021 |url= https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/20/stephen-fry-jk-rowling-friend-harry-potter-jordan-b-peterson-podcast-trans/ |publisher= [[PinkNews]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> [[Helena Bonham Carter]],<ref name=Evans2022> {{cite news |first= Greg |last= Evans |url= https://deadline.com/2022/11/helena-bonham-carter-johnny-depp-j-k-rowling-1235182523/ |title= Helena Bonham Carter says Johnny Depp 'completely vindicated' in defamation trial, and J.K. Rowling 'hounded' for transgender stance |work= [[Deadline Hollywood]] |access-date= 18 December 2022}}</ref> [[Robbie Coltrane]],<ref>{{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first= Hannah |title= How the 'Harry Potter' reunion addresses author J.K. Rowling's anti-trans controversy |date= 30 December 2021|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/30/harry-potter-return-hogwarts-20th-reunion-emma-watson-jk-rowling-controversy/9042955002/ |work= [[USA Today]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> and [[Ralph Fiennes]] supported Rowling.<ref name= Hibberd2021>{{cite news |first= James |last= Hibberd |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ralph-fiennes-defends-j-k-rowling-amid-trans-controversy-says-backlash-is-disturbing-4151944/ |title= Ralph Fiennes defends J.K. rowling amid trans controversy, says backlash is 'disturbing' |date= 17 March 2021 |access-date=26 March 2022 |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]]}}</ref>}} [[GLAAD]] called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".<ref name= Yasharoff2020> {{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first=Hannah|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/07/j-k-rowling-harry-potter-author-slammed-transphobic-comments/3169833001/ |title= J.K. Rowling reveals she's a sexual assault survivor; Emma Watson reacts to trans comments |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 27 March 2022}}</ref> Rowling responded with an essay on her website<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title= J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making "anti-trans" comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Writing of her own experiences with [[sexism]] and [[misogyny]],<ref>{{cite news |first= Sian |last= Cain |date= 11 June 2020 |title= JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault |url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/10/jk-rowling-says-survivor-of-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to [[Gender transitioning|transition]] if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".<ref name=DAlessandro2020>{{cite news |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |title=J.K. Rowling defends trans statements in lengthy essay, reveals she's a sexual assault survivor & says 'trans people need and deserve protection' |url=https://deadline.com/2020/06/j-k-rowling-defends-trans-statements-essay-1202955524/ |access-date=5 January 2022 |work=[[Deadline Hollywood]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref> |
|||
===Widening the fourth paragraph to include Rowling's other views=== |
|||
Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}<ref name= Jacobs2023>{{cite news |last= Jacobs |first= Julia |title= Hogwarts legacy can't cast aside debate over J. K. Rowling |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/arts/hogwarts-legacy-jk-rowling.html |date= 9 February 2023 |work = [[The New York Times]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name= Spangler2023>{{cite news |last= Spangler|first= Todd |title= J.K. Rowling addresses backlash to her anti-trans comments in new podcast: 'I never set out to upset anyone' |url= https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-comments-podcast-witch-trials-1235522301/ |date= 14 February 2023|work= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref> – have been called transphobic by critics<ref name= Breznican2023>{{cite news |last= Breznican |first= Anthony |title= J.K. Rowling will oversee a new streaming ''Harry Potter'' series |url= https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/04/jk-rowling-harry-potter-series|date= 12 April 2023 |work= [[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name=Rosenblatt2020>{{Cite web|last = Rosenblatt| first =Kalhan |title=J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351|date= 10 June 2020 |access-date=19 January 2022|publisher=[[NBC News]] }}</ref> and she has been referred to as a [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]].<ref name= Rosenblatt2020/>{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|pp=34–35}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–368}} She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.<ref name=RowlingReasons/><ref name= Breznican2023/><ref name= Spangler2023/> Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the ''Harry Potter'' fansites [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]];<ref name=FanSites>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights|publisher=[[Reuters]]|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200703011204/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|archive-date=3 July 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> and the charities [[Mermaids (charity)|Mermaids]],<ref name=Petter2020/> [[Stonewall (charity)|Stonewall]],<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref>{{cite news |first= Elise |last= Brisco |title=Dave Chappelle says he's 'Team TERF,' defends J.K. Rowling in new Netflix comedy special|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/10/05/dave-chappelle-terf-defends-j-k-rowling-netflix-special/6002017001/ |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 8 October 2021|access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
*'''Comment''': No editor should be spoiling the RfC with edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&type=revision&diff=1059251628&oldid=1059237217 this], using a source [[Gish gallop]] to force in new text with vague labeling of a BLP as "controversial" against [[WP:LABEL]], which requires widespread use and in-text attribution. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::It was not an attempt to spoil the RfC, but rather following several editors comments regards Rowling having, and this article covering her other outspoken 'notable' views (and criticism that the fourth paragraph appeared to be an isolated stand-alone paragraph) ... it was an attempt to be a general introduction to the section on Rowling's wider political, religious, press views as a whole and it is correct to state that some of her outspoken views are unquestionably polemic, not just her opinions on trans folks. The specific wording which is the question of this huge RfC was not altered on purpose, these edits were an attempt at including Rowling's other views in the lead section. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 09:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Aditionally, I made sure to check with [[WP:LABEL]] five or six times over to make sure I was understanding it correctly. The label "controversial" is not in violation. [[WP:LABEL]] does not say "avoid at any cost". [[WP:LABEL]] says "use with caution". When using the word "controversial" [[WP:LABEL]] requires us to satisfy a number of specific conditions. The existence of a controversy needs to be supported in ''RELIABLE'' sources. ABC news, Die Welle, TIME, and NBC news all meet that condition with ease. It needs to be widely used. Which it is, considering the ease with which I found so many highly reliable sources using it. Therefore, this does not qualify as giving a fringe vieuwpoint undue weight and as a result, it does not run afoul of WP:LABEl. The only condition under which I think you could argue there's a fringe vieuwpoint involved at all is if you were to claim rowling's vieuws are [[WP:fringe]], which I would agree with. I'm actually quite offended at the gish gallop accusation you level against me here, since all I did was try to meet the requirements of [[WP:LABEL]]. Successfully, as far as I'm concerned.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 10:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::LABELs have to be "widely used" by sources - meaning not just saying that there is a controversy, but calling the BLP controversial - and in-text attribution must be used. That vague statement is on the level of "many people are saying"-type vague aspersion-casting. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 06:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Can I surmise then that you failed to read the sources I cited? Because they do directly call the BLP (or more accurately in this context: The claims made by said BLP) controversial, so that is a moot point. The "in text attribution" part does not refer to the controversy label, which is used in many places across Wikipedia, even in headers, when sufficiently supported by the source material. It instead points at the prefix "pseudo" and the suffix "gate", both of which are a lot more loaded than the word "controversial". And you forgot the second part of that sentence: "when in doubt", which I don't believe you can seriously argue it is in this case, considering the state of this talk page. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 13:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
As Rowling's views on the [[legal status of transgender people]] came under scrutiny,{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} she received insults and death threats{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|p=69}}{{sfn|Qiao|2022|p=1323}} and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}} Some performers and feminists have supported her.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}}<ref> Supporting Rowling: |
|||
===Observation=== |
|||
* [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]]: {{cite news |first=Katie |last=Law |date= 15 October 2020|title= JK Rowling and the bitter battle of the book world |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/books/trans-battle-book-world-jk-rowling-a4571221.html |work= [[Evening Standard]] |access-date=27 March 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
{{cot|title=Glass houses and stones}} |
|||
* [[Allison Bailey]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |title= Maya Forstater: who is woman in employment tribunal over transgender comments? |first= Sam |last= Hancock |date= 27 April 2021 |work= [[The Independent]] |access-date= 27 March 2022|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210427131430/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |archive-date= 27 April 2021 |quote= criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey – known for launching legal action against LGBT+ rights charity Stonewall over its attempt to have her investigated for setting up the anti-trans rights group LGB Alliance – has also been a vocal supporter of Ms Forstater.|ref=none}} |
|||
I wonder how we're supposed to ignore that there are editors who engage in this (and other gender-related article discussions) that think slandering other Wikipedians as transphobes is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. What kind of Wikipedia club is that? Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newimpartial&diff=next&oldid=1057275096. [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Julie Bindel]]: {{cite news |last1=Thorpe |first1=Vanessa |title=JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=14 June 2020 |quote=Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend |access-date=6 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200704200412/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |archive-date=4 July 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
: Thanks for the preemptive collapsing. Could this discussion happen at a user talk page instead? [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 13:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Dave Chappelle]]: {{Cite news |first= Maya |last=Yang|date=7 October 2021|title='I'm team Terf': Dave Chappelle under fire over pro-JK Rowling trans stance|url=https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/oct/07/dave-chappelle-transgender-netflix-special-backlash|access-date=27 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]]|ref=none}} |
|||
:: I think Santacruz is allowed to comment on my Talk page that I have dealt with (what admittedly in their own opinion were) "transphobic" editors. I mean, it is not as though I haven't interacted with editors in the past who were removed from Wikipedia for behavioural issues arising from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1011698219&oldid=1011697094&title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement their] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=865895790&oldid=864058713&title=User_talk:TaylanUB transphobia]. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Dana International]]: {{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
:::Which has jack to do with labeling more editors "transphobic", and related character-assassination attempts, in this and other discussions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 12:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Eddie Izzard]]: {{cite news |title='I don't think JK Rowling is transphobic,' says gender-fluid comedian Eddie Izzard |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=27 November 2021 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=1 January 2021|ref=none}}{{cbignore}} |
|||
:::: In the name of the goddess, please stop the unfounded [[WP:ASPERSIONS]]. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Kathleen Stock]], [[Alison Moyet]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".<ref name= Flockhart2020>{{cite news |last= Flockhart |first= Gary |date= 28 September 2020 |access-date= 2 April 2022 |work = [[The Scotsman]] |title= JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row|url= https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-receives-support-from-ian-mcewan-and-frances-barber-amid-transphobia-row-2986268|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
|} |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
=== |
===Discussion of Draft 8=== |
||
S Marshall, I have another full day today, but hope to be able to look this evening. Quickly though, I did see one comma issue in the first para that may leave a misimpression:{{tq2|She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.}} It could read to the uninitiated as if she a) resists X, and b) (instead) proposes Y, when what is meant is that she a) resists X, and b) resists proposals to Y. And there's some redundant wording and detail. Not sure how to fix it ... maybe something like ... She resisted the (year?) Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland and changes proposed (in year X) to the UK Equality Act, (both of?) which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
With a ''panel'' of editors volunteering to close this RFC. Hopefully, nobody will challenge their collective decision. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with this. |
|||
A request to the panel. Please, make your ''decision'' as short, precise & clear as possible. So there'll be less of a chance of editors being confused :) [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I would phrase it as {{tq|She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and also opposes proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.}} [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: I had forgotten entirely about the [[Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:J._K._Rowling#RFC_on_how_to_include_her_trans-related_views_(and_backlash)_in_the_lead|closure request]] discussion earlier. From the looks of the discussion there, we may not see a closure until January. But I definitely feel for the editors who have to review this. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 17:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Who's going to voluntarily adjudicate ''this'' fustercluck?! 🤪 [[User:Tewdar|Tewdar]] ([[User talk:Tewdar|talk]]) 23:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::A panel of at least three. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
The RFC tag will soon expire. When it does, I'll [[WP:Closure request|request closure]], via notifying that the tag has expired. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: |
|||
I've re-contacted the Closure requests board. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
{{pb}}Another concern I have is (sentences numbered for discussion purposes):{{tq2|1. She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. 2. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. 3. She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.}} In earlier drafts, we didn't have Sentence 2, so that the "without a medical diagnosis" in Sentence 1 led straight to Sentence 3 (her opposition). Now with the intervening Sentence 2, I'm not sure it's clear what she actually opposes (she said something along the lines, I forget and don't have time to look it up, call yourself what you want, live your life as you please, or whatever that bit was, so it's not self-recognition per se that she opposes); what she seems to oppose is giving access to certain spaces (that she views as necessary to protect women and children) to people who self-identify "without a medical diagnosis". Maybe this can be addressed by fiddling with the word "easier" to something more explicit to her concerns and what she has said (I believe that wording can be found in her essay, or maybe reviewing that New York Times opinion piece from someone who defended Rowling would provide some wording ideas). I hope I can find time to look more closely this evening to suggest wording, but someone else may get to it sooner. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
How anticlimactic. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Not going to lie, {{u|Czello}}, that really made me laugh. I'll take anticlimactic over cluster-fuck any day :P. Happy New Year! {{u|Newimpartial}} now... about that Champions League... /s. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 16:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
So... what does it mean? Her trans opinions are included? or are they excluded? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 06:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|GoodDay}} return to [[status quo ante bellum]].<span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 07:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Which is? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 07:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Seriously? I mean... seriously?! Really struggling with [[WP:AGF]], here, with the best will in the world. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 11:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Her opinions are mentioned in the way they were before the RFC (since there was not consensus to change or remove the way they're mentioned). [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 11:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Aye, there wasn't a consensus to change or remove the text so it stays pending a new consensus. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 14:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Just needed a straight forward answer. Thanks for giving it. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I am glad we managed to clarify to your satisfaction what ''staus quo'' and "Thus the section is kept by default, for lack of a consensus to remove or alter it" mean! [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:PS, I agree we are close to installation, and will try tonight to dig up the newer sources I mentioned in discussion of Draft 7, but no promises; I am coming to sadly realize that the changes in the structure of my free time may be permanent; apologies again. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS3O5zg290k . [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 10:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{U|S Marshall}} thanks again for doing the work! It's great to see this & it looks great. Re the comma, suggest adding a "the" in front of "proposed changes" so as not to confuse that JKR is proposing the changes. {{U|SandyGeorgia}}, re self-recognition, Whited writes, page 7, "In late 2022 and early 2023, as Scotland considered its own gender identity reform, Rowling continued to be a vocal opponent of self-designation, especially for those in early adolescence." [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Should post-nominals be in the lead? == |
|||
:I made a suggestion about sentence 2 in the section above this, which would redistribute it. Does anyone have any commentary on my suggestion? We could keep or lose sentence 1 in my opinion - though I think it's largely redundant to later comments - but sentence 2 is kind of a mess. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::(Also, as said above, footnote [a] is clearly misplaced as things stand. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 14:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Now tweaked to draft 8.1.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I'm not going to make another RfC over the question I asked in the section header. Don't worry about that. I just want the edit war between @[[User:Blobsvolta|Blobsvolta]], @[[User:Crossroads|Crossroads]], and @[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] to stop showing up in my watchlist. [[User:I dream of horses|I dream of horses]] [[Special:Contribs/I dream of horses|(Contribs)]] [[User talk:I dream of horses|(Talk)]] 05:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:Just passing by, great work by everyone. I noted a small issue on the third paragraph: "Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World. and Human Rights Campaign." There is a punctuation mark after Wizarding World that is misplaced. Maybe also change one "and" to something else then. [[User:Vestigium Leonis|Vestigium Leonis]] ([[User talk:Vestigium Leonis|talk]]) 10:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* For the record, the only one who is personally edit warring is Blobsvolta, the rest of us only reverted once each. Blobsvolta, don't hide the postnominals again. They are standard for lead sentences for those who have them. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::Fixed in draft 8.1a.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: I obviously agree with <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> here. While I appreciate the argument that it can be a navigation impediment, consensus site wide is to include them in this style. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{ping|S Marshall}} I have one more minor point: "is concerned" feels like loaded language. How about just a neutral "says" or "stated". I still think "legal protections for women" is vague, but later in the paragraph it matters less. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I support the removal. Introducing her as "Joanne Rowling CH, OBE, HonFRSE, FRCPE, FRSL" is absolutely ridiculous and those abbreviations mean nothing to people from other countries, and that kind of material is not what readers from most countries are typically looking for in the first sentence. It is by no means mandatory to include them. Articles on high-profile figures who ''from a UK perspective'' might be entitled to post-nominals don't always include them (e.g. heads of state of other countries who have received dozens of honours from various countries don't include 10 or 20 or 30 post-nominals in the first sentence). --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 05:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Loaded how? Do you doubt that she's concerned about those things?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Don't see an issue with them, they are standard. See [[Winston Churchill]], for example. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 06:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::I also share this, uh, concern with Adam. |
|||
* As a foreigner I think it looks really weird there too, to be honest. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 12:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::My concern here is that "is concerned about X" implies that X is true. So when we say that {{tq2|Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women}} we're implicitly saying that {{tq2|easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women}}, a statement we haven't sourced and couldn't say in Wikivoice. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 23:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I didn't mean to war edit, I just wanted a reason for the revert. However, I agree with Amanda A. Brant. Honestly, I don't believe you if you tell me that it doesn't look a bit weird to you. As a reader: I don't even know (or care lol) what those mean, and putting them in the first sentence is too much to me. But! I respect the majority's opinion. Greetings. [[User:Blobsvolta|Blobsvolta]] ([[User talk:Blobsvolta|talk]]) 09:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Weird. Must be an ENGVAR thing, because "Rowling is concerned about X" doesn't suggest any truth value for X in English English. Anyway, I certainly don't love "says" or "stated". Always use a specific verb in preference to a generic one whenever you can: specific verbs don't just convey more information in a similar word count, they also make your sentence clearer and more engaging. Rowling worries? Fears? Believes?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Personally, I think the inclusion of postnomials is one of Wikipedia's most ridiculous conventions. But the site-wide consensus on this doesn't show any real sign of changing yet; it is what it is. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::"Believes" seems better. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 00:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Τhere is absolutely no reason to break with convention about [[postnominal]]s specifically in the article about Rowling. Taking into account the extreme passion exhibited from both sides in discussions related to Rowling & [[Transgender|trans persons]], one can only conclude that the suggestion to remove the titles from her article is nothing more than a sorry carry-over from that combat. There is nothing in Wikipedia against listing postnominals; on the contrary, Wikipedia explicitly permits their listing. To quote [[MOS:POSTNOM]] : {{tq|When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, '''post-nominal letters''' may be included in the lead section}}. And that has been the long-established convention. If anyone feels strongly against the inclusion of postnominals in biography articles ''in general'', then they should post up a proposal in the [[MOS:POSTNOM]] talk page. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 19:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::I dislike using the word ''believes''; we don't know what's in her head, we know what she has stated. I have no problem with the word ''concern''. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:* I agree with you, The Gnome. For the record, it wasn't my intention at all, but it is true that this is a controversial article and this proposal—or potential decision—may be misinterpreted. [[User:Blobsvolta|Blobsvolta]] ([[User talk:Blobsvolta|talk]]) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:* While they are ''permitted'', there are many examples that demonstrate that they are ''not mandatory'' (e.g. articles on heads of state where the inclusion of all post-nominals they may theoretically be entitled too would make the entire first paragraph look utterly ridiculous). I oppose post-nominals in ''any'' article. In this case we're not talking about one, widely known post-nominal, but a long list of mostly obscure post-nominals that people from other countries haven't heard of. Why do readers need to know about an obscure honour from the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh before we learn anything about her, even before we mention Harry Potter? --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 14:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: Greetings, [[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]]. Your objection to having postnominals in biography articles in toto should be brought up, as I wrote, in another forum, such as the [[WP:PUMP|Village Pump]]. This is just the talk page of the "[[J. K. Rowling]]" article. Take care. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 21:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::As I said, there are many examples that demonstrate that they are ''not mandatory''. Since this is the talk page of Rowling, it's the appropriate venue to decide that post-nominals aren't appropriate in ''this'' article, for example because half a dozen obscure post-nominals are not what readers are typically looking for in ''this'' article. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 10:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It'd help the discussion, [[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]], if we address the points actually made by the other party and not irrelevancies. Case in point: I never suggested inclusion of postnominals is "mandatory," so your remark about "many examples" demonstrating they're not is irrelevant. If you want to object to ''this'' article listing the subject's postnominals, you should start here an RfC for that. Have in mind, though, that since including postnominals is ''allowed'' (not mandatory but allowed) and is also the prevalent convention in Wikipedia, you'd have to support your proposal by something specific to ''this'' article. You already suggested that "half a dozen obscure post-nominals are not what readers are typically looking for in ''this'' article" (your emphasis) but there are a lot of issues with that line of argument: |
|||
::::::(a) Rowling's [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gong gongs] are four and not "half a dozen." |
|||
::::::(b) A lot of postnominals ''are'' indeed obscure but I'd doubt any reasonable person would think of the [[Order of the Companions of Honour]], the [[Order of the British Empire]], the [[Royal Society of Literature]], or the [[Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh]] as "obscure". Still, one could always argue for obscurity, I suppose. |
|||
::::::(c) Postnominals are listed as informational asides. It might be a rare reader indeed who comes here actively looking specifically for titles but a title is obviously something notable in a biography. |
|||
:::::Finally, a note: Since we're inundated by the lava-like debates abt Rowling and trans-persons, we should not think of postnominals as according some kind of extraordinary prestige or credibility to their recipient. One could simply wade through the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Members_of_the_Order_of_the_Companions_of_Honour list of other such recipients] to see my point. {{smiley}} Take care. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==== Forstater times 3 ==== |
|||
* '''Retain'''. As per [[MOS:POSTNOM]], these are regularly included and removing them seems fairly pointless. We open pretty much all our biographies with the formal titles of people, and that includes the post-nominals. If we want to get rid of them, it's probably best to open a site-wide RfC to remove them from ''all'' biographies. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 15:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Working on redundancy: |
|||
* I *completely* agree with the statement that "{{xt|They are absolutely ridiculous and those abbreviations mean nothing to people from other countries, and that kind of material is not what readers from most countries are typically looking for in the first sentence}}", and I also oppose them in any article; '''and we should keep them nevertheless'''. Because that's what the [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is, and that's how things work around here. Get over it, and go improve some article somewhere. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Current''' proposal: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]]. When [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|Forstater's employment contract was not renewed]] after Forstater shared gender-critical views, Rowling wrote that |
|||
*Keep, unless you get a global consensus to stop using them in the lede. To say you don't like them anywhere, so they shouldn't be used here is putting local consensus before global consensus, which is something we don't do. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 11:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: --> '''Less repetitive''': Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]], whose [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|employment contract was not renewed]] after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that |
|||
* Per my comment in the section below on philanthropy citing [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]], I wonder if this too is a discussion that's more relevant for a noticeboard as it affects multiple articles. Again [[WP:BLPN]] looks like the obvious candidate for such a discussion. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Or something similar to the reduce the repetition of Forstater's name three times. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Retain OBE'''. The rest seem like overkill. Just because MOS:POSTNOM {{em|permits}} inclusion of an acronym/initialism here doesn't mean that it {{em|must}} be included. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 12:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Fixed in draft 8.2.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Retain OBE, remove the rest.''' Excellent suggestion by SMcCandlish. Looking at what [[MOS:POSTNOM]] ''actually'' says: {{tpq|"When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that '''reliable sources regularly associate with the subject''', post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section"}} (my emphasis added) then whatever about the 'CH' and membership of the Royal Society of Literature, the honorary ones clearly '''shouldn't''' be there! Nobody associates Rowling with being a physician, and she doesn't claim to be! [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*: Thx! Still working through ... [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Retain''' As per [[MOS:POSTNOM]], these are regularly included. Not seeing a huge reason to remove them though if she recieves anymore it may become unwieldly. OBE should certainly be kept as most noted one on there. [[User:Spy-cicle|<span style='color: 4019FF;'><b> Spy-cicle💥 </b></span>]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|<sup><span style='color: #1e1e1e;'><b>'''''Talk'''''?</b></span></sup>]] 18:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
=="Philanthropist" in the opening sentence== |
|||
==== But sales of books grew, and more ==== |
|||
I oppose the removal of the descriptor "philanthropist" in the opening sentence of the article. Her philanthropic activities have received extensive coverage by the media, to the point that it seems pointless to link to sources that attest to that. The article itself contains plenty of such sources. <del>Searching "jk rowling philanthropist" gives me 91,300 results on Google, "jk rowling charity work" gives 859,000 results</del> [As has been has pointed out below, the number of Google hits is a useless indicator, and not really relevant to my argument anyway]. Among the many public recognitions of her charity endeavours: |
|||
Why was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=next&oldid=1230597656 this sentence cut]? There's more, see for example {{tq|"In fact, book sales increased, Universal Studios is expanding Harry Potter World, a TV series is in the works, Maya Forstater was exonerated, etc ... "}} that we [[Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_20#Thoughts_from_Victoria|discussed, now back in Archive 20]]. If we need more sources, they can be added, but by leaving out that the popularity of her work continues, while expressing that her image or reputation has been impacted, we are losing some neutrality. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"Harry Potter creator JK Rowling named most influential woman in the UK": {{tq|Rowling, who recently donated £10 million to set up a new multiple sclerosis research clinic in Edinburgh, was chosen for her writing skills, tenacity to succeed and philanthropic nature, the National Magazine Company said}}.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/11/harry-potter-jkrowling-influential-woman</ref> |
|||
*That paragraph wasn't flowing right with that sentence, but on reflection I agree that we need to put it back in... somewhere. Thinking cap on.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"JK Rowling receives Humanitarian Award from British Red Cross": {{tq|The British Red Cross has presented author JK Rowling with its Humanity Award, designed to honour philanthropists and humanitarians whose work has changed people’s lives across the world}}.<ref>https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/03/12/jk-rowling-receives-humanitarian-award-from-british-red-cross/</ref> |
|||
*: OK, I'll try to revisit this after the rest of my morning work (I finally have a fully free day!). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"JK Rowling becomes Companion of Honour for charity work": {{tq|After being made an OBE in 2001, she is now becoming a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for her services to literature and philanthropy}}.<ref>https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-becomes-companion-honour-charity-work-1447141</ref> |
|||
*:: I've tentatively added it to a fifth paragraph?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"JK Rowling to receive human rights award": {{tq|JK Rowling is to receive a prestigious award from literary and human rights group Pen America. [...] Pen (Poets, Essayists and Novelists) said it was honouring the author in recognition of her support for free expression and charitable causes}}.<ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35408331</ref> |
|||
*:::This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1230757570 format change] explodes my brain; could be do this another way ? Like, just add the suggested para here ? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The extent of coverage by the media and the recognitions by many institutions of her philanthropic work make clear that it is one of the most prominent aspects of her public persona—in fact probably only second to being the author of the Harry Potter books. [[User:Natuff|Natuff]] ([[User talk:Natuff|talk]]) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC); edited [[User:Natuff|Natuff]] ([[User talk:Natuff|talk]]) 13:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::The last sentence of the 8.3 version ''({{tq|Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes...}})'' could be split off into its own paragraph (as the fifth and final paragraph of the section), and the new paragraph in the 8.3 version ''({{tq|Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful...}})'' can then be placed right after the Whited sentence (in the same paragraph). [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 22:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::OK, now that I think I've been able to pick out the new para, I'm (always) concerned that we're adding text that isn't necessarily scholarly sourced ... the one sentence that was there before was from Pape. Let me continue my perusal of new sources to see what else comes up, but generally, I'm not fond of the new para, and I'm more concerned that by having a three-column proposal, we will confuse subsequent editors/readers of the page. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I also suspect we might find a way to work that one sentence in to the (now) third para, after examining new sources. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::<s>I don't love the new paragraph, because it feels a little off-topic: it's not about Rowling's views directly, and it's not really comparing Rowling's book sale increase to how COVID-19 affected other book sales. I don't hate it enough to object to the draft, but speculation about a series two years out and book sales increasing (Compared to what, 2019? Because I doubt they reached original release sales numbers) during a pandemic doesn't feel that relevant. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 17:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)</s> |
|||
*:::::::Actually, checking this, I have '''major''' objections to the sales increasing language. See below. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::After seeing the context below, I also object to this line. It's hard to say what her sales increasing means in a context where everyone's sales increased. If her sales increased less than everyone else's, it's still possible the controversy hurt sales. And we don't get a comparison in the sources we have. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== Flow issues and redundancy in first para ==== |
|||
As discussed above by me, and under Draft 7 by Adam Cuerden, there are still flow problems in the first para, and there is a lot of repetition as well as duplication in footnotes. And that leads to a (slight) misrepresentation of her position. And there are missing links and definitions (eg, we manage to never link transitioning). {{pb}} I suggest simplifying the whole thing, while by the way, attributing Duggan's opinion, which is slightly at odds with Rowling's own words: |
|||
: Concerned that easier [[gender transition]]s could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women,<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref> Rowling opposes proposed legislation{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} to advance gender self-recognition and make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} |
|||
{{cot|title= Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
* And my search for "J K Rowling transphobia" receives 466,000 google hits, while "J K Rowling transgender" nets 4.6 ''million''. But the decision was made in a recent RfC not to mention this in the lead sentence - perhaps because we do not base these decisions on google hits. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
** I only mentioned the Google hits to show that media coverage of Rowling's philanthropic activities is certainly not lacking. It wasn't my only point though, I suggest you address the rest of my post too and elaborate on why you think she shouldn't be described as a philanthropist in the opening sentence. As you said, the transgender issue has already been debated and it's not relevant here, so why mention it? [[User:Natuff|Natuff]] ([[User talk:Natuff|talk]]) 17:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I'll work next on the sources I promised to explore for the third para of Draft 8. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*** As previously stated, my point was that {{tq|we do not base these decisions on google hits}}. I don't see any evidence in your post that her philanthropy {{tq|is one of the most prominent aspects of her public persona—in fact probably only second to being the author of the Harry Potter books}}. In fact, I would say that the controversies about trans issues now firmly place {{tq|second to being the author of the Harry Potter books}} as what she is known for - perhaps third if her management of the Wizarding World IP is broken off as a distinct topic from actual authorship (she has played a more prominent and successful role than, say, George R. R. Martin or the Tolkien estate in that respect, I would argue). [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**** I certainly don't agree with your view of what makes Rowling renown besides the Harry Potter's books. As I already explained, my case doesn't rest solely on the number of Google hits. I produced sources that show how her philanthropic activity was acknowledged by notable institutions and commentators which assigned awards to Rowling because of it—weight, not just quantity. I would argue that if it is ever appropriate to describe a public figure as "philanthropist" in the opening sentence of their article, Rowling would qualify. However, after giving it some thought I must say that, since we don't have objective criteria to decide who is a philanthropist and who is not, the debate comes down to subjective views. In this case, it's probably best to leave "philanthropist" out of the opening sentence and stick with the definitions that are uncontroversial. [[User:Natuff|Natuff]] ([[User talk:Natuff|talk]]) 19:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****The main thing that led to the deletion was that a few people (Me being among them) wondered if that word wasn't a bit loaded for wikipedia, and what would qualify someone for that description. As the first removal mentioned, the "brief consensus" was that there are no clear rules for it, it is used somewhat randomly across Wikipedia, and therefore it was best to remove it. The example I used earlier was that Richard Branson and Bill gates both have fairly large sections on their contributions to humanitarian causes, yet only bill gates has it mentioned in the lead, which makes it seem like its application is more based on their general reputation rather than their actual actions. which seems like a wrong way to go about it. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::I just did a BRD edit removing it from bill gates' opening sentence too. seems logical that if we're going to to remove it we should be consistent about it.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 09:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::* Greetings, [[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]]. Your removal of the "philanthropist" term from "[[Bill Gates]]" was clearly a mistake: Here we are discussing the merits of having that term in the lead sentence of "[[:J. K. Rowling]]" without a consensus being reached yet about this specific case - and you go over to an entirely unrelated article and removed the term! Listing the term in BLPs is, as we all admit, practically the '''conventional''' approach. If we want the term "philanthropist" ostracized from any and all biographies, we should submit a proposal to the appropriate forum. Kudos, though, for re-introducing on your own the term. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 13:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: None of the search engine counts quoted by OP or responders have the slightest relation to the reality of how many reliable sources support any of the terms searched for; they are completely useless for the purposes of this discussion. Please see [[#sidebar on search engine hits]] below. Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*I support the removal of "philanthropist", both as contrary to the spirit of NPOV and based on the relative prominence of the descriptor compared to other relevant descriptors. Her alleged philanthropic activities are exceedingly obscure compared to her anti-trans activism, as measured by the media coverage. The only sources I see constantly referring to her as a "philanthropist" are anti-trans groups, and they really seem to mean her support for causes that demean marginalised groups rather than what most people would understand as any genuine philanthropy. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 06:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:* This is rich. When Wikipedia is crammed full of bios of minor CEOs, pop singers and politicians who are described as a "philanthropist" if they so much as give anything to charity, here we have a figure who actually does fulfil the definition by giving substantial portions of their large fortune to good causes, as is documented in the article. It seems to me from some of the above discussion there's an attempt to make a [[WP:POINT]] in relation to the trans discussion. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 12:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Honestly I would love to see this label removed from BLP leads in general in general. It's just someone here used it in an argument during the RFC and it piqued my interest. I do notice that a few people do seem to compare the two. This discussion probably won't benefit from happening on such a controversial page. I notice you reverted my edit on bill gates' page. Doesn't "philanhtropist" seem like a bit of a value judgement to you? what qualifies someone for that title, is there a certain percentage of one's income above which one qualifies? --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 13:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC). |
|||
::::Those are questions best left to reliable sources. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 13:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* I don't think there is an issue of compliance with WP:NPOV. "Philanthropist" can be used neutrally to describe someone who engages in philanthropic activities. It is not necessarily congratulatory, and philanthropic activities may be subjected to scrutiny and criticism. The word is commonly used in Wikipedia's articles. The issue here is the lack of objective criteria to determine who should be introduced as a philanthropist in the opening sentence of their article. As for Rowling's philanthropic activities being "exceedingly obscure compared to her anti-trans activism", that is patently false. They are described at length in the article, with plenty of reliable sources to back it up. Other sources, like the ones I posted here, show how they have been the object of public recognition multiple times. I don't know what you mean by "genuine philanthropy", but it seems to me that the last part of your comment reflects your subjective impressions rather than a demonstrable fact. [[User:Natuff|Natuff]] ([[User talk:Natuff|talk]]) 14:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Retain''' use of the term. There is no consensus to remove it, and [[WP:STATUS QUO]] demands it should remain while a discussion continues ("{{tq| During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo}}"). I have no doubt this will be ignored - there seems to be some form of movement to paint Rowling as a dark figure, rather than retaining the neutral view. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3|talk]]) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Undecided (Possibly move to later in the lede)''' I believe generosity by rightfully famous and wealthy persons should be both recognised and applauded, but I do also believe the term is heavily overused/misused throughout Wikipedia. Wealthy people can afford to donate more than others this is a welcome and positive fact. Should it be mentioned in the first sentence i doubt it, but later in the the lede I am not sure (especially while other notable people are similarly praised). <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 14:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Above we have a whole lot of editors citing lead follows body for retaining two sentences on a viewpoint covered by a single sub section in the article. If thats the case we shouldn't remove a single word based on a whole section. In fact if lead follows body we should have more details in the lead about her philanthropy. [[User:Aircorn|Air<b style="color: green;">''corn''</b>]] [[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 17:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** That would be a stronger argument if the reliable, recent sourcing for the philanthropy were anywhere near as strong as the sourcing for the trans-related controversies. Just saying. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
**:That's not how a lead works though. It summarises the body of the article. If there are problems with due weight in the body then fix that. Given that this is a well developed quality article with a lot of diverse attention I have no doubt that the body is in pretty good shape. [[User:Aircorn|Air<b style="color: green;">''corn''</b>]] [[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 00:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Retain''' As a recipient of a major honours' award for 'literature and philanthropy', it's reasonable to describe her as a philanthropist.[[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 17:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* I support retaining the descriptor. The sourcing seems sufficient and due. The timing of this during a tough debate on trans views in the lead is unfortunate. I'd suggest to those opposing 'philanthropist' but supporting mention in the lead of her trans views that they may be on the riskier side of the double-edged sword of hypocrisy. There's room enough in the lead for both topics, and I think the most consistent position is that the oceans of reliable coverage of both show that mention in the lead is due. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::Should one but not the other be in the lead sentence? especially if the strength of the reliable sources of the other is greater ? (due to overuse of the term throughout Wikipedia i have not selected removal). (I personally wish Philanthropy was discussed at another place to cover all BLPs equally). <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 19:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, it’s entirely acceptable to have this in the lead sentence, but not the term in dispute. This is in line with [[MOS:OPENPARABIO]] “{{tq|The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.}}” Rowling is known as an author; she received honours for literature '''and philanthropy'''. The philanthropic element needs to be in the lead. The trans question seems [[WP:UNDUE]] to me. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9DEB:AF22:C944:6AAE|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9DEB:AF22:C944:6AAE]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9DEB:AF22:C944:6AAE|talk]]) 19:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::According to many editors contributing to the RfC above the only thing J.K. Rowling is notable for is being a highly successful writer. Following that argument surely her positive generosity as as a philanthropist though much welcomed is a secondary side product of her success, it is certainly not something she is primary notable for. As such at best it should be later in the lead. Notability is not honours, it is whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think you’re view of Rowling is being seen through the prism of the RfC above. She received an honour for literature '''and philanthropy'''. It’s difficult to ignore that aspect. To claim “Notability is not honours” is nonsense: recognition of activity from an official source is a measure of notability. I think trying to paint her as some darker figure than she really is completely breaches NPOV and NEUTRAL. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:780C:1D6B:539E:5075|2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:780C:1D6B:539E:5075]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:780C:1D6B:539E:5075|talk]]) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::If it were possible to perfectly balance nuance and brevity, I'd support mentioning her views on trans people earlier in the opening, but I'm convinced that it's not. Philanthropist is short, verified, and due. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 20:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}{{ec}}If we're turning this into a [[WP:VOTE|!Vote]] kind of thing, I'd support keeping philanthropist in the lede. One can be a philanthropist and still hold contrary views - the two are not exclusive. As the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article proper - there is an entire section devoted to philanthropy, so to mention it in the lede as a reflection of the article is justified. After all, this is the same reasoning that wishes to include any anti-trans commentary in the lede - that it has considerable mention in the article ergo warrants mention in the lede. [[You can't have your cake and eat it|Realistically, if ones stays then so should the other for the same reasons.]] [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 20:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I did not say her philanthropy should be removed from the lead entirely. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 21:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: I don't think anyone has actually proposed to drop the philanthropy discussion from the lead ''section''. As I understand it, the only issue in this section concerns the lead ''sentence''. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 21:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::At least two editors seem to advocate removal entirely, either that or they're vague in what they actually do want: |
|||
::''"Honestly I would love to see this label removed from BLP leads in general"'' - [[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] |
|||
::''"I support the removal of 'philanthropist', both as contrary to the spirit of NPOV and based on the relative prominence of the descriptor compared to other relevant descriptors"'' - [[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] |
|||
::Tbh, much of Amanda A. Brant's commentary is concerning in itself and shows very little NPOV, at least in opinion and manner of expression. |
|||
::[[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::To be clear - I see no reason for the same arguments put forward earlier that "philanthropist" should not be in the opening sentence. |
|||
:::A defining reason should simply be "does she meet the criteria as laid out in the common understanding of the term, or the [[Philanthropy|article]]?" Regardless of her opinions in other areas (trans or not) she meets the criteria for this particular statement. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I do think the descriptor/badge is much abused/over used in BLPs in general, but I would much rather the was a separate discussion on a noticeboard that reached global consensus and guidance to limit the use of term in the leads and bodies of articles. So I very much agree with [[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] regards a general site-wide approach to Philanthropy. <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 17:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd say "Rowling believes" is better than "Rowling suggests" in your last sentence: "suggests" is a little loaded, insofar as it presents the statement after it as a reasonable idea to suggest; we need to avoid any impression that Wikipedia agrees with very explicitly transphobic comments. Like, this is vague connotation stuff, but it still reads very wrong. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::It should be made clear that an editor who has not even participated in this discussion has made the edit being discussed three times, which is totally unacceptable. Edit warring and restoring against STATUSQUO when a tp discussion is happening is bad practice. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1057929886&oldid=1057927844&title=J._K._Rowling 1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1057763275&oldid=1057759469 2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1057720597&oldid=1057704934 3] [[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I don't know how you are at reading date stamps, NEDOCHAN, but the second and third diffs you provided come from ''before'' this discussion had opened, when a ''previous'' discussion had not revealed anyone opposing the removal of {{tq|philanthropist}}. The first diff you provided seems - according to the edit summary - to have been an error, [[WP:AGF|intended]] to move the adjective, as was accomplished by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1057931010&oldid=1057929886 another editor]. So maybe cool your jets, and pay a bit more attention to your own diffs before you throw accusations around. This wasn't {{tq|edit warring ... when a tp discussion is happening}}, as you would have known had you checked your facts. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 00:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Everything I said is true. An editor who has not participated in this discussion (true) has made the edit being discussed three times (true). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1057929886&oldid=1057927844&title=J._K._Rowling Restoring against STATUSQUO when a discussion is taking place] is bad practice (true). Your assessment as to how an edit summary should be interpreted is far harder to prove than than the facts are.[[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 01:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: So you did not mean to imply that an editor had restored the same text three times while the Talk page discussion on the issue was taking place? If that is true, you did a terrible job of communicating what you actually meant, and a great job of suggesting to other editors that you were making the argument that I refuted. If you were making that suggestion ''on purpose'' while knowing that your individually true statements led to a false implication, that is a much worse violation of [[WP:CIVIL]] than I had assumed. I hope you were not doing that. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 01:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::The first comment in this discussion was made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJ._K._Rowling&type=revision&diff=1057780186&oldid=1057770164 at 16:48 UTC, 29 November 2021]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1057720597&oldid=1057704934 diff 3] was made at 07:41 UTC, 29 November 2021, approximately nine hours before this discussion began. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1057763275&oldid=1057759469 diff 2] was made at 14.45 UTC on 29 November 2021, approximately two hours before this discussion began. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1057929886&oldid=1057927844&title=J._K._Rowling diff 1] appears to have been a mistake made by [[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:101%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] as the edit summary refers to putting the word back in it's correct place. This mistake was caught by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1057931010&oldid=1057929886 Tewdar] five minutes later. |
|||
::So everything you said was true, except the details you are relying upon. The only diff that was after this discussion opened was, by analysis of the edit summary versus the content a clear mistake. Even if you want to discount that analysis, there was still only one diff ''after'' this discussion opened. So yeah, what [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] said about cooling your jets and checking your facts before you make unsound accusations is solid advice. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove it'''--here and in just about every other BLP of a rich and famous person. Few people are actually notable ''because'' they are philanthropists. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
** Well, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]], typically one has to first possess enough money to be a philantropist. I cannot think of any person giving away money when that person does ''not'' have money. {{smiley}} (Putting in work to help the needy is not defined as [[philanthropy]].) So, rich people are in. But, more importantly, in biographies we are not supposed to include ''only'' what the subject is mainly notable for, but ''anything'' the subject is notable for, provided of course that the information is [[WP:RS|properly sourced]] and that the sources are enough to assign [[WP:N|notability]] to our subject. A trivial examination of sources shows that Rowling ''is'' notable, and quite enough too, for her philanthropic work, no matter what we think of her politics or her stance on trans-persons' issues. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 16:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***{{U|The Gnome}}, it seems like you're responding to someone who said that only rich people are philanthropists--I didn't. What I find disconcerting here is the slippage: a philanthropist is NOT someone who "gives away money". It's rather the opposite: many rich people tend to give away money because they can and it makes em look good. Philanthropy is doing ''work'' (and Bill Gates meets that requirement, for instance), not just giving money. So if some hypothetical rich person gave ten million bucks for some good cause, that doesn't necessarily make them a philanthropist: it makes them someone who gave away a bunch of money. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****{{U|Drmies}}, your definition seems a little restrictive. Rowling isn't a doctor, so she donated £10 million to Edinburgh university to research multiple sclerosis because they ''are'' medical professionals and would be the best people to use the money. Seems that there are times when giving a bunch of money away is the best option. You're right, it doesn't ''necessarily'' make them a philanthropist, but it doesn't automatically exclude them either. And given the multiple occasions on her donations to wide and varied causes, that seems to meet the philanthropy requirement of "private initiatives, for the public good, focusing on quality of life". [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 08:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
****:If she had donated 10 million to malaria prevention would she still be considered a philanthropist to the same level of Bill Gates, who has dedicated a large majority of his time over the last decade+ to establishing systems to do so, meeting with heads of state and industry leaders for this purpose? Would we consider [[Charlie Munger]] a philanthropist for [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/uc-santa-barbara-mega-dorm-munger-hall-rcna4401 donating 200 million to a dorm project] in [[UCSB]]? I'm not sure those three are equivalent to each other and so the bar one needs to meet to be called philanthropist in the lead should be pretty high. Also, 10 million when you're a billionaire is less than I donate proportionally to my income every year and I don't get called a philanthropist. It's more of a symbolic sum of money than anything, if you ask me. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 09:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*Well, [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]], your opinion as to what constitutes a "true" philanthropist might or might not be correct but, as we all know, what matters here are not our [[WP:NPOV|personal opinions]]. We go by sources. And, as I verified just now, to make sure, practically ''every'' [[WP:RS|source]] one can scare up confirms that '''Rowling is a philanthropist'''. Of course, if we want to set a certain "higher" bar for that attribute in biographies, we can always hoist up a specific proposal at the appropriate forum. I'd love to take part in such a discussion. Take care. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::*It doesn't matter whether we consider ''any'' of them to be a philanthropist, but whether reliable sources do. And it seems that they do. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 09:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==== Citation overkill ? ==== |
|||
::*Nope. I'm responding to you, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] , no mistake there - and your subsequent commentary supports my response. First, you assign to all "rich people" ulterior, egoistical motives for all their philanthropy, which renders their philanthropy a strictly [[narcissist]]ic endeavor. If that's what sources state, then start a proposal to drop all mentions of philanthropy from rich persons' biographies in Wikipedia. I doubt it'd get much traction, but go ahead. Second, you conflate philanthropy with [[volunteer work]], e.g. helping out at a [[homeless shelter]]. But philanthropy is not strictly "doing work"! By your definition, a physically incapacitated person who cannot put in a minute's physical work yet gives away money for a good cause would not qualify as a philanthropist. As to [[Bill Gates]], well, he ''is'' one because, first and foremost, -drum roll-, ''he gives away money''. He's a rich fellow and can afford to. End of story - and whatever motives you want to assign to rich folks giving money you are obliged to do the same with ol' rich boy Bill. Your [[WP:OR|personal]] definition of philanthropy ("some hypothetical rich person gave ten million bucks for some good cause, that doesn't necessarily make them a philanthropist: it makes them someone who gave away a bunch of money") runs smack against the definition in every dictionary ''and'' [[philanthropy|Wikipedia]] ({{tq|private initiatives, for the public good, focusing on quality of life}}, e.g. financing anti-poverty & children's welfare organizations, financind research for [[multiple sclerosis|diseases]], donating to charities that support [[covid-19|sick persons]], etc.: ''Exactly'' what Rowling's done). -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
How did we end up with four sources citing "human rights campaign"? Did the citations get attached to the wrong bits here ? We shouldn't need four sources to cite criticism from Human Rights Campaign, so could we re-distribute the citations to what they are actually sourcing? |
|||
::::Those "private initiatives", that quote from the lead, how am I contradicting that at all? And that stuff about "a physically incapacitated person"--it's ridiculous to put those words in my mouth. "Work" doesn't mean grabbing a shovel and digging trenches. Come one. No, I'm not confusing anything, but I get the feeling that you enjoy twisting my words. Have fun. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 22:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][39] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42] |
|||
::::: Again, your take is entirely false: I did not "twist" your words, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]], nor did I "put words" in your mouth. The example of a "physically incapacitated person" was given ''by me'', simply in order to demonstrate that your claim that philanthropists are only those who "put in the work" is totally off the mark. Take a breather and examine more closely who has qualified in [[WP:RS|the world's sources]] ''and'' Wikipedia as a "philanthropist" and you'll see. In any case, and to lay off this bagatelle, I leave the stage to you for any further commentary: I made my view clear and that's all I can do. Take care. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 15:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{anchor|23:45, 1 Dec}} |
|||
* '''<s>Undecided for now</s>'''{{snd}}but leaning to moving lower down in the lead. Quoting two items from [[MOS:LEADSENTENCE]]: |
|||
** {{xt|The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.}} |
|||
** {{xt|Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.}} |
|||
: At first blush, it seems to me the first sentence says *too much* about what "hats" she wears, and *not enough* (actually, nothing at all) about what makes her notable, which we all know what it is. Based on this, I'd lean towards something like this for the first sentence: |
|||
::{{talk quote|'''Joanne Rowling''' <small>[nominals, pronunciation]</small> (born 31 July 1965), better known by her [[pen name]] '''J. K. Rowling''', is a British author, known around the world for her ''[[Harry Potter]]'' fantasy series, which has won multiple awards and sold more than 500 million copies,{{fake ref|2}}{{fake ref|3}} becoming the best-selling book series in history.{{fake ref|4}}}} |
|||
: That adheres much better to the guideline, in my opinion. As to where to place information about her film and tv production hats, the fact is, the article says very little about either of these. There are 14 occurrences of ''producer'' in the body of the article, only one in the running text referring to her (i.e., not her agent or someone else), and four (implied) in the table from four "Yeses", so five mentions total, with almost no text devoted to it. As for ''philanthropist'', there's an entire section about it, which means it's easily important enough to include in the Lead, but isn't principally what she is known for, so I'd lean to moving it further down. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC) <small><small>(see updated vote below; [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC))</small></small> |
|||
:: The only suggestion I'd have for this, at this time, would be to maybe add her other pen name of Robert Galbraith, as that is what name her Cormoran Strike series is authored under. While not as large a cultural impact as Harry Potter, they are still somewhat well received and notable as far as I know. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 00:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: Just a sidebar comment about {{tq|producer}} - while I agree that this "hat" is not very important in itself, it seems to me that it represents an aspect of her very active role in management of the Wizarding World IP (as do her screenwriting contributions, for that matter). I suspect that this will eventually he looked on as part of Rowling's lasting legacy, and just wish the quality sources would pay more attention to it. End of sidebar. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::The content of the opening sentence has been decided through a previous, now-closed RfC. I strongly believe that, on controversial issues such as Rowling's biography article, editors should avoid repetition of arguments and RfC's. Otherwise, we would only march in place. (Your suggestion is not bad at all, in itself, IMHO. All I'm saying is that, after spending so many human-hours on this article, we should be aiming for progress.) -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 16:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: Yes, that's a fair point. Too bad I missed that one, and hopefully I'll get pinged or bot-summoned for the next one, or notice when it happens. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::The above proposal truly is an excellent opening sentence, and we should endeavour to write many more like it. Actually give the reader a couple of key concrete facts, rather than a generic laundry list of roles that we always seem to default to.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 00:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Remove from lead sentence, but keep in lead section.''' The lead sentence is already quite long. It should only describe the most important key elements of the biography, and Rowling's philanthropy is not one of the most important topics. However, there is enough reliably sourced content dedicated to it that it can be mentioned elsewhere in the lead briefly. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:101%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|18px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:80%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 05:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==== Paragraph 3 re-do proposal ==== |
|||
*'''Remove from lead sentence, but keep in lead section''' per [[User:FormalDude|FormalDude]]'s reasoning. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 16:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
As I've mentioned, there are plenty of new sources to cite this content; since I don't have full journal access, I've only listed some at the end of this section, hoping that others will review and decide which to use. And I'd combine the bit we lost at [[#But sales of books grew, and more]] in to this paragraph. My (original) concern was that we not lose the enduring content about the debates the controversy has generated as spillover. Suggest Paragraph 3 thusly (once new sources are chosen from list below and substituted in): [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Rowling's views have fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> discussions about [[feminist views on transgender topics]],<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]],{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} [[cancel culture]]{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and the relationship of authors to their [[fandom]];{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/><ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref><ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> She has been the target of widespread condemnation{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} and insults, including death threats.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}}<ref name=Burnell4June>{{Cite news|last=Burnell|first=Paul|date=4 June 2024|title= Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o |access-date= 9 June 2024}}</ref> Despite the controversy, sales of ''Harry Potter'' books grew during the [[COVID-19]] lockdown.{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=238}}<ref>{{cite news |first=Mark |last= Sweney |title= Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |work= [[The Guardian]] |date= 21 July 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> Some performers and feminists have supported her,{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}}<ref>{{cite news |first=Katie |last=Law |date= 15 October 2020|title= JK Rowling and the bitter battle of the book world |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/books/trans-battle-book-world-jk-rowling-a4571221.html |work= [[Evening Standard]] |access-date=27 March 2022|ref=none}}<Br />* {{cite news |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |title= Maya Forstater: who is woman in employment tribunal over transgender comments? |first= Sam |last= Hancock |date= 27 April 2021 |work= [[The Independent]] |access-date= 27 March 2022|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210427131430/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |archive-date= 27 April 2021 |quote= ... criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey – known for launching legal action against LGBT+ rights charity Stonewall over its attempt to have her investigated for setting up the anti-trans rights group LGB Alliance – has also been a vocal supporter of Ms Forstater.|ref=none}}<br />* {{cite news |last1=Thorpe |first1=Vanessa |title=JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=14 June 2020 |quote=Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend |access-date=6 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200704200412/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |archive-date=4 July 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}}<br />* {{Cite news |first= Maya |last=Yang|date=7 October 2021|title='I'm team Terf': Dave Chappelle under fire over pro-JK Rowling trans stance|url=https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/oct/07/dave-chappelle-transgender-netflix-special-backlash|access-date=27 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]]|ref=none}}<br />* {{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}}<br />* {{cite news |title='I don't think JK Rowling is transphobic,' says gender-fluid comedian Eddie Izzard |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=27 November 2021 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=1 January 2021|ref=none}}<br />* {{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".<ref name= Flockhart2020>{{cite news |last= Flockhart |first= Gary |date= 28 September 2020 |access-date= 2 April 2022 |work = [[The Scotsman]] |title= JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row|url= https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-receives-support-from-ian-mcewan-and-frances-barber-amid-transphobia-row-2986268|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
{{cot|title= Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
=====Divided feminists ===== |
|||
*Per [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] I get the feeling this is one of two discussions occurring on this talk page that need to be taken to a noticeboard. In this case [[WP:BLPN]], as the discussion on philanthropy is clearly spanning multiple BLPs. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
#This [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/23780231241237662 scholarly source] ("Feminism and Support for the Transgender Movement in Britain", American Sociological Association) cited [https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-living-anti-intellectual-times the Ferber piece in the ''New Statesman'' about JKR]. |
|||
::Yes, I agree with this. I feel we should '''remove''' philanthropy from the lead sentence here, but retain the existing brief mention further down in the lead. [[MOS:LEADSENTENCE]] says to {{tq|try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject}}; philanthropy is notable but tertiary and doesn't pass that standard - people are presenting sources sufficient to establish that it is ''notable for somewhere in the article'', but the standard for the lead sentence is much stricter and should focus on the core definition of the topic needed for readers to orient themselves on what the article is about, comparable to how the subject is casually described in the preponderance of sources rather than trying to squeeze in everything potentially noteworthy written about them everywhere. That said, this argument is hardly limited to this article - philanthropy should, by default, not be mentioned in the lead sentence in ''any'' article where it's not a major aspect of the subject's notability; almost anyone with a lot of money tends to donate significant raw amounts of it, and these donations tend to attract coverage, but that doesn't make it a core defining aspect of the topic. The lead sentence should focus laser-tight on their main source of notability and their core description, as they appear when mentioned normally; very, very few people are casually introduced as "philanthropist" in settings outside those directly related to their philanthropy, meaning that it's rarely a good descriptor for a first sentence. We have the rest of the lead to discuss secondary stuff like what they did with the money earned from their main source of notability. That, however, is obviously a larger discussion that can't be settled here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
# Victoria, are you able to look in to this ? "Feminist Lesbians as Anti-Trans Villains: A Comment on Worthen and Elaboration. By: Burt, Callie H., Sexuality & Culture, 10955143, Feb2023, Vol. 27, Issue 1. |
|||
* '''Move lower in lead'''{{snd}}exclude from the first sentence, in order "{{xt|to not overload the first sentence by describing everything}}" about her; but keep in the lead, because there's a lot of information about it in reliable sources, and an entire section in the article that deserves summarization, and per "{{xt|spread the relevant information out over the entire lead}}". Towards the end of the third paragraph, which introduces her "{{thinspace}}'rags to riches' life" would be the perfect place for this. <small>(this is an update of my [[#23:45, 1 Dec|undecided comment above]])</small> [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
#: "Worthen thus asserts that GC feminists "are opposed to the recognition of trans women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnormativity," citing Kathleen Stock, J.K. Rowling, and me, among other GC feminists (whom she labels 'TERFs')[15] (p.2). While these may be simple descriptions of our arguments, they are misguided." |
|||
#: "Therefore, any questioning or resistance—or even support for the right of others to raise questions or concerns—about negotiating sex-based and gender-identity-based claims is frequently met with hostile, even threatening, responses and derogation. This should not be unexpected; as Manne explains, misogyny targets and blows out of proportion even small violations, which are made out to be indicative of women's bad character, in general.[32] Thus women, like J.K. Rowling, who explicitly support human rights for transwomen, profess compassion and sympathy, and support non-discrimination protections for transwomen in all sex-neutral contexts (which is most contexts), can be cast as horrible 'hateful TERFs' and subject to harassment, violent threats, no-platforming with wholesale disregard for the actual substance of their beliefs and actions. Remarkably, Worthen's article, like much trans-activist feminist scholarship, is silent about the "anti-GC feminist activism" including activists' publicly expressed physical threats, harassment, and celebration of intimidating sloganeering and signs: "kill TERFs, trans power". This is because of misogyny." |
|||
#::Seems to be available via Springer, which can be found on TWL. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#:::Looked at this. Basically Burt's paper refutes [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-022-09970-w this article] ("This is my TERF!") & is about lesbian feminism. The two quotes above are the only time Rowling is mentioned. But yes, it is about differences in feminist ideology, though the paper is not about Rowling. This might be a shareable link: [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-022-09970-w] [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 14:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#:::Just to add: I don't think this paper supports that Rowling's statements have divided feminists. Rather it's about the debate in feminism: {{tq|Feminism is currently embroiled in a vociferous debate between gender-critical (GC) feminists who believe that human sex is real and determined by biology; that one’s sex matters sometimes; that gender is a social construction imposed on male and female bodies, which constrains female bodies in subordinate, caregiving roles and thus should be challenged; and that the constituency of feminism is female people (e.g., Allen et al., 2019; Burt, 2020; Lawford-Smith, 2022a). On this view, women and girls have been historically oppressed based on their sex, partly through gender, and remain disadvantaged socially, economically, and politically. On the other side are feminists who accept some combination of the following claims: (1) that sex is not a biological fact but is assigned at birth on the basis of social norms (not biological reality); (2) that gender (identity) should be prioritized over sex for all purposes with no exceptions; and (3) that transwomen are women or even actually female (making it incorrect, for example, to refer to bepenised transwomen as having ‘male’ genitalia). On this view, women are oppressed based on gender identity not by their sex. To my knowledge, this latter group of feminists does not have a label; I will call them ‘trans-activist feminists’.}} Obviously Rowling is on one side of the debate, but she's hasn't caused it. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 14:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#::::See [[#Paragraph 3 re-do proposal]]; I had already replaced the "divided feminists" wording. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===== Freedom of speech and cancel culture ===== |
|||
* '''Remove from lead sentence, but keep in lead section''' per FormalDude. I like Mathglot's proposed lead sentence a lot. The vast majority of people know Rowling as the author of HP; far fewer know her other works and activities. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC) (Oops, just noticed the comment about the earlier RfC. So yeah, just remove from lead sentence but keep in the lead section). |
|||
# Callie H. Burt above. |
|||
*'''Retain''' at least in the lead section. I've observed before that most very wealthy people engage in some philanthropy, but Rowling has received awards and honors for hers, which makes it a part of her broad notability. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 12:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
# Keohane, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00027642241240337 Cancel Culture Rhetoric and Moral Conflict in Contemporary Democratic Societies |
|||
*'''Remove from first sentence, keep in lead section''' per {{u|Aquillion}} and {{u|FormalDude}}. Squeezing too much into the first sentence is just poor form. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 17:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
# Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality? By: Norris, Pippa, Political Studies, 00323217, Feb2023, Vol. 71, Issue 1 |
|||
# You are Cancelled': Emergence of Cancel Culture in the Digital Age. Lokhande, Gayatri; Natu, Sadhana. IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review. 2022, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p252-259. 8p. |
|||
# How Cancel Culture Tarnishes Morals Clauses and What to do About It. Peterson, Jordan M. Vermont Law Review. 2022, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p220-247. |
|||
# Agonism in the arena: Analyzing cancel culture using a rhetorical model of deviance and reputational repair. Academic Journal. Hobbs, Mitchell John; O'Keefe, Sarah. Public Relations Review. Mar2024, Vol. 50 Issue 1, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102420. |
|||
# HARM AND HEGEMONY: THE DECLINE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES. TURLEY, JONATHAN. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Jul2022, Vol. 45 Issue 2, p571-701 |
|||
# Pape (already cited in article) |
|||
:#Burt should be available via TWL on Springer. |
|||
:#Keohane, ditto but on Sage |
|||
:#:Keohane - this might be the shareable link [https://journals-sagepub-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/share/PD3CPRRXBYQBD7R64YSN?target=10.1177/00027642241240337] Here's the abstract: {{tq|This article argues that cancel culture rhetoric has become a key language for moral conflict in a polarized polity. A thematic rhetorical analysis of two prominent figures who claimed to be canceled, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley and Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling, shows similar rhetorical moves despite different contexts. Drawing conclusions from their rhetorical strategies, this article contends that claiming to be canceled is an effective image repair maneuver in the contemporary, polarized political system. As Hawley and Rowling’s rhetoric shows, claiming to be canceled allows a speaker to chart a middle course between empowerment and disempowerment while identifying a transcendent context to take a stand against a defined moral ill. Likewise, it crafts a moment of urgency wherein the speaker and their audience can relate, prompting a moralizing call to action. In short, claiming to be canceled facilitates storytelling where character work can occur in the service of image repair and image promotion.}} It's about cancel culture, but I'd be hesitant to use it to support the sentence that Rowling has fuelled debates about cancel culture. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 14:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:#Norris shows pdf available (g-scholar) - [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00323217211037023 here it is] |
|||
:#Lokande seems to be hosted via Ebsohost. So, again, TWL |
|||
:#:Here's the abstract: {{tq|Cancel culture' is a term on which the internet is widely divided into sections. Initially meant to call out the wrong doings of the people in powerful positions and hold them accountable for their actions, is now also seen as a tool for further exploitation of the marginalized people. It is essential to distinguish between the various terminologies around it in order to understand the various standpoints around it. This research project tries to highlight the same. Social exclusion from the online space can have a significant impact on the mental health of people. Even though this has been discussed, it is essential to see cancel culture in the light of its impact on different hierarchies of the society and the rising intolerance on the online space in the Indian context. Hence, the objectives of the study are- Understanding the history of repression and social exclusion, which has now evolved into a new form known as cancel culture. Investigating the effects of cancel culture on the mental health of various groups. This study is a qualitative analysis of various accounts of cancel culture. The methodology consists of interviews of experts from the fields of psychology, political science and media and film studies. It also relies on the secondary data analysis of various journal articles, news articles and books. The theoretical framework of the study is Martha Nussbaum's theory of objectification and Noelle-Neumann's spiral of silence theory and the result is consistent with it. The conclusion summarizes the key findings and considers their broader implications. the study's rationale is to comprehend the complexities of cancel culture in the light of intolerance and study the mental health implications for various sections of society in India.}} Paper does not mention Rowling. Can't get a shareable link, but if logged into TWL, [https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=158192312&site=eds-live&scope=site this might work]. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:#Peterson is hosted by HeinOnline - not sure whether TWL has but it's worth looking |
|||
:#Hobbs & O'Keefe >> looks like there's a pdf link right there on g-scholar. |
|||
:#Turley > not sure I'd use him. |
|||
:Sorry am up to my eyeballs, house renovations, health, travel, etc. Hopefully will surface mid-Julyish. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===== Relationship of author to fandom ===== |
|||
: She's not noted for being a producer. David Heyman produced all the HP films.[[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
# Taylor https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41290-024-00216-w Harry Potter and the ‘Death of the Actor’: reimagining fusion in cultural pragmatics |
|||
===== Academic freedom ===== |
|||
*'''Move lower''': as Mathglot says above and Aquillion says in the subsection below, it's ''a'' thing she's somewhat notable for (so, reasonable to mention in the lead ''section''), but it's not ''the'' (or even ''a'') defining [[WP:LEADSENTENCE]] thing. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 03:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
# Free Speech in Academia. WOOD, PETER W. Texas Review of Law & Politics. Summer2023, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p761-787. 27p. |
|||
*'''Retain'''. The fact she has entire section dedicated to her philanthropy demonstrates that it is worth noting in the lead paragraph, per [[MOS:LEADPARA]]. [[User:Spy-cicle|<span style='color: 4019FF;'><b> Spy-cicle💥 </b></span>]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|<sup><span style='color: #1e1e1e;'><b>'''''Talk'''''?</b></span></sup>]] 18:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:I find (presumably unintended) hilarity in editors whose !votes argue that a philantropy section merits inclusion of "philanthropist" in the lead sentence, but the comparable section on the transgender controversies - for which the quality sourcing is considerably stronger - does not merit a mention in the lead section at all. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::An... interesting voting choice, yeah.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 19:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::Not 100% what you are saying here but those two discussions are distinct. [[MOS:LABEL]] applies to something terms like "transphobic" unlike the term "philanthropist". [[User:Spy-cicle|<span style='color: 4019FF;'><b> Spy-cicle💥 </b></span>]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|<sup><span style='color: #1e1e1e;'><b>'''''Talk'''''?</b></span></sup>]] 23:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I believe Newimpartial is observing that the two discussions are both content disputes over well-sourced material, and therefore one could assume your response to one would be based on at least somewhat similar reasoning as your response to the other. A lack of any such correlation suggests [[cherry-picking]] the justifications used in your response–rather than actually believing them. In other words, you appear to be deciding your !vote first and then coming up with policies that support it, when it should be the other way around. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:101%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|18px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:80%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 12:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Retain''' - Best not to ''hide'' in any way, that she ''is'' a philanthropist. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:The ongoing discussion about her political views is ''much'' closer to "hiding content" than this proposal is. Here all we're doing is suggesting a slightly lower placement in the lead, for an arguably equally well sourced topic, and yet at the other discussion you're supporting removing any mention of the political views in the lead entirely. That would be called censorship by some. |
|||
*:It just seems very telling, especially with your lack of any policy-based argument here. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:101%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|18px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:80%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 02:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::Your attempts to annoy, isn't working. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::It was an opportunity for you to better explain and justify your lackluster comment. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2;font-family:Trebuchet MS; font-size:101%">'''''FormalDude'''''</span>]] [[File:Emojione 1F427.svg|18px|link=Special:Contributions/FormalDude]] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:80%">[[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#FFF">'''talk'''</span>]]</span></sup> 11:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I don't owe you any kind of further explanation & won't be giving you any. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::No one owes anyone explanations, you are entitled to your inconsistencies like other editors here. You have every right to be contradictory and not give a rational reason why her less notable but generous Philanthropy should remain in the opening sentence, while at the same time you're voting to expunge any mention of Rowling's political views ''{{tq|Leave it out completely. She's most notable as an author}}'' from the lead entirely, even though the latter has has far more international coverage in the reliable press media. (Please note: i have not voted to remove her Philanthropy from the lead but to move it down from lead sentence) <span class="unicode" style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #777777">[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup></span> 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::I'm content to allow the RFC closer to judge my 'survey' post at the aforementioned RFC. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Move lower''' It's notable that she is no longer a billionaire because of her philanthropy. But, writing and producing got Rowling there.[[User:Frederika Eilers|Fred]] ([[User_Talk:Frederika Eilers|talk]]) |
|||
=== |
==== Discussion of paragraph 3 redo proposal ==== |
||
That's all for me; I do think once we nail down these few bits, we will be ready for install. {{u|Victoriaearle}} my list of possible sources above could benefit from your scrutiny, choice, etc. I will again be very busy tomorrow and Wednesday, so done for now -- I ran out of time to cough up all the sources I saw earlier, but hope this is enough to capture the idea of just mentioning the spillover enduring issues raised. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"These few bits"? Well, I'm overwhelmed. Someone else's turn to do draft #9, I think.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:S Marshall, I could just pick a few of the sources above to use, if that would help advance our finishing the job, but I hesitated to be the one to do that since I don't have full journal access ... hence I just gave a brief list. I hope you will continue, as we're almost there. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== The "sales increased in 2020" problem == |
|||
Please be careful about using the tally on the first SRP (search result page) of Google or other search engines indicating the "total number of results", especially for unquoted results This doesn't mean what most searchers think it does, and for most discussions like this one, is almost useless as evidence. For example, the claim at the top that |
|||
First off, nothing I'm going to say is an attack on anyone's research for Wikipedia. But... there's context that puts really strong doubts on seemingly-sensible interpretations of what are probably true facts. I'm going to focus on the Guardian article first, because Pape uses it as the source for her figures (with a minor mistake): |
|||
:{{talk quote|Searching "jk rowling philanthropist" gives me 91,300 results on Google...}} |
|||
is not helpful, because of how Google's relevance algorithm works, it will continue to show less and less relevant results, that do not contain all the search terms, and may not contain any of them. To get a better idea of the real number of results actually relevant to the query, you have to advance through the SRPs (click the "next" arrow, or one of the page numbers at the bottom). For this particular query, when you get to page 22 (containing results #210 and above) you will find that there are [https://www.google.com/search?q=j+k+rowling+philanthropist&start=210 no more than 211 results for this query]. (I should say, when "I get to page 22", because your results may be different based on your location, your settings, and your previous search history; your results may be different.) |
|||
I did some checking, and [https://hub.londonbookfair.co.uk/uk-pandemic-reading-trends-revealed-at-the-london-book-fair/ book sales just generally shot up a lot during COVID, and have continued to increase since.] So that sales of her books increased is largely meaningless without comparing it to other trends. This article in particular is from July 2020, which means it's 3 months into the first British lockdown and covers the UK alone, annd is dealing with an increase in purchases during lockdown. That's not a big timescale. It's also ''very'' early in the J.K. Rowling transgender views controversy, so one can question whether she even had enough bad press at that point - while people were distracted by lockdowns - for a noticable change in the first place. |
|||
But not even all of these 211 results are necessarily indicative of reliable sources about J.K. Rowling's philanthropy so you have to go through and examine them, or at least, sample them. For example, result #203 (for me) on [https://www.google.com/search?q=j+k+rowling+philanthropist&start=200 page 21 of results], is "[https://player.fm/series/free-fourm-podcast/ep-10-tom-hanks-and-dave-chappelle-pardon-turkeys-in-a-time-machine Ep. 10: Tom Hanks and Dave Chappelle Pardon Turkeys in a Time Machine]". This is considered by Google the 203rd most relevant result for the search <code>j k rowling philanthropist</code>. Why? Because if you go to that page and scroll down, you'll find Player FM's blurb and link to "{{xt|Ep. 5: J.K. Rowling and Bill Gates are Naked and Afraid after Scary E.R. Stories}}" about half-way down the page. Nothing about philanthropy, but there doesn't have to be; after all, we're on the [https://www.google.com/search?q=j+k+rowling+philanthropist&start=200 21st SRP]. Many of the results before this are entirely irrelevant wrt to her philanthropy as well, so the number is considerably less than 200, not 91,000 or 500,000. |
|||
In short, it's almost certainly true, but it may not be at all meaningful, and, in the absence of comparison with the baseline, probably shouldn't appear here. |
|||
As another indication of why the initial numbers are not helpful, if [https://www.google.com/search?q=j+k+rowling+philanthropist j k rowling philanthropist] returns 500k results, and [https://www.google.com/search?q=j+k+rowling+numismatist j k rowling numismatist] returns 200k, what does that tell us, that she collects coins two hours a day, and sends out checks to charity for five hours? (Anyone want to guess how many results for [https://www.google.com/search?q=j+k+rowling+marine+biologist j k rowling marine biologist]?) |
|||
---- |
|||
So, let's go on to Pape. Pape is using the Guardian source from 2020, and (mildly) misquotes her source: she says sales of Harry Potter are up 28%, the actual source is that sales of ''children's books sold by Bloomberg'' - a class that includes Harry Potter - are up 27% - and sales as a whole were up 28%. (Frankly, though, the Guardian article is written in a sufficiently convoluted way that that Pape's mistake is a pretty easy one to make.) More problematic is the timeline aspect: As said above, the Guardian article is from 2020, before Rowling had done that much. Pape may be writing in 2022, but if the source for her statistics is from 2020, and she doesn't have other sources, it doesn't push us beyond 2020, and hits all the issues mentioned above. |
|||
So, please be very careful about using search engine hit counts for comparisons; none of the figures I've seen above contribute anything usable (positive or negative) about what the comparative standing in reliable sources really is. That doesn't mean one should give up and not use search engines; it means the queries have to be carefully composed and targeted, and the analysis has to be more sophisticated than just throwing numbers out there from the first page of simple, unquoted queries. Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
(This doesn't affect Pape as a source much beyond this issue; Pape is a 2022 source, but only cites things from 2021 and earlier. Pape may be out-of-date for some information, but I don't object to using her as a source ''where she's not out-of-date''. |
|||
:Thanks for your input, I edited my comment. [[User:Natuff|Natuff]] ([[User talk:Natuff|talk]]) 13:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: I mean, in addition to this... J. K. Rowling with no qualifiers has 38,500,000 results. If we only have 91,300 results with "philanthropist" included, that suggests that she's referred to a philanthropist around 0.2% of the time she's discussed, which makes it hard to support the argument that it's a major aspect of her notability. For the record, [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22J.+K.+Rowling%22+%22martian%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=h3qqYf6uHKyuptQPj8iGuA0&ved=0ahUKEwi-jpbhuMj0AhUsl4kEHQ-kAdcQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22J.+K.+Rowling%22+%22martian%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgAEEcQsANKBQg8EgExSgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUOUEWNUIYNkJaAFwAngAgAFUiAFUkgEBMZgBAKABAcgBB8ABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz "J.K. Rowling" "martian"] has 195,000 results, so if we're going to say she's a philanthropist in the lead sentence based on those results, we should also make it clear to readers that she's a martian. Part of the underlying issue here is that even if the raw search results were accurate, the massive amount of coverage means that even very tangential things are going to have a lot of hits. That's why I feel a random sample is best, as I described below - we're not judging ''is there enough coverage to mention this at all'', but ''is this one of the absolute most important things anyone could know about her?'' So the important thing is what percentage of references highlight that, rather than raw numbers. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: Precisely. Put another way, is it majority, minority, or fringe coverage—i.e., is it [[WP:DUE]] in the lead or not? [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*My opinion is that the ideal way to try and judge things like this (how is the subject ''normally'' described? What is the balance of coverage?), especially for topics with a lot of coverage like this one, is to take a random selection from searching just their name with no qualifiers, and quote the primary description from each source the first time it comes up. I'd be willing to do that if people think it would resolve this (or someone else could), but I think it's obvious enough that that kind of random selection would not mention philanthropy with any particular frequency that I figure I should ask whether it's worth it first. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*: Yes, that's the way to do it. I'd just qualify it slightly, to: "description from each [independent] source the first time it comes up". Multiple, reliable, secondary sources are often, but not always, [[WP:INDEPENDENT]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021 == |
|||
The framing of this fact is where everything falls apart: "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" - again, this is an interpretation that appears in the Guardian article (it's only implied in Pape) - but we can't possibly put that in present tense. We have no sources for booksales after July 2020. That's in no way enough to make statements about her success. The sourcing is, quite simply, far too outdated. |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=yes}} |
|||
add [[Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore]] to her filmography, she both cowrote and coproduced it [[Special:Contributions/96.41.105.14|96.41.105.14]] ([[User talk:96.41.105.14|talk]]) 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:{{not done|That film is unreleased, and isn't due for release until 2022.}} There is an entry for it already in the source of the filmography table marked as "do not make visible until film is released". [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Splitting off list of awards == |
|||
As for the other bit of that paragraph: As far as I'm aware, the HBO Harry Potter series hasn't even been cast yet, it's not meant to appear until 2026. We have no evidence of it being successful; it doesn't even exist yet. One could instead say something like, "Production of the ''[[Fantastic Beasts]]'' series was cancelled after the third film proved to be the lowest grossing film based on Rowling's work." and use it to imply the exact opposite. |
|||
I don't see the need to include the whole list in this article. Some major ones (e.g. National Book Award, OBE, Principe de Asturias) are worth including, but other ones (Nestle) are definitely not as important, and could be better off in a separate list article called [[List of awards received by J. K. Rowling]] with a short summary of the important ones in this article. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 23:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
:Note, see [[Laurence_Olivier#Honours]] for a great example on how to do this, with its associated article (FL-class) [[List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier|here]]. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 23:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force]], [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Women]], [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Women writers]], [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Children's literature]], [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Bristol]], [[Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment]], [[Wikipedia: Version 0.5]]. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">[[User:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Santacruz</span>]] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|<span style="color:#fff">Please ping me!</span>]]</span> 23:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --> |
|||
:I don't think the current content justifies a split. If you expand the section then that's another matter. I'm no fan of Nestlé's public image whitewashing campaigns to downplay their [[Nestlé boycott|history of child endangerement]], but the [[Nestlé Smarties Book Prize|Children's Book Prize]] (given by [[BookTrust]] and sponsored by Nestlé) looks notable. JKR is not really comparable to Olivier as acting awards are more numerous than book awards. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 16:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with Bilorv. It's the same reason that [[J K Rowling bibliography]] simply redirects here. Despite being a notable author, she has published a very small selection of books and papers, which isn't extensive enough to justify a new article. The section could use some rewriting, though, and maybe then it would need to be split. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🔔]]</sup></small> 15:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I would not say there needs to be a split, no. It seems fine as it is. [[User:JoePhin|<span style="color: green">Joe</span>]] ([[User talk:JoePhin|talk]]) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I don’t see the need to split this content. There is a ''lot'' of fat in the article that can be trimmed just by a good copyedit, so I don’t see the need for this relevant content to go. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmapocock/2020/07/19/us-harry-potter-book-sales-underperforming-according-to-recent-industry-figures/ Forbes states] that American sales of Harry Potter in the same period lagged behind increases in other children's book purchases. "As the industry as a whole experiences a surge of print sales, Rowling’s works, and sales of Harry Potter books (including licensed titles), have seen a sudden drop. This reported U.S. print book sales drop in June coincides with controversy around tweets and statements made by Rowling via Twitter from June 6 onward." |
|||
== FAR notice == |
|||
It's honestly kind of awkward: Reports of profits by Bloomberg inevitably mention Harry Potter, but then give stats for Bloomberg as a whole. [https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/05/31/harry-potter-publisher-sees-record-sales], say. |
|||
An editor has nominated [[J. K. Rowling]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|here]]. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 04:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/british-publisher-behind-harry-potter-152730894.html?guccounter=1 This] is the best evidence I've seen for any sort of Potter success, but it doesn't include any numbers related to sales, just relative popularity (hit #1 in children's book sales in 2023 for the first time since 2002). - and, again, that's '''only''' British sales. |
|||
== Bristol Wikiproject == |
|||
We need more recent sources on sales of ''Harry Potter'' - which include America and other countries - to say much of anything. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please stop adding this article to the Bristol Wikiproject. This article is not relevant to the Bristol Wikiproject. JKR's Wikipedia page does not explain any connection to Bristol, and the Bristol article (and sub-articles) do not mention JKR. If there were a relevant, non-trivial connection, it would be mentioned in those articles. "The article might be of interest to Bristol editors" is not a good reason to add it to a Wikiproject - by that logic we could it add it to every Wikiproject, and make all Wikiprojects as cluttered with random articles as the Bristol project currently is. If an editor is interested in this topic, they will follow the article or one of the Wikiprojects that it's actually relevant to. The editors who follow the Bristol Wikiproject might be interested in all sorts of random topics, but they one thing they're all interested in is Bristol topics, of which JKR is not one. |
|||
*Luckily, the Guardian article doesn't just quote sales figures for the children's books division. The journalist also interviewed the boss of Bloomsbury, hence: {{tq2|The company, which publishes all of the author’s Harry Potter books, said its consumer publishing arm grew sales by 28% to £31.4m. The children’s division grew by 27% to £18.7m, with Bloomsbury highlighting Rowling’s titles as a “bestseller”... Nigel Newton, the Bloomsbury chief executive, said the books had remained bestsellers since Rowling published her views on her website last month. “Harry Potter has been very popular with families at home reading to each other and has been marvellous throughout this period,” he said.}} |
|||
Adding articles to Wikiprojects means that those projects get notifications for any issues that come up on those articles. When an article is subject to many such issues, as this one seems to be, those notifications can drown out everything else that is happening on those projects and become spam. Overfilling Wikiprojects with off topic or very very tenuously connected topics therefore makes them less useful, not more. |
|||
:The claim that these figures aren't meaningful stumbles over the fact that a scholarly source found them meaningful enough to remark on. |
|||
:The claim that these figures are outdated stumbles over the fact that these are the latest figures published by a reliable source. |
|||
:The Forbes article from June 2020 (a) predates the Guardian one, (b) appears in no scholarly source, and (c) doesn't account for audio books or ebooks. The ebook was released for free during this period which will have affected sales.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::TL;DR: In the game of Wikipedia, doing your own research to counteract a scholarly source counts as a foul.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The book sales sentence could be revised to make it more general; something along the lines of: {{blue|Despite the controversy, the ''Harry Potter'' books have remained popular,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Sweney |first1=Mark |title=Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |website=The Guardian |date=21 July 2020}}</ref> and the game ''[[Hogwarts Legacy]]'' became a commercial success and received favorable reviews and praise from critics despite the calls for boycotts by the trans community.}}<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/hogwarts-legacy-controversy-explained-1.6765491}}</ref> (could use some wordsmithing) [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 11:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you. [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 13:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|title= References}} |
|||
:She's "Bristol's most famous daughter" according to the BBC, in part because of her primary schooling in Winterbourne. I've added that to the article now. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 13:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
:Agree with Some1 and S Marshall on the original research aspect of refuting Pape, but also, please reference [[#Paragraph 3 re-do proposal]] in terms of any reframing needed. I would not use the sentence "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" at all, and if you track back to my original proposal, the idea was (to maintain neutrality) to convey that plenty of Rowling's work is moving forward (particularly the theme parks moving forward). Without getting in to any OR about book sales etc during Covid, the original sentence stated a simple fact (her products are not losing popularity). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This depends on how wide an area the Bristol Wikiproject covers - which I guess is a matter for them. Winterbourne is ''near'' Bristol but is certainly not within the [[City of Bristol]], and it is very debatable (depending on precise definitions, which vary) whether it falls within the wider [[Bristol metropolitan area]]. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 13:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Her Winterbourne school has a Bristol address[https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/21/109225]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 13:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::Wikiprojects are not based on postcodes, I think. The [[BS postcode area]] is quite extensive. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 13:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree it's OR with Pape, but I'm not suggesting material for the article, I'm reviewing a source. We have a duty to not put misleading or false material into our articles. |
|||
::OK there are 2 different questions here now - whether it's correct/useful/normal to describe Winterbourne as part of Bristol, and whether it's useful for this page to be included in the Bristol Wikiproject, and I don't think the answer to the latter necessarily depends on the former. The latter question I think is also one which is more properly discussed over at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bristol#JK_Rowling_-_relevant_to_this_Wikiproject]], as it's a question which affects members of the Wikiproject while probably being of very little interest or relevance to people who follow this talk page. [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 13:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, using present tense for facts sourced to 2020 is a problem. I think there's probably some evidence for Harry Potter remaining popular, but we can't use a source from 2020 and use the present tense. As I said, there's evidence they sold really well in 2023 (in Britain); if we could add in a source about America, at least, I'd buy it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 12:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sources describe Winterbourne as being "Bristol". It has a Bristol address, and Winterbourne is within the scope of WPBristol; so that seems clear enough. Whether WPBristol members want to keep an eye on a person who may be (slightly) connected with Bristol is up to them. Maybe they could help clarify the extent of any Bristol aspect to Rowling's bio. But to assert there is no connection and three times remove it from the Project without discussions seems like a very odd way of going about things. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 14:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::First we have to encourage S Marshall to continue with Draft 9 (both Victoria and I are swamped with IRL stuff) and I hope he will, since we are almost over the line/done here. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::The idea that anywhere with a BS postcode has "a Bristol address" is mistaken. As [[:File:BS_postcode_area_map.svg|the map]] shows, the postcode area extends for at least 30 miles beyond Bristol in several directions. But, it's a matter for the WikiProject as to whether Rowling falls within their remit. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
:::::You're straw-manning. The school has a Bristol address: on its website it is literally "St Michael's C of E Primary School, Linden Close, Winterbourne, Bristol BS36 1LG". That might be debatable but to find it "bizarre" shows a rather ill-tuned sense of what is bizarre. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 18:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agree with that. Also it's a diversion. As of today, [[Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone]] is #7 on the New York Times best seller list, after 795 weeks on the list [https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/series-books/]. Plus it has a up arrow next to the listing, so it's up from last week or month. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I changed "bizarre" to a more appropriate wording! As someone who used to work on policy issues for that area, I know that many (probably most) residents of Winterbourne would be extremely hostile to the idea that they were in any way, shape or form "part of" Bristol, postcode boundaries notwithstanding. But, that may not be relevant here (or sourced). [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 19:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==Draft 9== |
|||
== Biographies - to cite or not to cite == |
|||
::: Earlier drafts at [[Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 20]] and [[Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 19]]. |
|||
Folks, I'm done: through with J.K. Rowling, and honestly, through with featured articles. Rewriting this is like playing a game of [https://www.simplermachines.com/winning-bring-me-a-rock/ bring me a rock]. Let the first person to quibble draft #9 take responsibility for writing draft #10. |
|||
I've amended the text in several places, because I can't stomach publishing the words "opposes proposed" in a sentence of English, and neither should you. Neither the "believes" nor the "is concerned" camps are going to get their way. |
|||
Victoriaearle is 100% right when she says that Rowling hasn't divided feminists. Feminists are already divided on trans people and they have the attitude to Rowling that you'd expect from the flavour of feminism to which they adhere. I've cut that. |
|||
I'm also hereby permanently desisting from the bizarre and slightly unhinged practice of writing proposals as a comparison against historical text laid out in fixed-width 30em wide columns (!), and I certainly won't miss ''that''. You'll just have to work with a conventional proposal in a format that works for everyone, including those of us who ''don't'' use a colossal font size.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{tq2| |
|||
{{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
Rowling has [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical]] views.{{sfn|Whited|2024|loc= p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'."}}{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|loc= pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs"}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|loc= pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)"}} She thinks that making it simpler to [[gender transition]] could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref> Rowling opposes legislation{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]],{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6–8}} whose [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|employment contract was not renewed]] after she shared gender-critical views.{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=230}} In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} According to ''Harry Potter'' scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} In June 2020,{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} Rowling mocked the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=14–15}}{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
Rowling's views have fuelled debates on [[freedom of speech]]{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> and [[academic freedom]],{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> She has been the target of widespread condemnation,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} insults, and threats, including death threats.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}}<ref name=Burnell4June>{{Cite news|last=Burnell|first=Paul|date=4 June 2024|title= Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o |access-date= 9 June 2024}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> Nevertheless, sales of ''Harry Potter'' books grew during the [[COVID-19]] lockdown.{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=238}}<ref>{{cite news |first=Mark |last= Sweney |title= Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |work= [[The Guardian]] |date= 21 July 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
Rowling denies being transphobic.<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= Dismisses>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy' |date= 22 February 2023|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}}<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title=J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Whited's view is that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==== Sources ==== |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
* {{Cite journal|last=Duggan|first=Jennifer|date=28 March 2021|title=Transformative readings: Harry Potter fan fiction, trans/queer reader response, and J. K. Rowling|journal=[[Children's Literature in Education]]|volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=147–168 |doi=10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9|pmid=35645426 |pmc=9132366 |s2cid=233661189 }} |
|||
*{{cite book |editor-last=Konchar Farr |editor-first=Cecilia |title=Open at the Close: Literary Essays on Harry Potter |publisher=[[University Press of Mississippi]] |year=2022 |isbn=978-1-4968-3931-2|ref = {{harvid|Konchar Farr|2022}} }} |
|||
**{{harvc|last=Henderson |first=Tolonda |date=2022 |in=Konchar Farr |c= A Coda: She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2kqx0kz.19 |doi= 10.2307/j.ctv2kqx0kz.19|year=2022|nb=yes}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first= Madeleine |last= Pape |author-link= Madeleine Pape |title= Feminism, trans justice, and speech rights: a comparative perspective |journal= [[Law and Contemporary Problems]] |pages= 215–240 |url= https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5037&context=lcp |date= 2022 |volume= 85 |issue= 1 |access-date= 29 March 2022 }} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first= Sarah |last= Pedersen |title= 'They've got an absolute army of women behind them': the formation of a women's cooperative constellation in contemporary Scotland |journal= [[Scottish Affairs]] |date= 2022 |volume= 31 |issue= 1 |pages= 1–20 |doi= 10.3366/scot.2022.0394 |s2cid= 246762983 |url= https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/1375349 }} |
|||
* {{Cite book|last=Pugh|first=Tison|author-link=Tison Pugh|title=Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions|publisher=[[University of South Carolina Press]]|year=2020|isbn=978-1-64336-088-1|oclc=1142046769|doi=10.2307/j.ctvs09qwv|s2cid=225791872}} |
|||
* {{cite book |first1=Tatiana |last1=Schwirblat|first2=Karen |last2=Freberg |first3=Laura |last3=Freberg |year=2022 |chapter= Chapter 21: Cancel culture: a career vulture amongst influencers on social media |editor1-last=Lipschultz |editor1-first= Jeremy Harris |editor2-last=Freberg |editor2-first= Karen |editor3-last=Luttrell |editor3-first= Regina|title= The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media |publisher= [[Emerald Group Publishing|Emerald Publishing Limited]] |doi=10.1108/978-1-80071-597-420221021|isbn=978-1800715981}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |last1=Steinfeld |first1=Jemimah|title= Not my turf: Helen Lewis argues that vitriol around the trans debate means only extreme voices are being heard |journal= [[Index on Censorship]] |year=2020 |volume=49 |issue= 1 |pages=34–35 |doi= 10.1177/0306422020917609 |s2cid=216495541 |doi-access=free }} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first1= Judith |last1= Suissa |first2= Alice |last2= Sullivan |title= The gender wars, academic freedom and education |journal= [[Journal of Philosophy of Education]] |volume= 55 |issue= 1 |date= February 2021 |pages= 55–82 |doi= 10.1111/1467-9752.12549 |s2cid= 233646159 |doi-access= free |url= https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10125585/1/Suissa_1467-9752.12549.pdf }} |
|||
*{{Cite book|editor-last=Whited|editor-first=Lana A.|title=The Ivory Tower, Harry Potter, and Beyond|publisher=[[University of Missouri Press]]|year=2024|isbn=978-0-8262-2300-5 |ref= {{harvid|Whited (ed)|2024}} }} |
|||
** {{harvc|last= Borah |first= Rebecca Sutherland |c= 'Accio Jo!' Woke Wizards and Generational Potter Fandom |in= Whited (ed) |year=2024 |nb=yes|ref=none}} |
|||
** {{harvc|last=Whited|first=Lana A.|c = Introduction |in= Whited (ed) |year=2024 |nb=yes}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
===Discussion of Draft 9=== |
|||
{{Moved discussion to|Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1|[[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|???]]) ([[Special:Contributions/AleatoryPonderings|!!!]]) 22:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
I'm unwatching this talk page. Please don't ping me back here.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: Here is the ping list from the FAR (minus Ealdgyth, those banned, and those already here): {{ping|4meter4|Ixtal|AleatoryPonderings|Aza24|Barkeep49|Bastun|BilledMammal|Bodney|Buidhe|Crossroads|Endwise|Extraordinary Writ|Firefangledfeathers|FormalDude|Guerillero|Hog Farm|Hurricane Noah|Innisfree987|Ipigott |Johnbod|Olivaw-Daneel|RandomCanadian|Sdkb|Sideswipe9th|Silver seren|SMcCandlish|Xxanthippe|Zmbro|Z1720}} [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Aye==== |
|||
== Tagging suggestion == |
|||
If you feel that this, with all its imperfections, is enough of an improvement over the current version to go in, sign below. |
|||
{{u|AleatoryPonderings}} in the instances where you are (rightfully) objecting to marginal sources, might you consider leaving the citation and tagging those with {{t1|Better source needed}} rather than completely removing them? Sometimes the lesser sources provide important keywords that can be used to locate a better source. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*As proposer:—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 17:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Not perfect, but after working on this for months now, it's good enough. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I haven't really been involved in this effort but I did see the ping and read the latest draft. I think it's quite good, and I don't think that a tenth draft is necessary. Thanks for everyone who worked on this. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 19:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::One quibble - shouldn't the first wikilink go to [[gender-critical feminism]] rather than a section of another page? (This doesn't affect the text itself and I doubt there would be objections, so I don't think this is significant.) <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 19:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Let's get it in, and work from there, with more normal editing. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 20:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Nay==== |
|||
:Yes, will do, sorry. If there are any in particular you or others need, happy to rummage back in the history for the old ones. [[User:AleatoryPonderings|AleatoryPonderings]] ([[User talk:AleatoryPonderings|???]]) ([[Special:Contributions/AleatoryPonderings|!!!]]) 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
If you prefer the current version, or if you think it's essential to have yet ''another'' discussion about it before it goes in, sign below. |
|||
::No, we're good ... I am plugging away in userspace at trimming the Politics section and will post that to the FAR when done (just so you don't waste time in there). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I have not followed in any capacity the turbulent history of proposals for this section, but after an incidental visit from my watchlist I can't look at this not make a comment that this draft is unacceptable (it appears draft six originated most of the problems). "Gender critical" is a term utilized by transphobes to try and legitimatize their views, and the usage of it as the primary descriptor for Rowling is both a flagrant violation of neutrality and extremely concerning. The content talking about the criticism of her views being minimized to a sandwiched couple of sentences in the second paragraph whilst a very charitably picked quote follows her denial of being transphobic in the final paragraph. The result is a biased text that quietly does an excellent job legitimizing her transphobic narratives and I shudder at the thought of it being enshrined upon the live version of her Wikipedia page. [[User:LittleLazyLass|'''<span style="color:#BA55D3">LittleLazyLass</span>''']] ([[User_talk:LittleLazyLass|Talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/LittleLazyLass|Contributions]]) 18:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The term [[Gender-critical feminism]] is now widely used to refer to that set of views, and as such is the title of the Wikipedia article on it. The draft above also seems to have less quotes from her than the current version. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 19:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree that "TERF" is the common term, but think that can be dealt with with regular editing. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 21:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Agree it’s a white-wash. Gives space for her to deny being transphobic without ever stating there is a widespread view that she is? Surprised folks thought this would read as ok. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 21:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:To elaborate, by the time one gets to the last sentence about this topic having {{tq|"permanently changed her 'relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves'"}}, I don’t think the reader has been given enough of the scale of the criticism to understand why people are distancing themselves from her. [[User:Innisfree987|Innisfree987]] ([[User talk:Innisfree987|talk]]) 21:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:59, 25 June 2024
J. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008, and on June 26, 2022. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Death threat
A man has been sentenced for making death threats against J K Rowling and Rosie Duffield. [1] I think this should be added to this article, but I don’t want to interfere with any redrafting, etc. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Incorporated in draft #7, below.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft 7
Suissa and Sullivan are out, and Glenn Mullen is in. As there's no good faith dispute at all over whether J. K. Rowling was insulted and threatened for her views, I've left that in.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft 7.1: 403 words | Historical: 429 words |
---|---|
Rowling has [some contributors want to add a qualifier here] gender-critical views.[1][2][3] She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.[4][5][6][a] She opposes gender self-recognition[11][12][b] and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[14] In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".[15] Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater.[16] When Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views,[17] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][c] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[23] In June 2020,[23] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[25][17] Rowling's views have affected her reputation.[26] She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[9][27][28] insults, and threats, including death threats.[29][30] Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[31][32] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.[33][34][35] and Human Rights Campaign.[4][36][37][38] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[39] Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic.[13][40] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed[11][33] – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[41][42] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[42][43][44] Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".[45] |
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,[4][5][d] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy.[9] Her statements have divided feminists;[6][46][47] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[48][49] academic freedom[8] and cancel culture;[27] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[50] arts[51] and culture sectors.[52] When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views,[17][18] Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][e] In another controversial tweet in June 2020,[34] Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[54][55] LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments;[37][38][f] GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".[61] Rowling responded with an essay on her website[13] in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[42] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[42][62][63] Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny,[64] she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".[65] Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017[9][66][67] – have been called transphobic by critics[68][69] and she has been referred to as a TERF.[69][70][71] She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.[13][68][67] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[72] and the charities Mermaids,[34] Stonewall,[73] and Human Rights Campaign.[74] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[39] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[8] she received insults and death threats[75][76] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[77] Some performers and feminists have supported her.[77][78] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[79] |
Sources
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes
|
Discussion
- Is that meant to be titled as Draft 6.3, or is it a mistake? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Busy for the rest of today, but I should be able to enter my commentary (as promised weeks ago), by tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- PS, this might provide an updated source to replace her website essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- S Marshall, thanks for doing this & huge apologies for being awol (there's another article where I'm in over my head & my time for Wikipedia keeps shrinking). A couple of comments to get started:
- I have some as-yet-very-muddy-thoughts about the first sentence & the phrase gender-critical so I'll try to flesh those out later.
- Minor point, but there's some repetition of "She, she, she" in the first para that needs wordsmithing.
- For people with no clue, have been wondering whether we should try working in a link to Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe
- "affected her reputation" should be cited to Whited page 8
- Good to see the draft less wordy; I'm wondering how others feel about putting back the sentence "Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." that's in the historical draft? The end of that sentence mentions includes " "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real", which is another way of saying sex is immutable. Should that be clarified?
- That's it for now. Victoria (tk) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- In draft 7.1, I've attempted to address points #2, #3 and #4 that you raise, and I await further input on #1 and #5.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! Agreed that input from others is needed.
Just to spin my thoughts out a bit more. Re the first sentence, I've realized that one reason it's been bugging me is that the term gender-critical may mean something very different in the US than in the UK. Recently I read an article about someone running for congress whose opinions about women are, shall we say, a bit archaic. Beyond that this person claims the LGBQT+ movement was created by radical feminists. So we need to be clear in terms of where links are going & what exactly we mean for a global audience.Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with ""Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made. Also I've not had time for a full examination of the essays in Whited (Project MUSE book 111748} or Konchar Farr {Project MUSE book 99615), which in my view needs to be done. Anyway, let's see what the others say. Victoria (tk) 23:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)- Yes. On the wildest, most far-flung fringes of the US right, there lurk certain characters who do indeed like to burst out of their swamps, yell things like "the LGBTQ+ movement was created by radical feminists!" and then slide back into the mire, waiting for the next gloriously unhinged thought to turn up. Like you, I'm often refreshed and challenged by their unique perspectives and their idiosyncratic ways of putting things. I think my personal favourite is "blame the gun". Presumably someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to drive without a driving licence is "blaming the car".I don't think we can use language the way those people do, and I also don't think we should be trying. Conservapedia is thataway ----->. I feel that as encyclopaedists, it's our task to summarize things in simple and clear terms, even (especially!) when the things we're trying to summarize are complex and difficult; and we should use normal, natural language in its usual meaning; and, despite what the US right might think, it's quite possible to be supportive and tolerant of gay and lesbian people, but intolerant of trans people; and that J.K. Rowling is; and that "gender-critical" is succinct, accurate, and neutral. It's not a pejorative.But I can see that "gender-critical" is an uncomfortable thing to say about someone. Even though it's not a pejorative, it's a pungent term. It reeks of repression and segregation and prejudice. It's scrupulously accurate, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I knew I wouldn't be able to make myself clear & that's why I have trouble engaging here. Being told to go off to Conservapedia doesn't want me to engage. To try to clarify: can we not just say she's a Gender-critical feminist whose views align with Maya Forstater (i.e the #IStandWithMaya tweet) & then tell readers who don't know (or who do know) those views are x, y and z (including that they believe sex is immutable). I think we're close. So just ignore me. Victoria (tk) 14:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle If we call J.K. Rowling a gender-critical feminist in the article, do we need to clarify what that means? Surely the page it would link to would give people an idea of what those views are without having to reclarify here? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we should because this is her biography & the article is about her. But I need to step away to refamiliarize myself with the sources & don't have time for that at the moment. Victoria (tk) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- My thought is this: J.K. Rowling uses the term herself, e.g. here. I think we can safely call her gender critical - ideally with an explanation - because it's language she seems to accept as a description of the group she belongs to anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Basically I was only wondering if we needed to gloss the term & failed to explain myself at all well. Stricken a bunch above. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have been stalled by real life matters on coming back to this, but I'm concerned that the process is not engaging WP:WIAFA 1c; yes, we're updating to Whited, which is a good thing, but that's only one high quality recent source, and it's not apparent whether we're working towards a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Instead, we seem to be working towards preferences of individual editors, which won't render this in compliance with FA standards. I don't have easy/full journal access, so can only access that which is freely available, but that (limited) survey continues to support the most NOT-NEWSY, NOT-RECENTISM, and likely to endure statement that was once in the article, and is mentioned by Victoriaearle at 23:56 June 15:
"Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with 'Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc.' ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made."
I've been hoping the other FA writers of the FAR version would find time and inclination to weigh in here so we could address the WIAFA issues, including any updates needed to the literary portions of the article based on Whited and more, but I don't feel like I should ping them again. I have other (more minor) concerns about the draft, but if we aren't working towards meeting WIAFA, I'm unsure what the value of time spent here is ... so I haven't yet spelled those out. Ideas ?? Most certainly, that one deleted sentence is warranted by what I can access as a survey of the relevant literature (scholarly articles restricted to 2024), and is likely the most enduring of the section, so I hope it comes back with updated citations. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)- With all respect, you seem to be objecting to change by holding standards that are not apparent in the original version of the section, which, if anything, is far worse. If this fails WIAFA after the changes, it fails it without the changes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I (and others) have explained several times that the FAR was constrained by the results of a very recent, and very well attended, RFC, and that all acknowledged we would have to revisit after some time had elapsed from that RFC ... so I won't repeat all of that again. Please do reread the archives of discussions already had with you. Now that we are revisiting, we should be keeping WIAFA in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- From a high quality sourcing point-of-view, I'm not convinced there's enough yet to revisit. The search function at the top of the page of The Wikipedia Library goes to Ebscohost. If sorted by newest the first page shows results only from Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Hollywood Reporter, Business Wire, USA Today, and so forth. Sorting by "peer reviewed" does show much and nothing I'm seeing that can be used, on a quick perusal. That said, anyone can search there. Whited is a start, but not much of a start & only published a few months ago. Waiting is not the worst option; agree that the understanding was that the section would be rewritten when high quality sources come available. Victoria (tk) 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I (and others) have explained several times that the FAR was constrained by the results of a very recent, and very well attended, RFC, and that all acknowledged we would have to revisit after some time had elapsed from that RFC ... so I won't repeat all of that again. Please do reread the archives of discussions already had with you. Now that we are revisiting, we should be keeping WIAFA in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- With all respect, you seem to be objecting to change by holding standards that are not apparent in the original version of the section, which, if anything, is far worse. If this fails WIAFA after the changes, it fails it without the changes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have been stalled by real life matters on coming back to this, but I'm concerned that the process is not engaging WP:WIAFA 1c; yes, we're updating to Whited, which is a good thing, but that's only one high quality recent source, and it's not apparent whether we're working towards a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Instead, we seem to be working towards preferences of individual editors, which won't render this in compliance with FA standards. I don't have easy/full journal access, so can only access that which is freely available, but that (limited) survey continues to support the most NOT-NEWSY, NOT-RECENTISM, and likely to endure statement that was once in the article, and is mentioned by Victoriaearle at 23:56 June 15:
- Basically I was only wondering if we needed to gloss the term & failed to explain myself at all well. Stricken a bunch above. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- My thought is this: J.K. Rowling uses the term herself, e.g. here. I think we can safely call her gender critical - ideally with an explanation - because it's language she seems to accept as a description of the group she belongs to anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we should because this is her biography & the article is about her. But I need to step away to refamiliarize myself with the sources & don't have time for that at the moment. Victoria (tk) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle If we call J.K. Rowling a gender-critical feminist in the article, do we need to clarify what that means? Surely the page it would link to would give people an idea of what those views are without having to reclarify here? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I knew I wouldn't be able to make myself clear & that's why I have trouble engaging here. Being told to go off to Conservapedia doesn't want me to engage. To try to clarify: can we not just say she's a Gender-critical feminist whose views align with Maya Forstater (i.e the #IStandWithMaya tweet) & then tell readers who don't know (or who do know) those views are x, y and z (including that they believe sex is immutable). I think we're close. So just ignore me. Victoria (tk) 14:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. On the wildest, most far-flung fringes of the US right, there lurk certain characters who do indeed like to burst out of their swamps, yell things like "the LGBTQ+ movement was created by radical feminists!" and then slide back into the mire, waiting for the next gloriously unhinged thought to turn up. Like you, I'm often refreshed and challenged by their unique perspectives and their idiosyncratic ways of putting things. I think my personal favourite is "blame the gun". Presumably someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to drive without a driving licence is "blaming the car".I don't think we can use language the way those people do, and I also don't think we should be trying. Conservapedia is thataway ----->. I feel that as encyclopaedists, it's our task to summarize things in simple and clear terms, even (especially!) when the things we're trying to summarize are complex and difficult; and we should use normal, natural language in its usual meaning; and, despite what the US right might think, it's quite possible to be supportive and tolerant of gay and lesbian people, but intolerant of trans people; and that J.K. Rowling is; and that "gender-critical" is succinct, accurate, and neutral. It's not a pejorative.But I can see that "gender-critical" is an uncomfortable thing to say about someone. Even though it's not a pejorative, it's a pungent term. It reeks of repression and segregation and prejudice. It's scrupulously accurate, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! Agreed that input from others is needed.
- I believe the draft as written constitutes a considerable improvement on the current text. I'm certain it can be improved further, but we ought not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I do think the sentence beginning "Rowling rejects these characterizations..." needs some reworking specifically because we've lost the reader on what those characterizations might be. I'm also not certain the statement is broadly true; she denies being transphobic, and rejects the "TERF" label (though nobody really embraces it, do they?), but if there's evidence she rejects "gender critical", I've yet to see it. I'm also noting I don't have time to engage deeply here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Her statements have divided feminists...
This sentence was cut because:
- It's not about J.K. Rowling's views; and
- There was pressure to cut the word count.
I don't object to restoring it if we feel the extra words are justified in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- The proposed word count now (400-ish) is approaching 10% less than what was in the article historically (430-ish); IIRC, any pressure to reduce the word count was when the section on transgender rights was hovering around or at times above 475 words (eg here, although I think at one point we were near 500). I propose we have room to bring back one sentence, but that if we did, it could be updated and cited to newer scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bastun re this edit, WP:WIAFA is linked in the discussion just above this one. It stands for What Is A Featured Article, also abbreviated as WP:FACR, Featured Article Criteria. It is separate from Featured Article Review; it is not clear to me that S Marshall was suggesting (yet) that we need a trip to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sources for the "divided feminists" sentence are 2019 and 2020, I don't think this should be used without very explicitly putting some context as to WHEN feminists were divided. Though the sourcing then adds additional problems:
- one source is explicitly about her comments on Maya Forstater. It'd be a great source to use in the context of Forstater, but not to use as if it applied to anything else Rowling said. It's also pretty clearly the main source for the statement; neither of the other two have "feminists divided" as a clear reading.
- One source is just probably not very good: A single tweet by (non-academic) blogger Claire Heuchan is literally the only evidence of feminists supporting Rowling presented.
- The third source is... honestly a great article by Judith Butler, but she explicitly says "...I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen." A source that says gender critical is WP:FRINGE is a poor source to use for a statement that presents the views as equal within feminism.
- ----
- So... aye. I'd probably say that, without modern, mainstream sources talking about a division in feminism, that sentence is dead in the water. And, let's face it: Even if we did find sources, if we kept the text exactly the same, then we wouldn't be summarising modern sources, we'd be using a summary of a source about the reaction to her commentary on Maya Forstater, treating it as if it covered all Rowling's comments since then, and retrofitting sources onto it) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is straightforward. Her statements haven't so much divided feminists, but rather, feminists were already divided on trans issues, and they've split on Rowling according to tribal lines. Those feminists who're gender-critical like Rowling and those who're gender-inclusive dislike her. Her statements have certainly prompted debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech, and they've certainly given rise to declarations of support for trans people from various actors and pressure groups. Nobody who's read the sources could possibly deny any of that, could they?—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm only commenting on that one sentence (as written) and its poor sourcing. I don't disagree with what you just said, but what you just said explicitly rejects the statement I'm commenting on, and what you said, that already gender critical / TERF people supported her, is sky-is-blue stuff that probably doesn't need said. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Probably does need to be said, though, doesn't it. We're an encyclopaedia. Imagine we're writing for an intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, teenager from a village in rural India. If you want reliable/recent sources for this stuff, you don't need to look further than the BBC, which has published so many pieces about J.K. Rowling that she has her own dedicated topic page, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c50znx8v82dt.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm only commenting on that one sentence (as written) and its poor sourcing. I don't disagree with what you just said, but what you just said explicitly rejects the statement I'm commenting on, and what you said, that already gender critical / TERF people supported her, is sky-is-blue stuff that probably doesn't need said. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is straightforward. Her statements haven't so much divided feminists, but rather, feminists were already divided on trans issues, and they've split on Rowling according to tribal lines. Those feminists who're gender-critical like Rowling and those who're gender-inclusive dislike her. Her statements have certainly prompted debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech, and they've certainly given rise to declarations of support for trans people from various actors and pressure groups. Nobody who's read the sources could possibly deny any of that, could they?—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sources for the "divided feminists" sentence are 2019 and 2020, I don't think this should be used without very explicitly putting some context as to WHEN feminists were divided. Though the sourcing then adds additional problems:
Wikipedia Featured article criteria (WIAFA)
Without changes to this section the article is outdated. Without the proposed changes it represents a historical version of what J.K. Rowling is famous for, and it's consequently drawing attention from people who want to update it piecemeal. A wholesale rewrite from the best sources available is the least bad option.—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Choosing to not update it is basically saying this article should not be an FA. If we're not going to do the best job we can with it, then it's not featurable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 22:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- As it happens, I agree with S Marshall. But I also understand the urge to swap newer sources for those the FA writers used some years ago. I wasn't one of the contributors (except maybe a little around the edges) and tapped out with Wikipedia atm. To keep the process on track, do you have any comments to make regarding S Marshall's most recent draft, Adam Cuerden? That's how we keep going. Victoria (tk) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fairly happy with it. I'm just not happy with - and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is.
- There's bits to argue. I think "She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased. But that's not the worst objection, is it? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.)
- We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Re
and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is
, yes you are misunderstanding -- I've not said (or meant) that at all. As I stated above, this process has not (yet) fully engaged 1c of WP:WIAFA by engaging in a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and as I've mentioned, there are newer and better sources for redrafting that sentence, which I believe to be one of the most FA-worthy parts of the section (that is, what is the lasting effect, beyond JKR triggering every news cycle, and editors then wanting to insert that NEWS here rather than in the sub-article). My apologies for not having time to delineate them, but repeating, if we aren't engaging the FA criteria, and as most of the FA writers who did engage it originally can no longer engage, I'm unsure where we are headed if we are going to keep filling the talk page discussions with NEWS and RECENTISM. Victoriaearle, when you stated yesterday that you find little new from your scholarly search to incorporate, were you referring to updating the literary portions of the article, or only the transgender rights section? When I browsed the other day (from the car, so couldn't save the sources), I found indications there is plenty for re-drafting that sentence, although I could only access those that were freely available. I'm relieved to have now heard from VM93, but remain concerned we may not be engaging in an overall way that will lead to retaining FA status. I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, but it's possible we could get more FA-knowledgeable writers to engage the criteria by in fact going back to FAR, where the off-topic RECENTISM is less likely to overtake the discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)- This characterization of using material from post-2020 as "off-topic RECENTISM" is disputed.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- As it happens, I agree with S Marshall. But I also understand the urge to swap newer sources for those the FA writers used some years ago. I wasn't one of the contributors (except maybe a little around the edges) and tapped out with Wikipedia atm. To keep the process on track, do you have any comments to make regarding S Marshall's most recent draft, Adam Cuerden? That's how we keep going. Victoria (tk) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sandy, I probably misunderstood. I wouldn't call my quick dip-stick search at Ebscohost a scholarly search. I thought you were referring to high-quality scholarly vs. news sources re the transgender section - and no, I didn't see anything that we aren't already using (but I didn't go beyond the first page). Even if you can't save, is it possible to capture links? In terms of updating the rest of the article, there's plenty, but as I mentioned Whited is new & generally lit. articles don't get updated within months of a new publication - at least not the ones I steward. It's always good to wait a bit.As far as the sentence in question, I'm not wedded to it. It would be better to keep the process moving, imo.As for as going back to FAR, don't see the need. The only immediate is need an overhaul of the transgender section & given the suggestions overnight think S Marshall's current version is fine. But ... today's article in the Times will need to get incorporated at some point because of the election.Victoria (tk) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad to be wrong. Thanks, Sandy. I think there's a major tension between recentism and outdated here. We need to include some amount of recent content as Rowling's views have pretty clearly moved to more extreme ones, but we also don't want to merely document the most recent three incidents. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- RE, "the most recent three incidents", that is the tricky part of working on this article (she triggers the news cycle weekly, so how to decide which to include). Re Victoria and S Marshall, when I was browsing from the car, what I meant was that I found plenty of scholar.google sources that could be used to update that sentence and that we don't need to go to news sources -- enough so that the still-relevance of the sentence was shown, which is why I think it the most enduring. The reason I didn't save those I found is that I considered my search (without journal access) incomplete. I could find them again, subject to same constraints, if my real life issues would ever settle down and give me a long-enough break to refocus here (sorry :( . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- To some extent, we don't need to be perfect, as long as we cover fairly typical and/or illuminating events. We're trying to give a flavour of her sort of activity. Ideally, analysis that makes the choices for us would be better, but in the absence of that, we have a little editorial perogative to pick and choose. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- RE, "the most recent three incidents", that is the tricky part of working on this article (she triggers the news cycle weekly, so how to decide which to include). Re Victoria and S Marshall, when I was browsing from the car, what I meant was that I found plenty of scholar.google sources that could be used to update that sentence and that we don't need to go to news sources -- enough so that the still-relevance of the sentence was shown, which is why I think it the most enduring. The reason I didn't save those I found is that I considered my search (without journal access) incomplete. I could find them again, subject to same constraints, if my real life issues would ever settle down and give me a long-enough break to refocus here (sorry :( . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This morning's article in The Times
is extraordinarily timely and helpful. I propose that we suspend updating this section for the moment because Rowling's latest little rant will provoke a reaction and, hopefully, some analysis by third parties.—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- ...could you please post a link to this article? Or at least the title? Loki (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @LokiTheLiar, @S Marshall: There's a summary and context at this BBC article. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees the current draft is much better, and nothing says we have to stop work on drafts once we put something up. If we're going to suspend, let's implement the current draft. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, and would like to point out that while I haven't been a big fan of the allegations of WP:RECENTISM so far, relying heavily on breaking news about Rowling's comments about a currently happening election really would be RECENTISM. Loki (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rowling is in the public eye on this matter. Coverage isn't going to miraculously stabilize at any point. It is likely that we will need to periodically revisit this, especially as scholarly sources come out. That isn't a reason not to adjust the present wording, which is sub-optimal and considerably worse than the draft above. I support implementing it, my quibbles above notwithstanding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, and would like to point out that while I haven't been a big fan of the allegations of WP:RECENTISM so far, relying heavily on breaking news about Rowling's comments about a currently happening election really would be RECENTISM. Loki (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees the current draft is much better, and nothing says we have to stop work on drafts once we put something up. If we're going to suspend, let's implement the current draft. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
For easy discussion.
I mentioned this above, but:
"She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased.
I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.) We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want.
Footnote [a] is mispositioned, if we accept my change, put it with footnote [b], otherwise, it should be a sentence earlier.
These two sentences come right before a remarkably readable and clear statement of her positions (most of the rest of that paragraph). And they are in no way as clear or readable as those statements. At the least, it shouldn't come first. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do think it's important to be clear about at least some of the specific bills she opposes, since she does oppose specific bills and not just the general concept of gender self-recognition. But I also agree that sentence 3 should come first: we should say the general thing first, which is that she opposes gender self-recognition and then progress to more specific things she's said, like the specific bills she's opposed. Loki (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft 8
I'm starting to see consensus to go ahead and implement this, but it would be a pity to do so without Sandy's forthcoming commentary.—S Marshall T/C 08:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft 8.2: 407 words | Draft 8.3, with extra paragraph: 444 words | Historical: 429 words |
---|---|---|
Rowling has gender-critical views.[1][2][3] She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition[4][5][a] and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[7] Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.[8][9][10][b] In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".[15] Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater,[16] whose Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views.[17] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][c] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[23] In June 2020,[23] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[25][17] Rowling's views have divided feminists;[10][26][27] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[28][29] academic freedom[12] and cancel culture;[30] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[31] arts[32] and culture sectors.[33] She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[13][30][34] insults, and threats, including death threats.[35][36] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][39] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[43] Rowling denies being transphobic.[6][44] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed[4][37] – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[45][46] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[46][47][48] Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".[49]
|
Rowling has gender-critical views.[1][2][3] She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition[4][5][d] and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[7] Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.[8][9][10][e] In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".[15] Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater,[16] whose Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views.[17] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][f] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[23] In June 2020,[23] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[25][17] Rowling's views have divided feminists;[10][26][52] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[28][53] academic freedom[12] and cancel culture;[30] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[54] arts[55] and culture sectors.[56] She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[13][30][34] insults, and threats, including death threats.[35][36] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][57] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[43] Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful. Sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[58][59] In 2023, streaming series Max (formerly HBO) began to develop a television series[60][61] which will be released in 2026.[62] Rowling denies being transphobic.[6][44] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed[4][37] – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[45][46] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[46][63][64] Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".[49] |
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,[8][9][g] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy.[13] Her statements have divided feminists;[10][26][65] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[28][66] academic freedom[12] and cancel culture;[30] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[67] arts[68] and culture sectors.[69] When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views,[17][18] Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][h] In another controversial tweet in June 2020,[38] Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[71][72] LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments;[41][42][i] GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".[78] Rowling responded with an essay on her website[6] in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[46] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[46][79][80] Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny,[81] she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".[82] Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017[13][83][84] – have been called transphobic by critics[85][86] and she has been referred to as a TERF.[86][87][88] She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.[6][85][84] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[89] and the charities Mermaids,[38] Stonewall,[90] and Human Rights Campaign.[91] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[43] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[12] she received insults and death threats[92][93] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[94] Some performers and feminists have supported her.[94][95] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[96] |
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes
|
Discussion of Draft 8
S Marshall, I have another full day today, but hope to be able to look this evening. Quickly though, I did see one comma issue in the first para that may leave a misimpression:
She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.
It could read to the uninitiated as if she a) resists X, and b) (instead) proposes Y, when what is meant is that she a) resists X, and b) resists proposals to Y. And there's some redundant wording and detail. Not sure how to fix it ... maybe something like ... She resisted the (year?) Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland and changes proposed (in year X) to the UK Equality Act, (both of?) which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this.
- I would phrase it as
She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and also opposes proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.
Loki (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Another concern I have is (sentences numbered for discussion purposes):
1. She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. 2. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. 3. She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.
In earlier drafts, we didn't have Sentence 2, so that the "without a medical diagnosis" in Sentence 1 led straight to Sentence 3 (her opposition). Now with the intervening Sentence 2, I'm not sure it's clear what she actually opposes (she said something along the lines, I forget and don't have time to look it up, call yourself what you want, live your life as you please, or whatever that bit was, so it's not self-recognition per se that she opposes); what she seems to oppose is giving access to certain spaces (that she views as necessary to protect women and children) to people who self-identify "without a medical diagnosis". Maybe this can be addressed by fiddling with the word "easier" to something more explicit to her concerns and what she has said (I believe that wording can be found in her essay, or maybe reviewing that New York Times opinion piece from someone who defended Rowling would provide some wording ideas). I hope I can find time to look more closely this evening to suggest wording, but someone else may get to it sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- PS, I agree we are close to installation, and will try tonight to dig up the newer sources I mentioned in discussion of Draft 7, but no promises; I am coming to sadly realize that the changes in the structure of my free time may be permanent; apologies again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- S Marshall thanks again for doing the work! It's great to see this & it looks great. Re the comma, suggest adding a "the" in front of "proposed changes" so as not to confuse that JKR is proposing the changes. SandyGeorgia, re self-recognition, Whited writes, page 7, "In late 2022 and early 2023, as Scotland considered its own gender identity reform, Rowling continued to be a vocal opponent of self-designation, especially for those in early adolescence." Victoria (tk) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I made a suggestion about sentence 2 in the section above this, which would redistribute it. Does anyone have any commentary on my suggestion? We could keep or lose sentence 1 in my opinion - though I think it's largely redundant to later comments - but sentence 2 is kind of a mess. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- (Also, as said above, footnote [a] is clearly misplaced as things stand. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Now tweaked to draft 8.1.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just passing by, great work by everyone. I noted a small issue on the third paragraph: "Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World. and Human Rights Campaign." There is a punctuation mark after Wizarding World that is misplaced. Maybe also change one "and" to something else then. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed in draft 8.1a.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I have one more minor point: "is concerned" feels like loaded language. How about just a neutral "says" or "stated". I still think "legal protections for women" is vague, but later in the paragraph it matters less. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Loaded how? Do you doubt that she's concerned about those things?—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also share this, uh, concern with Adam.
- My concern here is that "is concerned about X" implies that X is true. So when we say that
we're implicitly saying thatRowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women
, a statement we haven't sourced and couldn't say in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women
- Weird. Must be an ENGVAR thing, because "Rowling is concerned about X" doesn't suggest any truth value for X in English English. Anyway, I certainly don't love "says" or "stated". Always use a specific verb in preference to a generic one whenever you can: specific verbs don't just convey more information in a similar word count, they also make your sentence clearer and more engaging. Rowling worries? Fears? Believes?—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Believes" seems better. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I dislike using the word believes; we don't know what's in her head, we know what she has stated. I have no problem with the word concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Believes" seems better. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weird. Must be an ENGVAR thing, because "Rowling is concerned about X" doesn't suggest any truth value for X in English English. Anyway, I certainly don't love "says" or "stated". Always use a specific verb in preference to a generic one whenever you can: specific verbs don't just convey more information in a similar word count, they also make your sentence clearer and more engaging. Rowling worries? Fears? Believes?—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Loaded how? Do you doubt that she's concerned about those things?—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I have one more minor point: "is concerned" feels like loaded language. How about just a neutral "says" or "stated". I still think "legal protections for women" is vague, but later in the paragraph it matters less. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed in draft 8.1a.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just passing by, great work by everyone. I noted a small issue on the third paragraph: "Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World. and Human Rights Campaign." There is a punctuation mark after Wizarding World that is misplaced. Maybe also change one "and" to something else then. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Forstater times 3
Working on redundancy:
- Current proposal: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater. When Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views, Rowling wrote that
- --> Less repetitive: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that
Or something similar to the reduce the repetition of Forstater's name three times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed in draft 8.2.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thx! Still working through ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
But sales of books grew, and more
Why was this sentence cut? There's more, see for example "In fact, book sales increased, Universal Studios is expanding Harry Potter World, a TV series is in the works, Maya Forstater was exonerated, etc ... "
that we discussed, now back in Archive 20. If we need more sources, they can be added, but by leaving out that the popularity of her work continues, while expressing that her image or reputation has been impacted, we are losing some neutrality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- That paragraph wasn't flowing right with that sentence, but on reflection I agree that we need to put it back in... somewhere. Thinking cap on.—S Marshall T/C 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I'll try to revisit this after the rest of my morning work (I finally have a fully free day!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've tentatively added it to a fifth paragraph?—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- This format change explodes my brain; could be do this another way ? Like, just add the suggested para here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The last sentence of the 8.3 version (
Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes...
) could be split off into its own paragraph (as the fifth and final paragraph of the section), and the new paragraph in the 8.3 version (Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful...
) can then be placed right after the Whited sentence (in the same paragraph). Some1 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The last sentence of the 8.3 version (
- OK, now that I think I've been able to pick out the new para, I'm (always) concerned that we're adding text that isn't necessarily scholarly sourced ... the one sentence that was there before was from Pape. Let me continue my perusal of new sources to see what else comes up, but generally, I'm not fond of the new para, and I'm more concerned that by having a three-column proposal, we will confuse subsequent editors/readers of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also suspect we might find a way to work that one sentence in to the (now) third para, after examining new sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't love the new paragraph, because it feels a little off-topic: it's not about Rowling's views directly, and it's not really comparing Rowling's book sale increase to how COVID-19 affected other book sales. I don't hate it enough to object to the draft, but speculation about a series two years out and book sales increasing (Compared to what, 2019? Because I doubt they reached original release sales numbers) during a pandemic doesn't feel that relevant. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- Actually, checking this, I have major objections to the sales increasing language. See below. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- After seeing the context below, I also object to this line. It's hard to say what her sales increasing means in a context where everyone's sales increased. If her sales increased less than everyone else's, it's still possible the controversy hurt sales. And we don't get a comparison in the sources we have. Loki (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, checking this, I have major objections to the sales increasing language. See below. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also suspect we might find a way to work that one sentence in to the (now) third para, after examining new sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- This format change explodes my brain; could be do this another way ? Like, just add the suggested para here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've tentatively added it to a fifth paragraph?—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I'll try to revisit this after the rest of my morning work (I finally have a fully free day!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Flow issues and redundancy in first para
As discussed above by me, and under Draft 7 by Adam Cuerden, there are still flow problems in the first para, and there is a lot of repetition as well as duplication in footnotes. And that leads to a (slight) misrepresentation of her position. And there are missing links and definitions (eg, we manage to never link transitioning).
I suggest simplifying the whole thing, while by the way, attributing Duggan's opinion, which is slightly at odds with Rowling's own words:
- Concerned that easier gender transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women,[1][2][3] Rowling opposes proposed legislation[a] to advance gender self-recognition and make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.[8][9][b] According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[11]
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes
|
I'll work next on the sources I promised to explore for the third para of Draft 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say "Rowling believes" is better than "Rowling suggests" in your last sentence: "suggests" is a little loaded, insofar as it presents the statement after it as a reasonable idea to suggest; we need to avoid any impression that Wikipedia agrees with very explicitly transphobic comments. Like, this is vague connotation stuff, but it still reads very wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Citation overkill ?
How did we end up with four sources citing "human rights campaign"? Did the citations get attached to the wrong bits here ? We shouldn't need four sources to cite criticism from Human Rights Campaign, so could we re-distribute the citations to what they are actually sourcing?
- Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][39] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Paragraph 3 re-do proposal
As I've mentioned, there are plenty of new sources to cite this content; since I don't have full journal access, I've only listed some at the end of this section, hoping that others will review and decide which to use. And I'd combine the bit we lost at #But sales of books grew, and more in to this paragraph. My (original) concern was that we not lose the enduring content about the debates the controversy has generated as spillover. Suggest Paragraph 3 thusly (once new sources are chosen from list below and substituted in): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rowling's views have fuelled discussions about feminist views on transgender topics,[1][2][3] freedom of speech,[4][5] academic freedom,[6] cancel culture[7] and the relationship of authors to their fandom;[8] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[9] arts[10] and culture sectors.[11] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[12][13][14] and Human Rights Campaign.[15][16][17][18] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[19] She has been the target of widespread condemnation[20][7][21] and insults, including death threats.[22][23] Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[24][25] Some performers and feminists have supported her,[26][27] and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[28]
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes |
Divided feminists
- This scholarly source ("Feminism and Support for the Transgender Movement in Britain", American Sociological Association) cited the Ferber piece in the New Statesman about JKR.
- Victoria, are you able to look in to this ? "Feminist Lesbians as Anti-Trans Villains: A Comment on Worthen and Elaboration. By: Burt, Callie H., Sexuality & Culture, 10955143, Feb2023, Vol. 27, Issue 1.
- "Worthen thus asserts that GC feminists "are opposed to the recognition of trans women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnormativity," citing Kathleen Stock, J.K. Rowling, and me, among other GC feminists (whom she labels 'TERFs')[15] (p.2). While these may be simple descriptions of our arguments, they are misguided."
- "Therefore, any questioning or resistance—or even support for the right of others to raise questions or concerns—about negotiating sex-based and gender-identity-based claims is frequently met with hostile, even threatening, responses and derogation. This should not be unexpected; as Manne explains, misogyny targets and blows out of proportion even small violations, which are made out to be indicative of women's bad character, in general.[32] Thus women, like J.K. Rowling, who explicitly support human rights for transwomen, profess compassion and sympathy, and support non-discrimination protections for transwomen in all sex-neutral contexts (which is most contexts), can be cast as horrible 'hateful TERFs' and subject to harassment, violent threats, no-platforming with wholesale disregard for the actual substance of their beliefs and actions. Remarkably, Worthen's article, like much trans-activist feminist scholarship, is silent about the "anti-GC feminist activism" including activists' publicly expressed physical threats, harassment, and celebration of intimidating sloganeering and signs: "kill TERFs, trans power". This is because of misogyny."
- Seems to be available via Springer, which can be found on TWL. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looked at this. Basically Burt's paper refutes this article ("This is my TERF!") & is about lesbian feminism. The two quotes above are the only time Rowling is mentioned. But yes, it is about differences in feminist ideology, though the paper is not about Rowling. This might be a shareable link: [2] Victoria (tk) 14:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just to add: I don't think this paper supports that Rowling's statements have divided feminists. Rather it's about the debate in feminism:
Feminism is currently embroiled in a vociferous debate between gender-critical (GC) feminists who believe that human sex is real and determined by biology; that one’s sex matters sometimes; that gender is a social construction imposed on male and female bodies, which constrains female bodies in subordinate, caregiving roles and thus should be challenged; and that the constituency of feminism is female people (e.g., Allen et al., 2019; Burt, 2020; Lawford-Smith, 2022a). On this view, women and girls have been historically oppressed based on their sex, partly through gender, and remain disadvantaged socially, economically, and politically. On the other side are feminists who accept some combination of the following claims: (1) that sex is not a biological fact but is assigned at birth on the basis of social norms (not biological reality); (2) that gender (identity) should be prioritized over sex for all purposes with no exceptions; and (3) that transwomen are women or even actually female (making it incorrect, for example, to refer to bepenised transwomen as having ‘male’ genitalia). On this view, women are oppressed based on gender identity not by their sex. To my knowledge, this latter group of feminists does not have a label; I will call them ‘trans-activist feminists’.
Obviously Rowling is on one side of the debate, but she's hasn't caused it. Victoria (tk) 14:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)- See #Paragraph 3 re-do proposal; I had already replaced the "divided feminists" wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to be available via Springer, which can be found on TWL. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Freedom of speech and cancel culture
- Callie H. Burt above.
- Keohane, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00027642241240337 Cancel Culture Rhetoric and Moral Conflict in Contemporary Democratic Societies
- Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality? By: Norris, Pippa, Political Studies, 00323217, Feb2023, Vol. 71, Issue 1
- You are Cancelled': Emergence of Cancel Culture in the Digital Age. Lokhande, Gayatri; Natu, Sadhana. IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review. 2022, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p252-259. 8p.
- How Cancel Culture Tarnishes Morals Clauses and What to do About It. Peterson, Jordan M. Vermont Law Review. 2022, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p220-247.
- Agonism in the arena: Analyzing cancel culture using a rhetorical model of deviance and reputational repair. Academic Journal. Hobbs, Mitchell John; O'Keefe, Sarah. Public Relations Review. Mar2024, Vol. 50 Issue 1, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102420.
- HARM AND HEGEMONY: THE DECLINE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES. TURLEY, JONATHAN. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Jul2022, Vol. 45 Issue 2, p571-701
- Pape (already cited in article)
- Burt should be available via TWL on Springer.
- Keohane, ditto but on Sage
- Keohane - this might be the shareable link [3] Here's the abstract:
This article argues that cancel culture rhetoric has become a key language for moral conflict in a polarized polity. A thematic rhetorical analysis of two prominent figures who claimed to be canceled, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley and Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling, shows similar rhetorical moves despite different contexts. Drawing conclusions from their rhetorical strategies, this article contends that claiming to be canceled is an effective image repair maneuver in the contemporary, polarized political system. As Hawley and Rowling’s rhetoric shows, claiming to be canceled allows a speaker to chart a middle course between empowerment and disempowerment while identifying a transcendent context to take a stand against a defined moral ill. Likewise, it crafts a moment of urgency wherein the speaker and their audience can relate, prompting a moralizing call to action. In short, claiming to be canceled facilitates storytelling where character work can occur in the service of image repair and image promotion.
It's about cancel culture, but I'd be hesitant to use it to support the sentence that Rowling has fuelled debates about cancel culture. Victoria (tk) 14:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keohane - this might be the shareable link [3] Here's the abstract:
- Norris shows pdf available (g-scholar) - here it is
- Lokande seems to be hosted via Ebsohost. So, again, TWL
- Here's the abstract:
Cancel culture' is a term on which the internet is widely divided into sections. Initially meant to call out the wrong doings of the people in powerful positions and hold them accountable for their actions, is now also seen as a tool for further exploitation of the marginalized people. It is essential to distinguish between the various terminologies around it in order to understand the various standpoints around it. This research project tries to highlight the same. Social exclusion from the online space can have a significant impact on the mental health of people. Even though this has been discussed, it is essential to see cancel culture in the light of its impact on different hierarchies of the society and the rising intolerance on the online space in the Indian context. Hence, the objectives of the study are- Understanding the history of repression and social exclusion, which has now evolved into a new form known as cancel culture. Investigating the effects of cancel culture on the mental health of various groups. This study is a qualitative analysis of various accounts of cancel culture. The methodology consists of interviews of experts from the fields of psychology, political science and media and film studies. It also relies on the secondary data analysis of various journal articles, news articles and books. The theoretical framework of the study is Martha Nussbaum's theory of objectification and Noelle-Neumann's spiral of silence theory and the result is consistent with it. The conclusion summarizes the key findings and considers their broader implications. the study's rationale is to comprehend the complexities of cancel culture in the light of intolerance and study the mental health implications for various sections of society in India.
Paper does not mention Rowling. Can't get a shareable link, but if logged into TWL, this might work. Victoria (tk) 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the abstract:
- Peterson is hosted by HeinOnline - not sure whether TWL has but it's worth looking
- Hobbs & O'Keefe >> looks like there's a pdf link right there on g-scholar.
- Turley > not sure I'd use him.
- Sorry am up to my eyeballs, house renovations, health, travel, etc. Hopefully will surface mid-Julyish. Victoria (tk) 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Relationship of author to fandom
- Taylor https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41290-024-00216-w Harry Potter and the ‘Death of the Actor’: reimagining fusion in cultural pragmatics
Academic freedom
- Free Speech in Academia. WOOD, PETER W. Texas Review of Law & Politics. Summer2023, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p761-787. 27p.
Discussion of paragraph 3 redo proposal
That's all for me; I do think once we nail down these few bits, we will be ready for install. Victoriaearle my list of possible sources above could benefit from your scrutiny, choice, etc. I will again be very busy tomorrow and Wednesday, so done for now -- I ran out of time to cough up all the sources I saw earlier, but hope this is enough to capture the idea of just mentioning the spillover enduring issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- "These few bits"? Well, I'm overwhelmed. Someone else's turn to do draft #9, I think.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- S Marshall, I could just pick a few of the sources above to use, if that would help advance our finishing the job, but I hesitated to be the one to do that since I don't have full journal access ... hence I just gave a brief list. I hope you will continue, as we're almost there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The "sales increased in 2020" problem
First off, nothing I'm going to say is an attack on anyone's research for Wikipedia. But... there's context that puts really strong doubts on seemingly-sensible interpretations of what are probably true facts. I'm going to focus on the Guardian article first, because Pape uses it as the source for her figures (with a minor mistake):
I did some checking, and book sales just generally shot up a lot during COVID, and have continued to increase since. So that sales of her books increased is largely meaningless without comparing it to other trends. This article in particular is from July 2020, which means it's 3 months into the first British lockdown and covers the UK alone, annd is dealing with an increase in purchases during lockdown. That's not a big timescale. It's also very early in the J.K. Rowling transgender views controversy, so one can question whether she even had enough bad press at that point - while people were distracted by lockdowns - for a noticable change in the first place.
In short, it's almost certainly true, but it may not be at all meaningful, and, in the absence of comparison with the baseline, probably shouldn't appear here.
So, let's go on to Pape. Pape is using the Guardian source from 2020, and (mildly) misquotes her source: she says sales of Harry Potter are up 28%, the actual source is that sales of children's books sold by Bloomberg - a class that includes Harry Potter - are up 27% - and sales as a whole were up 28%. (Frankly, though, the Guardian article is written in a sufficiently convoluted way that that Pape's mistake is a pretty easy one to make.) More problematic is the timeline aspect: As said above, the Guardian article is from 2020, before Rowling had done that much. Pape may be writing in 2022, but if the source for her statistics is from 2020, and she doesn't have other sources, it doesn't push us beyond 2020, and hits all the issues mentioned above.
(This doesn't affect Pape as a source much beyond this issue; Pape is a 2022 source, but only cites things from 2021 and earlier. Pape may be out-of-date for some information, but I don't object to using her as a source where she's not out-of-date.
The framing of this fact is where everything falls apart: "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" - again, this is an interpretation that appears in the Guardian article (it's only implied in Pape) - but we can't possibly put that in present tense. We have no sources for booksales after July 2020. That's in no way enough to make statements about her success. The sourcing is, quite simply, far too outdated.
As for the other bit of that paragraph: As far as I'm aware, the HBO Harry Potter series hasn't even been cast yet, it's not meant to appear until 2026. We have no evidence of it being successful; it doesn't even exist yet. One could instead say something like, "Production of the Fantastic Beasts series was cancelled after the third film proved to be the lowest grossing film based on Rowling's work." and use it to imply the exact opposite.
Forbes states that American sales of Harry Potter in the same period lagged behind increases in other children's book purchases. "As the industry as a whole experiences a surge of print sales, Rowling’s works, and sales of Harry Potter books (including licensed titles), have seen a sudden drop. This reported U.S. print book sales drop in June coincides with controversy around tweets and statements made by Rowling via Twitter from June 6 onward."
It's honestly kind of awkward: Reports of profits by Bloomberg inevitably mention Harry Potter, but then give stats for Bloomberg as a whole. [4], say.
This is the best evidence I've seen for any sort of Potter success, but it doesn't include any numbers related to sales, just relative popularity (hit #1 in children's book sales in 2023 for the first time since 2002). - and, again, that's only British sales.
We need more recent sources on sales of Harry Potter - which include America and other countries - to say much of anything. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Luckily, the Guardian article doesn't just quote sales figures for the children's books division. The journalist also interviewed the boss of Bloomsbury, hence:
The company, which publishes all of the author’s Harry Potter books, said its consumer publishing arm grew sales by 28% to £31.4m. The children’s division grew by 27% to £18.7m, with Bloomsbury highlighting Rowling’s titles as a “bestseller”... Nigel Newton, the Bloomsbury chief executive, said the books had remained bestsellers since Rowling published her views on her website last month. “Harry Potter has been very popular with families at home reading to each other and has been marvellous throughout this period,” he said.
- The claim that these figures aren't meaningful stumbles over the fact that a scholarly source found them meaningful enough to remark on.
- The claim that these figures are outdated stumbles over the fact that these are the latest figures published by a reliable source.
- The Forbes article from June 2020 (a) predates the Guardian one, (b) appears in no scholarly source, and (c) doesn't account for audio books or ebooks. The ebook was released for free during this period which will have affected sales.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- TL;DR: In the game of Wikipedia, doing your own research to counteract a scholarly source counts as a foul.—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The book sales sentence could be revised to make it more general; something along the lines of: Despite the controversy, the Harry Potter books have remained popular,[1] and the game Hogwarts Legacy became a commercial success and received favorable reviews and praise from critics despite the calls for boycotts by the trans community.[2] (could use some wordsmithing) Some1 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
- Agree with Some1 and S Marshall on the original research aspect of refuting Pape, but also, please reference #Paragraph 3 re-do proposal in terms of any reframing needed. I would not use the sentence "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" at all, and if you track back to my original proposal, the idea was (to maintain neutrality) to convey that plenty of Rowling's work is moving forward (particularly the theme parks moving forward). Without getting in to any OR about book sales etc during Covid, the original sentence stated a simple fact (her products are not losing popularity). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree it's OR with Pape, but I'm not suggesting material for the article, I'm reviewing a source. We have a duty to not put misleading or false material into our articles.
- Also, using present tense for facts sourced to 2020 is a problem. I think there's probably some evidence for Harry Potter remaining popular, but we can't use a source from 2020 and use the present tense. As I said, there's evidence they sold really well in 2023 (in Britain); if we could add in a source about America, at least, I'd buy it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 12:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- First we have to encourage S Marshall to continue with Draft 9 (both Victoria and I are swamped with IRL stuff) and I hope he will, since we are almost over the line/done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with that. Also it's a diversion. As of today, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is #7 on the New York Times best seller list, after 795 weeks on the list [5]. Plus it has a up arrow next to the listing, so it's up from last week or month. Victoria (tk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft 9
- Earlier drafts at Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 20 and Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 19.
Folks, I'm done: through with J.K. Rowling, and honestly, through with featured articles. Rewriting this is like playing a game of bring me a rock. Let the first person to quibble draft #9 take responsibility for writing draft #10.
I've amended the text in several places, because I can't stomach publishing the words "opposes proposed" in a sentence of English, and neither should you. Neither the "believes" nor the "is concerned" camps are going to get their way.
Victoriaearle is 100% right when she says that Rowling hasn't divided feminists. Feminists are already divided on trans people and they have the attitude to Rowling that you'd expect from the flavour of feminism to which they adhere. I've cut that.
I'm also hereby permanently desisting from the bizarre and slightly unhinged practice of writing proposals as a comparison against historical text laid out in fixed-width 30em wide columns (!), and I certainly won't miss that. You'll just have to work with a conventional proposal in a format that works for everyone, including those of us who don't use a colossal font size.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Rowling has gender-critical views.[1][2][3] She thinks that making it simpler to gender transition could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.[4][5][6] Rowling opposes legislation[a] to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis.[11][12][b] According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[14]
Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater,[15] whose employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views.[16] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[17][c] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[22] In June 2020,[22] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[23] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[24][16]
Rowling's views have fuelled debates on freedom of speech[25][26] and academic freedom,[8] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[27] arts[28] and culture sectors.[29] She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[9][30][31] insults, and threats, including death threats.[32][33] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[34][35][36] and Human Rights Campaign.[4] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[37] Nevertheless, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[38][39]
Rowling denies being transphobic.[13][40] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed[11][34] – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[41][42] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[42][43][44] Whited's view is that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".[45]
Sources
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes
|
Discussion of Draft 9
I'm unwatching this talk page. Please don't ping me back here.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here is the ping list from the FAR (minus Ealdgyth, those banned, and those already here): @4meter4, Ixtal, AleatoryPonderings, Aza24, Barkeep49, Bastun, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Endwise, Extraordinary Writ, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, Guerillero, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Innisfree987, Ipigott, Johnbod, Olivaw-Daneel, RandomCanadian, Sdkb, Sideswipe9th, Silver seren, SMcCandlish, Xxanthippe, Zmbro, and Z1720: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Aye
If you feel that this, with all its imperfections, is enough of an improvement over the current version to go in, sign below.
- As proposer:—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Victoria (tk) 17:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not perfect, but after working on this for months now, it's good enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't really been involved in this effort but I did see the ping and read the latest draft. I think it's quite good, and I don't think that a tenth draft is necessary. Thanks for everyone who worked on this. Crossroads -talk- 19:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- One quibble - shouldn't the first wikilink go to gender-critical feminism rather than a section of another page? (This doesn't affect the text itself and I doubt there would be objections, so I don't think this is significant.) Crossroads -talk- 19:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Let's get it in, and work from there, with more normal editing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- One quibble - shouldn't the first wikilink go to gender-critical feminism rather than a section of another page? (This doesn't affect the text itself and I doubt there would be objections, so I don't think this is significant.) Crossroads -talk- 19:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Nay
If you prefer the current version, or if you think it's essential to have yet another discussion about it before it goes in, sign below.
- I have not followed in any capacity the turbulent history of proposals for this section, but after an incidental visit from my watchlist I can't look at this not make a comment that this draft is unacceptable (it appears draft six originated most of the problems). "Gender critical" is a term utilized by transphobes to try and legitimatize their views, and the usage of it as the primary descriptor for Rowling is both a flagrant violation of neutrality and extremely concerning. The content talking about the criticism of her views being minimized to a sandwiched couple of sentences in the second paragraph whilst a very charitably picked quote follows her denial of being transphobic in the final paragraph. The result is a biased text that quietly does an excellent job legitimizing her transphobic narratives and I shudder at the thought of it being enshrined upon the live version of her Wikipedia page. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The term Gender-critical feminism is now widely used to refer to that set of views, and as such is the title of the Wikipedia article on it. The draft above also seems to have less quotes from her than the current version. Crossroads -talk- 19:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that "TERF" is the common term, but think that can be dealt with with regular editing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The term Gender-critical feminism is now widely used to refer to that set of views, and as such is the title of the Wikipedia article on it. The draft above also seems to have less quotes from her than the current version. Crossroads -talk- 19:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agree it’s a white-wash. Gives space for her to deny being transphobic without ever stating there is a widespread view that she is? Surprised folks thought this would read as ok. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- To elaborate, by the time one gets to the last sentence about this topic having
"permanently changed her 'relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves'"
, I don’t think the reader has been given enough of the scale of the criticism to understand why people are distancing themselves from her. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- To elaborate, by the time one gets to the last sentence about this topic having