SummerPhDv2.0 (talk | contribs) |
HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
:::The TERF accusations in THIS article are very well sourced. If you feel any of the sources are not reliable you will need to be specific as to which source and how it fails [[WP:IRS]]. |
:::The TERF accusations in THIS article are very well sourced. If you feel any of the sources are not reliable you will need to be specific as to which source and how it fails [[WP:IRS]]. |
||
:::What our article says is -- unless those sources are lying (for some reason) -- true: Rowling faced criticism, outlets said she had been controversial in the past and some described her as a [[TERF]] with trans-phobic views. Which of those statements do you feel are not [[WP:V|verifiable]]? If you feel Rowling was not criticized, was not accused and was not described, you will need to explain. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]</sup> 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
:::What our article says is -- unless those sources are lying (for some reason) -- true: Rowling faced criticism, outlets said she had been controversial in the past and some described her as a [[TERF]] with trans-phobic views. Which of those statements do you feel are not [[WP:V|verifiable]]? If you feel Rowling was not criticized, was not accused and was not described, you will need to explain. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]</sup> 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
I'm not going to bother doing shit. |
|||
You and the rest of the Toxic SJW editors can keep on using wikipedia T&C to pretend it's all about adhering to the rules. We all know what it is : an agenda. Anything controversial said or done by any living person should be added to their respective articles irrespective of weather the sources are verifiable or not - that's what controversy is- generally unproven rumors . Isn't it strange sources deemed "appropriate" by some editors spew the same rhetoric yet with some ( I say some ) sources "not appropriate" actually have the truth . |
|||
I'm done . You lot win |
|||
Just trying to point out fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles. |
|||
Hpdh4 23:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:31, 21 April 2020
![]() | 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgs1234 (article contribs).
Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2019
in the Childhood part, can you change it from 23 months to 1 year and 11 months 185.39.202.226 (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done - it's common practice to list anything less than two years as combined months. Changing to years and months breaks the flow of the sentence and adds unnecessary complexity. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019
Charlton Athletic fan. 213.106.89.77 (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2019
Please can you change the key image to this image? I have permission to use the attached image, the credit should be: Photography Debra Hurford Brown © J.K. Rowling 2018
Tbp2018 (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Not done: That photo does not exist. NiciVampireHeart 12:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- More to the point the photo has not been uploaded with the correct permissions. I suspect you were trying to link to an offline image, or one that is somewhere on the web - but not hosted either by Wikipedia or on Commons.
- I suggest you upload the image first, apply the necessary permissions for what seems to be an image with specific copyright details, and then try again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Is this the one? Esowteric+Talk 13:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- If it is, I'd be willing to bet that the licensing info is incorrect and needs changing/correcting before it can be considered. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Is this the one? Esowteric+Talk 13:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
WorldCat data in error for Pegasus article?
The data for an article mentioned in the section on Rowling's education is wrong. It says the year of Rowling's article "What was the Name of that Nymph Again?" from Pegasus, the journal of the University of Exeter's Classics department is 1988. However, I found a PDF of that article which clearly dates it as 1998. Not to mention that Rowling mentions Professor Binns in the article; the Potterverse wasn't even a gleam in her eye in 1988.
I think whoever wrote the citation got the date from WorldCat. 1988 is written in the Publisher field, but I don't know that necessarily means the article should be dated 1988.
A Princeton library has the correct date for it online. I suppose I could just change the citation to the Princeton library instead of WorldCat, but I find that untidy.
Should I try to change the WorldCat data? It seems like you have to be affiliated with some library in order to request changes. Quickfoot (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Education section
The Education section notes J.K. Rowling's "What was the Name of that Nymph Again? or Greek and Roman Studies Recalled" as being published in 1988, but it appears to have been published in 1998 as found within the Journal of the University of Exeter Department of Classics And Ancient History on a University website at: https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf
AndrewHeagle (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Andrew Heagle
Why add the the maya forsater situation and TERF accusations with biased sources
Is it because wikipedia editors are now toxics SJWs .
I mean, brie larson gets a free pass with her man hating views on wikipedia but Jk Rowling is accused without proof . People cant add man hating to brie Larson article because wikipedia isnt a gossip rag but TERF can be added to Jk Rowling ? With one tweet and biased sources ? Talk about hypocrisy. This should apply to brie as well- if you add Terf to JKR you should be able to add Man hating to Brie . Gossip rag argument is moot point if your willing to vilify one person on the bases of poor gossip sources but not the other.
People can't make edits to articles of other celebs like brie Larson because of poor sources and wikipedia not being a gossip rag YET here we are with gossip sources for Jk Rowling. Even if people change the maya situation, it will be reverted by some SJW editor . Don't get me started on Johnny Depp being abused by amber heard and online tapes being released - someone on wiki said these tapes were doctored. Anything to believe woman as if woman cant do harm. Their are woman criminals.
Hypocrisy 101 is showing and it must end . Social justice doesn't equal to equality but reverse revenge . Hpdh4 12:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion on this talk page should be limited to this article. A tangentially related situation on an unrelated article cannot be addressed by assuming they are somehow related or should be handled in a way that you deem to be "fair".
- Comments attacking editors (individually or as a group) are neither productive nor acceptable.
- If you feel there are sources used which are not reliable sources, please specify which sources and in what way(s) you feel they do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS. You are very unlikely to find support for arguments that CBS News, The New York Times, Vox, and Forbes are "poor" or "gossip sources".
- If you feel the coverage of that material is beyond its coverage in the sources, such that it is a WP:WEIGHT issue, please explain. Note it is two sentences, citing four very reliable sources.
- Please note that the article does not say Rowling is a TERF. Instead, the two sentences say she "faced criticism for supporting Maya Forstater" (which is certainly true), "after a court ruled that Forstater's anti-transgender views were not protected beliefs" (again, true and verifiable), "Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident," (it is inarguably true that the media outlets made those statements) "with some describing her as a trans-exclusionary feminist whose views are transphobic" (again, it is true that some described her that way). - SummerPhDv2.0 18:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Theirs something called consistency and fairness. Even if you and others like you feel otherwise . If things like this can be added to Rowling, then it can be done for anyone that's controversial.
- I'm not going to add contrevercial things said or done by people like brie Larson or Amber heard or delete the terf accusations . I know my contributions will be reverted. It appears as if The truth only matters when its factual in its support for specific agendas.
- Hpdh4 13:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- This article is about Rowling. If you feel something in another article is contrary to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, discuss THAT issue THERE. If you feel you have similar quality sources about another issue on another subject, you will need to take the issue up there: Provide the sources, show they are reliable (most of the sources here have been covered in WP:RS/P) and provide a neutral summary of what they say.
- The TERF accusations in THIS article are very well sourced. If you feel any of the sources are not reliable you will need to be specific as to which source and how it fails WP:IRS.
- What our article says is -- unless those sources are lying (for some reason) -- true: Rowling faced criticism, outlets said she had been controversial in the past and some described her as a TERF with trans-phobic views. Which of those statements do you feel are not verifiable? If you feel Rowling was not criticized, was not accused and was not described, you will need to explain. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother doing shit. You and the rest of the Toxic SJW editors can keep on using wikipedia T&C to pretend it's all about adhering to the rules. We all know what it is : an agenda. Anything controversial said or done by any living person should be added to their respective articles irrespective of weather the sources are verifiable or not - that's what controversy is- generally unproven rumors . Isn't it strange sources deemed "appropriate" by some editors spew the same rhetoric yet with some ( I say some ) sources "not appropriate" actually have the truth . I'm done . You lot win Just trying to point out fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles.
Hpdh4 23:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)