CorbieVreccan (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →English: fix |
||
Line 241: | Line 241: | ||
Name the characters and object in JK Rowling books that exist inspired by real life [[Special:Contributions/2409:4063:4082:7151:19B8:9FA:624B:FA58|2409:4063:4082:7151:19B8:9FA:624B:FA58]] ([[User talk:2409:4063:4082:7151:19B8:9FA:624B:FA58|talk]]) 10:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
Name the characters and object in JK Rowling books that exist inspired by real life [[Special:Contributions/2409:4063:4082:7151:19B8:9FA:624B:FA58|2409:4063:4082:7151:19B8:9FA:624B:FA58]] ([[User talk:2409:4063:4082:7151:19B8:9FA:624B:FA58|talk]]) 10:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
:During the FAR, it was decided to only (or mostly anyway) mention such items footnotes (eg Sylvia Morgan/Snape). An entire article could be created about such instances.[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
:During the FAR, it was decided to only (or mostly anyway) mention such items in footnotes (eg Sylvia Morgan/Snape). An entire article could be created about such instances.[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
::Additionally, this request has a whiff of [[WP:HOMEWORK]] about it... [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 17:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
::Additionally, this request has a whiff of [[WP:HOMEWORK]] about it... [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 17:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:19, 10 October 2022
![]() | 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 article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
![]() | Other talk page banners |
Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022
Under views, transgender people, change feminists to people. Feminists does not accurately represent the full scope. 84.71.121.131 (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. This content was workshopped heavily during the featured article review. Changes are possible, but they will definitely need discussion (which should start with sources). It's also unclear which use of "feminists" you are referring to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)- Feminists is what the sources support and what was the consensus wording during the Featured article review. Other supporters are also mentioned. The issue for JKR is that she views the proposed legal changes as an affront to women's rights, as do the "some femininsts" who support her, hence the sources that focus on feminists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- People is a rather large subset of ... um people. I hazard a guess that this was based on zero reliable sources. Its bad enough implying that the few vocal gender vexed/trans-exclusionary radical feminists individuals with platforms and a couple of small fringe groups (called "Some feminists" in this article) amounted to anything remotely close to equalling the majority of feminists and feminist organisations worldwide (See Feminist views on transgender topics ). As for people, even in the United Kingdom where the are relatively a few more of these anti transgender radical feminist type extremists, research collected in NatCen's British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey shows that most people's attitude towards transgender people is in fact broadly positive [1]. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I myself am confused why "individuals" are referenced in support of Rowling but not in opposition: "These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals." aside from the misspelling of "criticized" and "organizations". Why would it not be "These have been criticized as transphobic by LGBTQIA rights organizations, some feminists AND INDIVIDUALS, but have received support from other feminists and individuals."? Seems to infer that ONLY LGBT organizations and some feminists are in opposition when that is clearly far from the case.Kiwisoup (talk) Kiwisoup (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ENGVAR; the words are not misspelled (it's British English). Wikipedia content reflects secondary sources, and the sources behind this content has been considerably reviewed by a couple dozen editors. Have you read them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- User Kiwisoup is correct in pointing out the inconsistency of individuals only being included on Rowling side in the lede. After all in the body of this article we write that her statements had
fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture
(suggesting individuals on both sides)and prompted support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors
(more individuals). Plus the leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise, as well as Kerry Kennedy of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation, and additionally we mention non LGBTQI / non feminism organizations such as Human Rights Campaign and the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron. So i think it is correct to point out the inconsistency... Individuals and maybe other organizations (non-feminist/trans rights) should be included. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)- The lead was the subject of a long and contentious RFC, and the body of the article was worked considerably during the FAR and stayed within the bounds of the RFC. If we are to change something now, we need a concrete proposal for discussion. So far, I don't know what the proposed change is, and what sources support it. I suggest starting with the body, initiating a proposal in a new section, and doing it in the format that served us well during the FAR. See below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- The change is incredibly simple and certainly more accurately reflects the body of the article, In fact the body directly refers to more trans supporting individuals than individuals supporting Rawling. However, I will follow your suggestion. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- The lead was the subject of a long and contentious RFC, and the body of the article was worked considerably during the FAR and stayed within the bounds of the RFC. If we are to change something now, we need a concrete proposal for discussion. So far, I don't know what the proposed change is, and what sources support it. I suggest starting with the body, initiating a proposal in a new section, and doing it in the format that served us well during the FAR. See below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- User Kiwisoup is correct in pointing out the inconsistency of individuals only being included on Rowling side in the lede. After all in the body of this article we write that her statements had
- Please see WP:ENGVAR; the words are not misspelled (it's British English). Wikipedia content reflects secondary sources, and the sources behind this content has been considerably reviewed by a couple dozen editors. Have you read them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- I myself am confused why "individuals" are referenced in support of Rowling but not in opposition: "These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals." aside from the misspelling of "criticized" and "organizations". Why would it not be "These have been criticized as transphobic by LGBTQIA rights organizations, some feminists AND INDIVIDUALS, but have received support from other feminists and individuals."? Seems to infer that ONLY LGBT organizations and some feminists are in opposition when that is clearly far from the case.Kiwisoup (talk) Kiwisoup (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Suggested format for draft proposals
I suggest starting a new suggestion for proposals, below, using this format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Current (diff and word count) | Proposed (word count) |
---|---|
Text that is currently in the article | Text that is the proposed change[1] |
Sources
|
---|
References
|
This new draft proposal more accurately reflects the text currently in the body of the article
Note: Citations are not normally required in the lead, especially when they are clearly provided in the body of the article.
This proposal relates to the lede section covering section 9.3 Transgender people.
The current lede has an inconsistency, while it mentions individuals supporting Rawling, it fails to mention the various non-trans/non-feminist supporters of trans rights. After all, in the body of this article we write that her statements had fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture
(suggesting individuals on both sides) and prompted support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors
(more individuals) and are sourced in the body. Plus the leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise, as well as Kerry Kennedy of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation, and additionally we mention non LGBTQI / non feminism organisations such as Human Rights Campaign and the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron are all mentioned and sourced in the body. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Current 47 | Proposed 49 |
---|---|
Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. | Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations, feminists, other organisations and individuals; but have received support from other feminists and individuals. |
Discussion of proposed change to lead
The current wording was the subject of an extremely well attended RFC, Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11. I am unsure we can change it without another formal RFC; I've started this discussion section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- And now that I understand what the request is, my own views is that, if we are to launch a new RFC, we could do better than this on the wording (as we did in the body of the article, where we weren't constrained by the pre-existing RFC). Some feminists support Rowling, others don't. Some individuals support her, others don't. Some actors, artists, etc support her, most don't. We covered all these groups in the body of the article, but the way the sentence in the lead is constructed now forces us to be unnecessarily repetitive. Before launching an RFC, we might discuss how to improve the wording overall, rather than just patching it up, as the original RFC was about text that was not even supported by sources. If we have to run a new RFC, we should get the whole thing right. What we did in the article body, reflecting sources and lowering the repetition, was state that her views "divided feminists", which avoided the whole "some" but "other" business, and the need to repeat feminists twice in the sentence. But we did much more than that when we looked at sources and got the content in the body right; I think we could do more of that here if we're ready to really run a new RFC aiming at fixing the lead. Discussion and nailing down the text better before a new RFC would be a better route to success. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Going straight to your advice on reducing repetition in the lede text, I have suggested a new version below. Apologies if it is in the wrong place. The newer version below also reduces the word count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs)
- Just FYI: you mentioned
non LGBTQI / non feminism organisations such as Human Rights Campaign
. The Human Rights Campaign is an LGBT organisation. Cheers, gnu57 16:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)- Thanks (I am not based in the USA and should have checked) ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just FYI: you mentioned
- While it's been a while since we last discussed an RfC, has sufficient time passed such that editors won't immediately think "You're joking, not another one!"? While we do recognise the flaws the last RfC have left us with and the impact it has had on smithing this section, and I'm not opposed in any way to holding another to fix that situation. I just worry that regardless of how much care we put in to the question and explainer, there will be a cohort of editors who will procedurally !vote "Bad RfC/too soon". I could also be mistaken though, and I'm worrying over nothing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Going straight to your advice on reducing repetition in the lede text, I have suggested a new version below. Apologies if it is in the wrong place. The newer version below also reduces the word count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs)
Reducing repetition and reflecting the body accurately
Current 47 | Proposed 37 |
---|---|
Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. | Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and other associations, and has divided both feminists and other individuals. |
~ BOD ~ TALK 09:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think that a very good start. I'd suggest giving it a week or so for other followers here to tweak, opine, etcetera, and then once/if we have some agreement here, you launch a new and separate section as a formal RFC. In a perfect world, we shouldn't have to do that, but the last RFC was so widely attended, and so contentious, that it seems the safest course, to avoid a repeat of that debacle (which was a premature and pretty much malformed RFC that we got stuck with). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- PS, somewhere in the FAR, we had a ping list; if others feel it appropriate, we could ping the FAR group for feedback on this wording before we launch an RFC, as they are the group most familiar with the sources. For now, I'm hesitant to use that ping list unless others think it the right way to go pre-RFC. We did clearly discuss on the FAR that we would need to revisit this later in the (this) year, so from that angle, I can sorta/kinda justify reconvening the FAR group for a new look at this sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- That ping list is here; we had also discussed re-examining the section heading, but I wonder if we should keep the two items separate, or attempt one RFC to address them together? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- i think keep them separate, to keep discussions simple. This one is about the lede/lead. The other is about the section. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Works for me, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- i think keep them separate, to keep discussions simple. This one is about the lede/lead. The other is about the section. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- That ping list is here; we had also discussed re-examining the section heading, but I wonder if we should keep the two items separate, or attempt one RFC to address them together? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging everyone who was previously on the ping list for the JK Rawling FAR @4meter4, A. C. Santacruz, AleatoryPonderings, Aza24, Barkeep49, Bastun, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Ealdgyth, Endwise, Extraordinary Writ, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, Guerillero, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Innisfree987, Ipigott, Johnbod, LokiTheLiar, Newimpartial, Olivaw-Daneel, RandomCanadian, Sdkb, Sideswipe9th, Silver seren, SMcCandlish, Vanamonde93, Xxanthippe, Zmbro, and Z1720:
- Reason for the ping : I have suggested a change to the text in the lead/lede section to make it more accurately reflect the agreed upon sourced text in the J. K. Rowling#Transgender people subsection. Kiwisoup pointed out that in the lede (added text in italics) "individuals" were referenced in support of Rowling but not in opposition, looking at the relevant subsection there are in fact clearer examples given of individuals critical of Rowling than those supporting her. Details are given twice above, including at Talk:J. K. Rowling#This new draft proposal more accurately reflects the text currently in the body of the article. This proposed change also removes the repetition in the current wording. (I have never pinged other editors before or set up a RfC, I hope I did the first stage OK) ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- My issue with this sentence has been that it portrays support and opposition as similar, when they are not; folks' feelings about Rowling's statements mirrors other social and political divides, and also divides within the feminist movement. I recognize it's difficult to do that in a sentence, but I remain less than thrilled with both the present and the proposed versions. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Vanamonde. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with Vanamonde here. The proposed replacement trades off specificity for brevity, and creates an implication that is unsupported by the sources in doing so. For the sake of ten words, I don't really see a reason to trim in this way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- My problem with this sentence is that it's excessively indirect. I understand why it's so indirect, but I don't think that really reflects the sourcing we have here. Like, it's not just LGBT rights groups that have criticized her about this, it's up to and including most of the crew of the Harry Potter movies. (Not to dismiss the fact that there's sourcing which disagrees, just to say that it seems like one of these views is the majority.) I think Bodney's change is good as far as it goes, but believe that the ideal would be that this sentence should be rewritten pretty significantly. Loki (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- True, evidence given in the Transgender people subsection indicates the level of support and opposition to her opinions are not the same. However, sadly this topic has been, on a multiple occasions, a very divisive section in this article, so I am trying to be exceedingly neutral. Improved wording that accurately reflects the subsection and sourced reality, and improves upon my wording, is of course welcome. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- My objection to the sentence is that it's *not* neutral though. A neutral version of this sentence should mention that large parts of the Harry Potter fandom and most of the cast of the movies have objected to Rowling's statements on this issue: that information is well-sourced, and is also clearly DUE since she's mainly notable for Harry Potter. Right now it's portrayed as purely a debate between LGBT activists and, uh, ambiguously defined "individuals" (which is my other objection, at least say the words "trans-exclusionary feminists", or at least "gender-critical feminists"). This isn't a neutral portrayal of the accusations: rather it privileges the POV of supporters of Rowling's statements over the POV of those that oppose them. Loki (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I also strongly agree with this, especially that it would be helpful to the reader if feminists supporting Rowling were correctly identified as "gender-critical feminists" (or "trans-exclusionary feminists"). ~ BOD ~ TALK 10:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- My objection to the sentence is that it's *not* neutral though. A neutral version of this sentence should mention that large parts of the Harry Potter fandom and most of the cast of the movies have objected to Rowling's statements on this issue: that information is well-sourced, and is also clearly DUE since she's mainly notable for Harry Potter. Right now it's portrayed as purely a debate between LGBT activists and, uh, ambiguously defined "individuals" (which is my other objection, at least say the words "trans-exclusionary feminists", or at least "gender-critical feminists"). This isn't a neutral portrayal of the accusations: rather it privileges the POV of supporters of Rowling's statements over the POV of those that oppose them. Loki (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- True, evidence given in the Transgender people subsection indicates the level of support and opposition to her opinions are not the same. However, sadly this topic has been, on a multiple occasions, a very divisive section in this article, so I am trying to be exceedingly neutral. Improved wording that accurately reflects the subsection and sourced reality, and improves upon my wording, is of course welcome. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- My issue with this sentence has been that it portrays support and opposition as similar, when they are not; folks' feelings about Rowling's statements mirrors other social and political divides, and also divides within the feminist movement. I recognize it's difficult to do that in a sentence, but I remain less than thrilled with both the present and the proposed versions. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Given the amount of long-term debate over this, I don't think the lead's sentence should change without an overwhelming consensus to do so. The proposed text does not really parse right to me; "divided ... individuals"? What, it's giving some people split-personality disorder? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Do you agree that a Lede should accurately reflect the agreed sourced text in the body of the article? As to the simple matter of wording and grammar, I am the first to welcome suggested improvements. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Yes, but the devil is in the details. 2. I don't think the existing language is deficient enough to get into suggesting how to rewrite proposed replacements for it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Do you agree that a Lede should accurately reflect the agreed sourced text in the body of the article? As to the simple matter of wording and grammar, I am the first to welcome suggested improvements. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose change. Current is more specific. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC).
Is it better just to add the "and individuals" then, despite the repetition, so we have the more even-handed version in place? SilverserenC 22:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- That was my original idea, but another repetition in sentence did not look good to me, but I am not against it.
- Please note: I realise now that I failed to include the 3 existing wiki links, which should remain in the proposed text. ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Bodney, I was out working much too hard all day on a fundraiser, bone tired, and perhaps too tired to think straight right now, but I don't think the way the ping was positioned allowed other editors to understand what was being asked (or what should have been asked). My position was not to propose a specific change; it was to reconvene other editors from the FAR to gather suggestions about how to, or whether to, work on the sentence so that next an RFC could be launched. Instead, we have people weighing in to oppose a specific version of a proposal in progress. The boat was missed here. I'm sorry I was out all day, and am now much too tired to type coherently, but this is what we did not want to have happen. We need to work together towards refining the wording, as discussed during the FAR, and only after that, and then as the next step launch a formal RFC reflecting our best attempt at new wording. That's how RFCs work best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I really don't think all this is worth the massive time sink that another RfC would be. I always took it as a given that the opposition includes "individuals" - it goes without saying that other people outside those specific groups opposed her views. I can't imagine that people would seriously conclude otherwise as all sociopolitical disputes work this way. Crossroads -talk- 01:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the first question is whether there is even a sense of concensus that we need to change anything; it was left somewhat murky at the conclusion of the FAR, because we couldn't rock-the-previous-RFC boat. If others still feel comfortable with where we are for now, we don't need to reconvene at all just yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- It does seem unnecessary to say that some individuals think this or that, because every topic works that way, and our readers already know that. But this worm-can of tweaking this sentence in the lead should not be opened again absent a showing of strong consensus that what is there currently is deficient. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the first question is whether there is even a sense of concensus that we need to change anything; it was left somewhat murky at the conclusion of the FAR, because we couldn't rock-the-previous-RFC boat. If others still feel comfortable with where we are for now, we don't need to reconvene at all just yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I understand I made an invitation to discuss error, but not exactly how, due to my inexperience with more systematic editor discussions and have never set up RfC and preamble discussions. Can we back peddle the boat? I also appreciate any improvement to my wording. Maybe individuals should be dropped from both sides or transferred to the critical side, where the is a lot more sourced evidence in the subsection, as exampled by the cast and fandoms of her creative universe. ~ BOD ~ TALK 10:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Bodney; sorry I was much too tired yesterday after a day of working a fundraiser to better explore this. My impresssion at this stage (that is, taking into account further feedback) is that there is still a strong (enough) feeling that we can't fiddle with this wording without holding another RFC, but several feel that the time is not yet ripe. So please don't worry about the extra ping; I suspect the ping yielded information that is useful for now. As we discussed at several points during the FAR, over time, scholarly sources will appear that will be useful to give us some well-cited wording and perspective. My conclusion is to let this ride for another (maybe ???) three months, and then should there be new sources or a better time to re-approach the wording in this one sentence, remember to take a very deliberative, systematic approach as we did on the FAR. That is, multiple steps and iterations to work through the proposed wording, being sure all feel heard and respected, and making sure that any discussion is carefully framed vis-a-vis drafting through iterations rather than leaving the impression of yea or nay proposal. We have a seriously bad (as in poorly designed and implemented and yet widely attended) RFC to overcome; it has to be done right ... right meaning avoiding anything that appears to solicit opposes or supports until we have really held a solid pre-discussion and come to some wording that is worthy of a !vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your always very helpful advice, sorry for my delay in replying. I am happy to step back for the time being. Honestly, I do not feel that I am the best person to open RfC's in the careful, structured style you use with success. I am scatterbrained with wobbly language skills/memory. I do think the sources are already there, both in this very article and many more in the best quality, reliable news media. ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Much in the way that the prose of the article has been drafted over many revisions on the talk page, I believe any future RfC to resolve the problems with the previous one will also be heavily drafted first on the talk page. So don't worry about wordsmithing that for now :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your always very helpful advice, sorry for my delay in replying. I am happy to step back for the time being. Honestly, I do not feel that I am the best person to open RfC's in the careful, structured style you use with success. I am scatterbrained with wobbly language skills/memory. I do think the sources are already there, both in this very article and many more in the best quality, reliable news media. ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Bodney; sorry I was much too tired yesterday after a day of working a fundraiser to better explore this. My impresssion at this stage (that is, taking into account further feedback) is that there is still a strong (enough) feeling that we can't fiddle with this wording without holding another RFC, but several feel that the time is not yet ripe. So please don't worry about the extra ping; I suspect the ping yielded information that is useful for now. As we discussed at several points during the FAR, over time, scholarly sources will appear that will be useful to give us some well-cited wording and perspective. My conclusion is to let this ride for another (maybe ???) three months, and then should there be new sources or a better time to re-approach the wording in this one sentence, remember to take a very deliberative, systematic approach as we did on the FAR. That is, multiple steps and iterations to work through the proposed wording, being sure all feel heard and respected, and making sure that any discussion is carefully framed vis-a-vis drafting through iterations rather than leaving the impression of yea or nay proposal. We have a seriously bad (as in poorly designed and implemented and yet widely attended) RFC to overcome; it has to be done right ... right meaning avoiding anything that appears to solicit opposes or supports until we have really held a solid pre-discussion and come to some wording that is worthy of a !vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Robert Galbraith name
I have reverted this edit as not cited to a high quality source, and WP:UNDUE. Please gain consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- There are a few reliable sources on the Robert Galbraith name issue; HuffingtonPost, Them.Us, op-ed in Time, however it is something she denies. At least one subject matter expert (Florence Ashley) has said it is unlikely that Rowling picked the name intentionally, as Robert Galbraith Heath's links to conversion therapy weren't as well publicised at the time Rowling would have been picking the pen name.
- As problematic as some of the content she has published under that name is, even with higher quality sourcing I do not think this is due for inclusion.
- Quick note, I've included Ashley's commentary here to help with the discussion only, and I'm not suggesting we include it in the article as it is obviously self-published commentary about another person. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- That means the edit can go ahead with the above higher quality sources. It's a clarification of the pseudonym and the reader needs to be made aware i.e. with the correct context of the LGBT community's comments on the similarities and Rowling's spokesperson making a statement to clearly say it was not intentional The edit is about similarities; not whether it was intentional. NoMagicSpellstalk 22:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to putting in this edit. That pen name is also similar to Kenneth Galbraith and when asked early on about the similarities she explained how the name came about, which is in the article. She explained that it's "a name she took from Robert F. Kennedy, a personal hero, and Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood" >> see the "Adult fiction" section. Victoria (tk) 23:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but Rowling's spokesperson made the statement about Robert Galbraith Heath NoMagicSpellstalk 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- And the Beatles claim that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds had no connection to LSD, either. The subject is not always the most reliable testimony for veracity of a claim. Zaathras (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to putting in this edit. That pen name is also similar to Kenneth Galbraith and when asked early on about the similarities she explained how the name came about, which is in the article. She explained that it's "a name she took from Robert F. Kennedy, a personal hero, and Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood" >> see the "Adult fiction" section. Victoria (tk) 23:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- That means the edit can go ahead with the above higher quality sources. It's a clarification of the pseudonym and the reader needs to be made aware i.e. with the correct context of the LGBT community's comments on the similarities and Rowling's spokesperson making a statement to clearly say it was not intentional The edit is about similarities; not whether it was intentional. NoMagicSpellstalk 22:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Fully agree with this reversion. Undue and seems like it's there for WP:AXE reasons. — Czello 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- The information appears to be quite neutral. I think some editors are not giving a strong enough argument other than "I don't agree". Perhaps ownership issues, judging by the edit stats on this article? Why deny the reader clarification on the pseudonym? NoMagicSpellstalk 23:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I support inclusion. Zaathras (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- The information is too trivial to include in Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC).
- It's not trivia if Rowling's spokesperson makes a statement. Why would you block a clarification? NoMagicSpellstalk 01:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and the sources supporting it are themselves strongly biased and poor quality. It's borderline conspiracy theory and Florence Ashley's comment - who is by no means sympathetic to Rowling's trans-related views - is the nail in the coffin. The whole argument makes no sense - why would the same author who declared Dumbledore is gay and whose controversial comments have solely to do with gender identity and not sexual orientation pick a name as a nod to a long dead psychiatrist who tried to "cure" homosexuality, and for books that have nothing to do with LGBT issues at all and that began to be written long before she ever said anything controversial about trans issues? Crossroads -talk- 02:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not about the argument. There is no conspiracy. This edit is clarifying the names for the reader. Giving the context as to why this subject was brought up. Followed by the response from Rowling's spokesperson. It's a neutrally worded edit giving facts; not opinions. Higher quality sources will be used. Why are you blocking a clarification? NoMagicSpellstalk 01:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- None of the sources listed in this discussion rise a) to the level required for a Featured article, or b) to the level of WP:DUE. Sideswipe's post above did not pretend they were high quality sources; only higher than the original sourcing, but we don't write FAs around the Huffington Post or op-eds in Time magazine. The content in the article now about the name is sourced to scholarly literature, not tabloid rags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
"... we don't write FAs around the Huffington Post"
HuffPost is a listed WP:RSP. HuffPost Politics/contributors is considered unreliable. Also, here's a Time source that's not opinion. So we're covered for reliable sources."... sourced to scholarly literature, not tabloid rags"
Really? So why is this rag in the References...twice? If you're going to mislead editors; frustrate or obfuscate facts, then you're bringing Wikipedia, and this article in particular, into disrepute. I suggest you refrain from this behaviour and not block a clarification with these tactics. NoMagicSpellstalk 02:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)- NoMagicSpells, could you please invest some time in understanding what a featured article is? Nowhere in any post I have made in this section did I ever refer to the term reliable sources; you don't seem to understand the distinction. As to why "this rag" (as you call it) is in the sources, please spend some time understanding WP:DUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you two disgree about it being due, instead of arguing about whether it belongs in a featured article here, why not take it to WP:RSN? As NMS notes, HuffPo and Time are considered reliable and I personally see no reason to exclude them from this article, featured or no, as long as they meet the criteria for WP:RS-- 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:AC97:1F7E:5860:FC2F (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- The 11 editors agreeing the proposed content is WP:UNDUE would be that reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- If you two disgree about it being due, instead of arguing about whether it belongs in a featured article here, why not take it to WP:RSN? As NMS notes, HuffPo and Time are considered reliable and I personally see no reason to exclude them from this article, featured or no, as long as they meet the criteria for WP:RS-- 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:AC97:1F7E:5860:FC2F (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- NoMagicSpells, could you please invest some time in understanding what a featured article is? Nowhere in any post I have made in this section did I ever refer to the term reliable sources; you don't seem to understand the distinction. As to why "this rag" (as you call it) is in the sources, please spend some time understanding WP:DUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- None of the sources listed in this discussion rise a) to the level required for a Featured article, or b) to the level of WP:DUE. Sideswipe's post above did not pretend they were high quality sources; only higher than the original sourcing, but we don't write FAs around the Huffington Post or op-eds in Time magazine. The content in the article now about the name is sourced to scholarly literature, not tabloid rags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not about the argument. There is no conspiracy. This edit is clarifying the names for the reader. Giving the context as to why this subject was brought up. Followed by the response from Rowling's spokesperson. It's a neutrally worded edit giving facts; not opinions. Higher quality sources will be used. Why are you blocking a clarification? NoMagicSpellstalk 01:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not going to say where, but I noticed a recent, out of nowhere, uptick of "JK Rowling is anti-gay, blah, blah, blah" in a couple of chatty circles. Now I know where they got it from. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- The information is too trivial to include in Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC).
- I support inclusion. Zaathras (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- The name is just a coincidence and not worth noting in the article per WP:UNDUE. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE - leave it out. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any weighty sources taking this seriously enough to include. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE, though worth coming back to in a month or two if it becomes a significant part of her story and a lot more heavyweight sources pick it up. Right now it isn't, and they haven't. John (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agree that this is WP:UNDUE, at least for now. If coverage of the issue continues, revisit. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
"It is the best-selling book series in history."
The article says "It is the best-selling book series in history." linking to List of best-selling books, presumably as a source. List of best-selling books though estimates that the bible (which is a series of books) has 800m sales, compared to J. K. Rowling at 500 million. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- The bible might loosely be called a series (I like Part I the best), but it is not commonly described as such. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know why that edit stood for more than a week; maybe no one got around to checking it. First, it linked twice in the lead to the same article. Second, it introduced uncited text in the body of the article. As I recall, we looked for a source to back this during the FAR and didn't find anything acceptable (I could be misremembering). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Morgan
This edit by WhatamIdoing creates a conundrum as there are multiple teachers (vague), and Pugh specifically mentions Morgan (see footnote f). At minimum, since Morgan is no longer named in the article, footnote f needs adjustment if we leave Morgan out of the body. With something as widely known and published as the Morgan connection, I am unsure if BLPNAME applies ... but heading out for the day, no time to further address just now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I see the conundrum. Perhaps label her as "her primary school teacher"? Maybe "Her teacher at the Tutshill Church of England School" and then "her stern teacher there"?
- I'm looking at this through a Wikipedia:Don't be evil lens. I'd like the family and friends of this teacher to be able to read this article, which mentions the teacher putting Rowling in the dunce's row (but doesn't mention moving her back...) and feel like it wasn't a public pillorying.
- BTW, Tutshill#J. K. Rowling says that the character was partly inspired by two teachers (and names them both). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- That article is poorly sourced (http://www.half-bloodprince.org/snape_nettleship.php); we're sourcing to Kirk and the scholarly Pugh, who explicitly names Morgan. Kirk and Smith go into long analyses as I recall. I am fairly certain (but others like AP and O-D know better) that the Morgan issue is so well established that it's not a BLP issue, but I won't have time to investigate for the rest of the week ... hoping that AP or O-D will weigh in before the weekend, when I may have more free time to follow up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- PS, from my memory of reading all of Kirk and Smith, Morgan was described as quite the battle axe, so we're not likely in BLP territory. If I get a free moment this week between tests at clinic, will re-read Kirk and Smith to check, but real life got real complicated suddenly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Update: I found time to read through the main sources used in the biography last night. We have used four sources that cover Morgan (and there are many other lower-quality sources we didn't use). We have two full-length bios (old, but the best available, Smith and Kirk); one scholarly source (recent, thorough, Pugh); and one extensive news report (The Scotsman). All coverage says the same thing, which is basically that Rowling has discussed Morgan relative to Hogwarts. From my re-read, I conclude the WP:BLPNAME is not in play here, and the introduction of vague text when the subject is well covered in reliable sources is less than desirable, and we're not publishing anything that isn't already widely reported in reliable sources. My suggestion is that we re-instate the Morgan text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that it's really vague, and I agree that it can be sourced. My main concern is that this is unnecessary trivia – the sort of thing I'd expect to find in the Harry Potter Trivial Pursuit game. Does it actually matter what her name is? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agree that it's too trivial for this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC).
I have adjusted the footnote, which left vague Morgan, who was cited to all four main bio sources (Pugh, Kirk, Smith and https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/jk-rowling-story-2478095 . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Rowling's treatment of Native American topics and fans
Right. It wasn't covered in higher profile sources because she's higher profile than the minorities who took issue with her treatment. Do you realize how rare it is for Native American issues to be covered in the mainstream press and, even more rare, for them to be covered accurately? I'll see if more sources came out since then. Elizabeth Warren lauded her for the misrepresentation, as she was doing the same sort of thing, and wanted in on it. But actual Natives were protesting. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notified: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd support the edit if you could source the criticism to something better than a single Salon article. (I don't support the notification: AFAICT this article is not under 1RR and so CorbieVreccan's edits don't IMO rise to the level of edit warring.) Loki (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would be concerned, even if a stronger source is supplied, that we must factor in due weight. We've got a couple dozen editors here who spent months immersed in all the highest quality sources, and I don't recall having ever seen this come up, so while it might belong at the Politics of sub-article, I don't see it having a due weight fit here. Re the notification, I'm not an admin so the nuance is lost on me; the gist is that edit warring on any article is not good, and we should strive to keep the collaborative spirit that developed during the FAR on this page. I believe CorbieVreccan might agree, now that we've discussed a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would be concerned, even if a stronger source is supplied, that we must factor in due weight. We've got a couple dozen editors here who spent months immersed in all the highest quality sources, and I don't recall having ever seen this come up, so while it might belong at the Politics of sub-article, I don't see it having a due weight fit here. Re the notification, I'm not an admin so the nuance is lost on me; the gist is that edit warring on any article is not good, and we should strive to keep the collaborative spirit that developed during the FAR on this page. I believe CorbieVreccan might agree, now that we've discussed a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've seen this issue pop up in the sources, but without anywhere near the frequency of either scholarly critique of her books, or the transgender issues. Two rather obvious reasons for this; she's vocal on twitter about transgender issues, and the material touching on Native Americans is not in an actual publication, but "bonus material", as it were, on Pottermore, which gets very little attention. I don't see how it meets the due weight threshold at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Re. the move to a sub-article: doesn't this belong on Politics of Harry Potter rather than Politics of J. K. Rowling? It's about how Rowling treats Native Americans in her fiction, not on her social media (unlike the TG issues). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Could be, but it doesn't belong where it has again been moved; it is not a matter of International politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- It does have a social media component, and an international one. Native fans raised the issue with her on twitter and other platforms where she was usually very interactive. She responded once and then went silent. Then came harassment and even death threats from her fans. Rowling stayed silent on these as well. Around that time there was also other material online about her treatment of other races in her writing, Cho Chang, Irish stereotypes, etc. But like the Native American material, as I recall coverage was mostly in small publications online in Scotland and the US, and in social media, all of it international. But again, when minority populations are involved, the mainstream press often won't bother. Hence, discussions like this one. This is an ongoing issue with covering bias and prejudice, as well as protests. Up until relatively recently, LGBT concerns and even in-person protests and marches were disappeared in the same way in mainstream media. Older editors remember. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
JK/J.K.
As the article uses British English, should it use 'JK' throughout it?Halbared (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Here's her website; seems she uses J. K. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
English
Name the characters and object in JK Rowling books that exist inspired by real life 2409:4063:4082:7151:19B8:9FA:624B:FA58 (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- During the FAR, it was decided to only (or mostly anyway) mention such items in footnotes (eg Sylvia Morgan/Snape). An entire article could be created about such instances.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally, this request has a whiff of WP:HOMEWORK about it... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)