![]() | 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 |
TFA reminder, June 26
@4meter4, A. C. Santacruz, Adam Cuerden, AleatoryPonderings, Aza24, Barkeep49, Bastun, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Czar, Ealdgyth, Endwise, Extraordinary Writ, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, Guerillero, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Innisfree987, Ipigott, Ixtal, Johnbod, LokiTheLiar, Newimpartial, Olivaw-Daneel, RandomCanadian, Sdkb, Sideswipe9th, Silver seren, SMcCandlish, Serial Number 54129, Vanamonde93, Victoriaearle, Xxanthippe, Zmbro, and Z1720: Pinging all involved in the FAR and TFAR for extra eyes on TFA day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll try to take as much of a look as possible, but I'll be asleep or at church for most of the first half of the run. Hog Farm Talk 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will be watching all except for two hours towards the end of the run, and when I try to sleep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Both articles have been on my watch-list for a long time. I'll definitely be keeping an eye out tomorrow whenever I'm online. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Will keep an eye on this when I can today. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will be watching all except for two hours towards the end of the run, and when I try to sleep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Won't be involved as I'm recovering from surgery but I'll respond to pings if urgent help or my opinion is needed. Enjoy your weekend everyone and be proud of the formidable work done by all of you to take this article back to FA quality and to curate its nomination for TFA. The work we do not only to cover notable topics well but to recognize and maintain quality articles is something you should congratulate yourself in the mirror for regularly. This is important work that y'all are doing and you should feel proud of your contributions. I am proud of you all :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Get well soon, and thanks for the kind words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm here (thanks for the ping, I'd lost track of the date), but not feeling great so will be in & out and not up to any great long discussions. Victoria (tk) 23:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- 35 minutes in, and three changes have been made. I've picked this revision from 16:57, 25 June 2022 to restore to, though I was tempted to pick one further back and closer to the FAR. Not sure if this is the right version to go back to, but the work from @Ham II: hasn't diverged too much from the FAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding relevant links:
- Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 April 2022
- including five talk archives at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 from December 2021
- TFA blurb Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/J. K. Rowling April 2022
- Lead RFC Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11 January 2022
- AN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Eyes on J. K. Rowling TFA June 2022
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good luck. If my clearing of POTD/Unused was a bit controversial, this could be a powder keg. But, y'know, I can respect all the hard work you put in as editors without needing to respect the article's subject that much (her twitter is one of the biggest internet horrorshows at the moment, and not in the Nadsat meaning of "horrorshow". It's about 90% attacks on trans people, especially given she's pinned a bunch of her favourite attacks.) I'm a bit concerned for all of you (I don't want to see any of you hurt if this blows up) but, well, in the end, there's never going to be a good time to run it anymore, so, y'know, good luck. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am on a kinda Wiki break, plus currently I have Covid; not too bad but resting mostly and avoiding. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
BLP vio allegation
JeffUK The well-vetted content you removed was not a BLP violation, nor was it thinly sourced. There are boatloads of mainstream sources discussing where JKR has been referred to as a TERF; here's but one easily found sample: [1]. Your edit also left a grammatical error in the article; please self-revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note I had already reverted this by the time you got this typed up and posted! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you may have reverted too far back; the edits before the article went live were not problematic, at least IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly, though I wasn't too sure about the edits by Wubslin and Kleinpecan, as they diverged pretty far from the FAR in some sections and I'd rather be overly cautious and re-do those after the TFA is finished. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note, per the section below the edits by Wubslin and Kleinpecan have both now been restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly, though I wasn't too sure about the edits by Wubslin and Kleinpecan, as they diverged pretty far from the FAR in some sections and I'd rather be overly cautious and re-do those after the TFA is finished. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you may have reverted too far back; the edits before the article went live were not problematic, at least IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The topic of this thread is also under discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Broader discussion of this text continues below at #"and she has been referred to as a TERF". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Casual Vacancy
Kbabej, the source you added here is not a high quality reliable source as required for Featured articles, and Casual Vacancy has its own article, where detail about it can be explored. Please review WP:FAOWN and the Featured article review linked above, and discuss further edits on talk. I suggest you self-revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note, I've also reverted this by the time you'd typed this up and posted. Sorry @SandyGeorgia:. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Slow and steady wins the race :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"and she has been referred to as a TERF"
I'm certainly not trying to upset the apple cart right before it's on the main page (it's already there), and I know it took a lot of discussion to get to where it's at now, but when the article says "...and she has been referred to as a TERF..." would it perhaps be beneficial to say who has referred to her as such? With the current wording it's not really clear if this is just something that Twitter users have called her, or if some expert in some social field or something had said? I know the source cited just mentions her responding to such accusations and not who was doing the accusations, but is this something that was previously discussed or that can be sourced to specific people or groups? - Aoidh (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh: this was discussed at length during the FAR at: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_5#Workshopping_the_transgender_section Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- For now, I have double-cited it: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- She has been called that by various groups as mentioned on several sources-- enough that further specificity might not be helpful. Have you a suggested wording change we might discuss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know I'm probably being less than helpful in even bringing it up, but I only saw this and this as far as sources. I wasn't able to identify sources showing who said it so I don't have any suggested wording change. I didn't see in the FAR where the attribution of the term was discussed, but if it's been said by enough people that attribution isn't really helpful I'm certainly not trying to press the issue, I just thought it might help, but if it doesn't then I'm happy to drop the suggestion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Give me a moment to work something up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know I'm probably being less than helpful in even bringing it up, but I only saw this and this as far as sources. I wasn't able to identify sources showing who said it so I don't have any suggested wording change. I didn't see in the FAR where the attribution of the term was discussed, but if it's been said by enough people that attribution isn't really helpful I'm certainly not trying to press the issue, I just thought it might help, but if it doesn't then I'm happy to drop the suggestion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking at just a few sources:
- This USA Today "splainer" refers to it generally, and indicates JKR herself suggested she had been called that: [3]
- NBC News says she referred to it herself: [4]
- Dave Chapelle says the "transgender community" call her a TERF. [5]
- The Independent refers to her reference to the term: [6]
- The Advocate outright calls her a TERF: [7]
- CNN says "critics" have called her a TERF: [8]
- The LA Times references her statement that she was called a TERF: [9]
- The Scotsman puts it on a Twitter trend: [10]
So just from that sampling, it seems widespread. Our text currently says:
Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). She rejects these characterisations.
I'm at a loss for how to improve that; suggestions welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for those sources, I didn't see those when I made this topic. But after reviewing the sources, it does look like it's not something that can be attributed to a person or group of people, the only suggestion I would make is possibly rewording it to
so that way both the transphobic part and the TERF part are both attributed to critics? That way there is that attribution and acknowledgement of who is making those assertions, even if it's just the broad "critics"? - Aoidh (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by critics. She rejects these characterisations.
- The sources don't restrict it to only critics: Dave Chapelle proclaims he is "team TERF". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, fair point. I really don't see anything I could suggest that would be an improvement then. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this; I've added now a scholarly source, and someone may come up with better wording because of your effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reading through that source, I don't believe it supports the line; it says that Alice Schwarzer was
branded a ’Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ (TERF)
, but it doesn't make such a statement about Rowling. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)- My apologies for the delay, BilledMammal; it took me some time to figure out where I had stored the source. You are correct, I misread, and I will shortly self-revert. Thank you for noticing my error. The direct statement about Rowling is "storm of insults and death wishes" (hence my offer above that one option is to broaden the statement beyond just TERF). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here are some other journal possibilities:
- Gulley " As a result, Rowling was called a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by many in the LGBTQIA+ community (Ivy 2019)."
- I do not have access to this one: Thomsen ... anyone?
- Vaitoska "Recently, the author of Harry Potter J. K. Rowling was called TERF – a mock- ing term meaning “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” She was proclaimed such for supporting the opinion that sex change is biologically impossible."
- I do not have access to this one: Schwirblat ... the preview shows it seems to support the text.
- There are quite a few others I do not have access to; I believe it apparent that the statement can be cited to a scholarly source, but we should discuss which to use after closer examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Thomsen, et al. paper doesn't have a single quote that supports it. Instead Rowling is mentioned as one of several anti-trans and TERF individuals named in a larger section titled "Kill the feminist, kill the lesbian".
- The Schwirblat, et al. paper does not appear to have been published yet, as the publication date is 27 June 2022. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- So ... the Thomsen paper directly calls her a TERF by including her there ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've emailed you a copy of the Thomsen paper now. By my reading it does support it, but unlike the Gulley and Vaitoska papers it does not do so in an easy to quote manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- So ... the Thomsen paper directly calls her a TERF by including her there ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm only able to see Gulley, who cites to this NBC News piece re TERF, [11] (not sure if we have this one?). Victoria (tk) 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Adding: in fact the NBC opinion piece does not even mention the term anywhere, so Gulley has miscited or misattributed. I wouldn't use it. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thx, and I have now viewed Thomsen, which I think not sufficient, so those two are out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Had a closer look at the Vaitoska paper. It cites a Forbes piece from December 2019 for it, though upon closer inspection of the Forbes piece it seems to be from a Forbes contributor which we generally consider to be unreliable and a self published source, unless the contributor is a subject matter expert. I don't know enough about the author, Dawn Ennis, to tell if they are such an expert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thx, and I have now viewed Thomsen, which I think not sufficient, so those two are out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reading through that source, I don't believe it supports the line; it says that Alice Schwarzer was
- Thanks for raising this; I've added now a scholarly source, and someone may come up with better wording because of your effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, fair point. I really don't see anything I could suggest that would be an improvement then. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sources don't restrict it to only critics: Dave Chapelle proclaims he is "team TERF". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I think this should be removed. it's not appropriate for an article to list all of the slurs and insults that have been made about someone, even if it is proven that those slurs and insults have been made. Rowling's own essay is the ultimate source of many of those articles, where she says in full " I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, " Should we add 'She has been referred to has a cunt, a bitch, and a TERF, characterisations she denies'? I don't think we should be using terms like 'TERF' in articles unless it's a label they accept for themselves; even if we try and weasel out of it by not using wiki-voice. JeffUK (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of numerous sources listing the other things she has been called, although if they do, an option is to replace TERF with something more general about the speech and threats directed at her, which scholarly sources do cover. I am satisfied with the use of TERF only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My concern is not verifiability. Reporting that an offensive slur has been used against someone is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia biography article without a very good reason to explore it in detail, more than anything it's WP:Undue Especially when the subject has vehemently denied the claim, and spoken out specifically about the chilling effects of that label. JeffUK (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The "very good reason' is that a noted and so-called feminist turned out to hold views that are widely considered to be bigoted. Similarly, white supremacists don't like to be called white supremacists, they prefer identitarian. Personal opinions of the subjects in these cases is not relevant. Zaathras (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My concern is not verifiability. Reporting that an offensive slur has been used against someone is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia biography article without a very good reason to explore it in detail, more than anything it's WP:Undue Especially when the subject has vehemently denied the claim, and spoken out specifically about the chilling effects of that label. JeffUK (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see that what TERF stand for is spelled-out, but is there a reason why it isn't linked to TERF? Was this a conscious decision made? Zaathras (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Confused ... ?? ... it is linked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can confirm it is wikilinked. I've also checked the revisions shortly before the time Zaathras made their reply, and it seems to be linked in all of them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, I swear it wasn't yesterday, but it may have been the coloring of the link blending into the dark-mode background I have. All good. Zaathras (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can confirm it is wikilinked. I've also checked the revisions shortly before the time Zaathras made their reply, and it seems to be linked in all of them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Confused ... ?? ... it is linked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The current wording seems ideal. Certainly no convincing arguments to change it here. ––FormalDude talk 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As long as we're linking to the TERF article which explains the larger issues around the recently coined term I don't see the slur issue... Its common for an objective description to be described as a slur by those its directed against. If a white supremacist is adequately described as such by WP:RS but considers white supremacist to be a slur (most of them do) and instead wants to be called a "white identity activist" we're not going to honor their wishes. Not sure why we would treat this differently from any other form of bigotry. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Options on "referred to as a TERF"
Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). She rejects these characterisations.
Per the discussion above, we have several options:
- Leave well enough alone based on source list above
- Add a scholarly source to the general statement
- Broaden the statement to encompass "storm of insults and death threats"
- Qualify the statement somehow (wording would be tricky)
Please suggest ideas and preferences .... NOT A VOTE ! If we get sufficient or diverging opinions, then we can consider a survey. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you feel 'Removing the phrase 'TERF' from the article is not even an option? JeffUK (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Removing it entirely leaves the content without context for her essay rebuttal, in which she clearly outlines that issue ... that is, IMO the best option should we opt to remove the term entirely is to replace it with something about the general insults aimed at her, so that context is supplied. That said, if others support it, we could certainly consider going that direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- But the context about her essay is already there, "LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with an essay on her website" that paragraph stands alone perfectly fine without the subsequent paragraph. It would be even more inappropriate to just include a list of other insults that have been used against her. It is undue weight and (again) in violation of WP:BLP specifically "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. " . JeffUK (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am, for now, refraining from offering my own preference re how to address this, as I don't want to stifle further discussion. But the highest quality (scholarly) sources are what we should be basing text on in a featured article, and I've listed the wording used by several scholarly sources; you can deduce where I will likely come out based on that. Rowling has been broadly subject to insults and death threats; working that in would be non-trivial, and in the collaborative spirit in which this article's content has evolved, would likely involve discussions through several proposal iterations. The method has served us well so far ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- But the context about her essay is already there, "LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with an essay on her website" that paragraph stands alone perfectly fine without the subsequent paragraph. It would be even more inappropriate to just include a list of other insults that have been used against her. It is undue weight and (again) in violation of WP:BLP specifically "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. " . JeffUK (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Including the phrase TERF was discussed at length during the FAR. Also I'd point out that consensus at the BLPN thread that you opened @JeffUK: seems to be that including the term as used is not a BLP violation. Update The BLPN discussion has been closed stating
There is reasonable consensus both here and at the article that there is no BLPvio that would necessitate invoking WP:BLPRESTORE, so in the interest of not splitting discussion, I'm closing this to keep discussion on the talk page.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC) updated with closure of BLPN discussion Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)- Where should I be looking for the extensive discussion? TERF is mentioned 5 times on that page, 3 of which are quotes from the same snippet of text, There is exactly zero discussion about the appropriateness of the term. JeffUK (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that we, and the article, are better served by looking forward rather than backwards. There are multiple ways to address this concern, and we have found on this page that collaborative discussion works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I just keep being clobbered with 'This has been discussed', 'the wording was agreed already'' and 'familiarize themselves with the history of the article wording to avoid rereading old ground'. If this has been discussed at length in the past, I would like to read the arguments to save time. JeffUK (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, yes, agree with this. Re your list above, per number 4 - would it work to simply say she has been called a radical feminist and leave out the acronym? That gives context that I do think is needed. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is an option, but I am unsure it will gain consensus. My sense early on (could be wrong???) is that plenty of people would object to removing TERF and its link. Also, we still have Wagner and Schwirblat; I wonder if anyone can decipher if Schwirblat will become available tomorrow? Wagner's wording is "storm of insults and death wishes". Scholar.google coughs up many other sources I cannot access; perhaps someone with better access can, and we can initiate a discussion focused on scholarly sources? I need to go out for about an hour and a half, but can iPad edit from the car hotspot ... slow and steady wins the race. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle: I don't think we can leave out the trans-exclusionary part. It would be changing what our sources are saying, as Rowling is not being criticised for being a radical feminist. She's being criticsed for being a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. By dropping the acronym and trans-exclusionary, you're changing the group to which others are describing her being a part of.
- @SandyGeorgia: if you want to email me the URLs to the other sources or link them here, I should be able to access most. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gotta dash out or will be late ... just scholar.google TERF Rowling ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Will do, I'll get the relevant ones linked here shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Take note that several were resoundingly rejected back during the discussion of sources on the FAR ... you may need to look that up first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eg, Hotine comes to mind as one that resulted in heated discussion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, already come across Hotine's piece. I'll filter the list against the past discussion, plus the other four you linked earlier, once I find the most relevant ones. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. See #Scholarly sources section below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Will do, I'll get the relevant ones linked here shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sources do not say that "Rowling is being criticised for being a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. " they say 'She's been called a TERF', I think there is a subtle but important difference between the two, and that the reported name-calling is just not due weight for the section on Rowling's views (or anywhere on her article). That her views have been criticised for being transphobic is not in any doubt, so 'transphobic' seems entirely appropriate. JeffUK (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gotta dash out or will be late ... just scholar.google TERF Rowling ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that we, and the article, are better served by looking forward rather than backwards. There are multiple ways to address this concern, and we have found on this page that collaborative discussion works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where should I be looking for the extensive discussion? TERF is mentioned 5 times on that page, 3 of which are quotes from the same snippet of text, There is exactly zero discussion about the appropriateness of the term. JeffUK (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Removing it entirely leaves the content without context for her essay rebuttal, in which she clearly outlines that issue ... that is, IMO the best option should we opt to remove the term entirely is to replace it with something about the general insults aimed at her, so that context is supplied. That said, if others support it, we could certainly consider going that direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My current preference is first 1, leaving it alone, followed by 2 adding a scholarly source to the existing set of citations.
- I do not think broadening it to include "storm of insults and death threats" is due as that doesn't seem to be reflected in the weight our sources give to that. I also don't think there's a way to succinctly qualify the statement, without repeating much of the content at Political views of J. K. Rowling. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please try to avoid early !voting, which never leads anywhere good :) As soon as I return from a quick errand, we should set up proposals in the same format that served us so well during the FAR (see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5). But we should first and foremost engage in broad-based discussion to be sure we all understand each other's concerns. Mine now is that we re-focus away from news sources, and on to scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I was simply brainstorming. I agree w/ Sideswipe's comments. Discussion is always valuable and I think we've articulated why the entire acronym is needed. Victoria (tk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am on my way home, and will set up some structured proposals per Ss source list as soon as I get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I was simply brainstorming. I agree w/ Sideswipe's comments. Discussion is always valuable and I think we've articulated why the entire acronym is needed. Victoria (tk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please try to avoid early !voting, which never leads anywhere good :) As soon as I return from a quick errand, we should set up proposals in the same format that served us so well during the FAR (see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5). But we should first and foremost engage in broad-based discussion to be sure we all understand each other's concerns. Mine now is that we re-focus away from news sources, and on to scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd rather have the entire thing deleted. IMHO, it belongs in the Political views of J. K. Rowling page. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- She's being put on the main page in the middle of Pride. Not addressing her transphobic views at all is far, far worse. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Scholarly sources
A list of relevant scholarly sources describing Rowling as a TERF
- They would have transitioned me: third conditional TERF grammar of trans childhood, Jacob Breslow, open access
- Note: source states why it calls Rowling an TERF in footnote 1.
- Note: Source was discussed but not rejected during the FAR
- This is my TERF! Lesbian Feminists and the Stigmatization of Trans Women, Meredith Worthen, closed access but available through WP:LIB
- Quote:
Relatively recently, social media has exploded with conversations about Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) who are opposed to the recognition of trans women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnormativity (Williams, 2014; Zanghellini, 2020). British author J.K. Rowling has been at the center of recent pop culture (and sometimes academic) discussions about trans exclusion due to her own comments and blog/essay in which she defends her stance on sex essentialism (Rowling, 2020).
- Quote:
- Mainland China's TERFs' Misogyny under JK Rowling's Anti-trans Incident, Leshui Qiao, open access
- Quote:
JK Rowling's anti-trans incident has brought the existence of TERF (anti-trans radical feminists) to the surface again, and indeed in 2008 TERF sprouted on the internet [1] and further developed in 2014 [2].
- Quote:
This shows that Chinese netizens display an anti-political correctness stance when viewing the JK Rowling case, which makes the TERF ideology more convincing (they are more supportive of JK Rowling's views),
- Quote:
- Transformative Readings: Harry Potter Fan Fiction, Trans/Queer Reader Response, and J. K. Rowling, Jennifer Duggan, open access
- Note: while this source discusses extensively Rowling's transphobic views, it does not explicitly call her a TERF, and only mentions TERF as part of Rowling's June 2021 open letter.
- Note: Source was discussed during the FAR, and is currently in use in the article
- On J. K. Rowling's Discourse on Transsexual Issues, An Analysis of the Language Used on Rowling's Twitter and the Sociolinguistic Implication of Hate Speech, Amergio Quatrini
- Note: this source is a linguistic analysis of statements made by and to Rowling, and does not seem to make any meta commentary on the comments themselves.
- Toward a historiography of the lesbian transsexual, or the TERF’s nightmare, Jules Gill-Peterson, closed access, not in WP:LIB
- Note: I'm unable to access this paper either through LIB or other means.
- The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing, book, partial preview available on Google Books, relevant page 125-126
- Quote:
One of these is the TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) lable, originating from the belief of radical feminists that the problems of women can only be experienced by those who are born biologically as women. Thus, prominent figures such as J. K. Rowling and Germain Greer have argued for the exclusion of trans women from women's movements and networks (Brown, 2018; Ennis, 2019).
- Quote:
- Not my turf: Helen Lewis argues that vitriol around the trans debate means only extreme voices are being heard, Jemimah Steinfeld, open access
- Quote:
The term Terf, first coined in 2008, has taken on a life of its own in recent years. Like a heat-seeking missile, it races through the internet at breakneck speed, ready to smash into anyone who says the “wrong” thing in reference to trans people. Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs.
- Note: this seems to be an interview published in the April 2020 issue of Index on Censorship's quarterly publication
- Quote:
- Empire and Eugenics: Trans studies in the United Kingdom, Ezra Horbury, Christine "Xine" Yao, closed access, not in WP:LIB
- Note: I'm unable to access this paper either through LIB or other means.
I've included a couple of sources that look like they might be relevant, but I was unable to access via LIB or other means in the hopes that someone else may have access. I've also included some inline notes and quotes, but I'd suggest that any further discussion should occur below the list to prevent issues of having to add my signature to every line. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As per previous section above, I've excluded any sources that were discussed during the FAR (see Archive 3 and Archive 5 for past analysis), but I've included two that were discussed and not excluded. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Other discussion
Oddly (???) I have just now been pointed to a discussion that was started at BLPN hours ago: see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Wubslin edits
@Wubslin: Per the request made at my talk page, could you elaborate on what the outright errors are please? For convenience here is a diff of all of your edits made that were rolled back. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not have an issue with any of those edits; how to reinstate them now, though ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be too difficult to do. Give me ten minutes and I should have em restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- apartment --> flat
- British Royal Navy --> Royal Navy
were the two outright errors. The rest were just minor copyedits which I thought made the flow better. Thanks for your prompt attention, both of you. --Wubslin (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've restored all edits made by Wubslin except for one that I wanted to query first. In this edit @Wubslin: you removed a sentence about Rowling's relationship with her father. Could you explain why? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ha ... I had forgotten ... I also did not understand that one, except that the flow is a bit off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note. I've also now restored the changes made by Kleinpecan after getting a chance to look at it in closer detail, and offered apologies over at her talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As regards this, I was basing the removal on the fact that we have "Rowling's home life was complicated by her mother's illness and a strained relationship with her father" in the section just before, so there is probably no need to say "She had a difficult relationship with her father..." just a few lines later. Worth saying once, but not twice in quick succession. Does that make sense? Sorry, I should have done a better edit summary. --Wubslin (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, and do not disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll restore that bit now then too. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- All good now, I think ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Content restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll restore that bit now then too. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, and do not disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As regards this, I was basing the removal on the fact that we have "Rowling's home life was complicated by her mother's illness and a strained relationship with her father" in the section just before, so there is probably no need to say "She had a difficult relationship with her father..." just a few lines later. Worth saying once, but not twice in quick succession. Does that make sense? Sorry, I should have done a better edit summary. --Wubslin (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
British English
Zmbro regarding this edit (from a boy called Harry to a boy named Harry), Ham II had earlier changed that per British English. I don't speak British English; could others sort this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh is it? My bad. To me that sounds odd but then again I'm not British so.... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 04:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent time in England, which I know is very weak supporting evidence, but it is my understanding that called is more commonly used there. I tried to find evidence online supporting this, but outside of forum posts, I could find nothing. However, Collins dictionary (which is a British English dictionary) and theFreeDictionary both state that called is the more commonly used word in this instance. With that in mind I think keeping it as called would be the best option. - Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent 66 years in England, except for the years I didn't, and called is used more often than named, though either is acceptable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am thinking of turning in for the night now; it sounds like we should go back to called, but not urgent, so we can wait for more opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As a Brit, I would use "called" in speaking, not quite sure about in writing. PamD 06:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As Roxy has said, called is more common than named. --Wubslin (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent 66 years in England, except for the years I didn't, and called is used more often than named, though either is acceptable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent time in England, which I know is very weak supporting evidence, but it is my understanding that called is more commonly used there. I tried to find evidence online supporting this, but outside of forum posts, I could find nothing. However, Collins dictionary (which is a British English dictionary) and theFreeDictionary both state that called is the more commonly used word in this instance. With that in mind I think keeping it as called would be the best option. - Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, [12] (awake now and following). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Last sentence of the lead
It currently reads: These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.
I propose changing to: These have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.
The current wording implies "LGBT rights organisations" as a group condemn Rowling's comments. Surely we would need a very good source for such strong wording. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is adequately sourced in the body text, and not required to be cited in the lead, which is a summary of the body. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, none of the sources say she has been called transphobic by a majority of "LGBT rights organisations". This is why I want to qualify the statement with "some". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The WP:WEASEL word "some" is used in the transgender section of the article, and I personally would not support using it in the lead, which is well crafted. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the qualification is included in the body, why is it not appropriate in the lead? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- because it is a summary. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed my point. The current wording gives a misleading impression of a consensus against Rowling from "LGBT rights organisations". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see what others say, shall we. I have addressed your point though. Things will be omitted from a summary, that is the point of summarising. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 14:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed my point. The current wording gives a misleading impression of a consensus against Rowling from "LGBT rights organisations". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- because it is a summary. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the qualification is included in the body, why is it not appropriate in the lead? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The WP:WEASEL word "some" is used in the transgender section of the article, and I personally would not support using it in the lead, which is well crafted. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, none of the sources say she has been called transphobic by a majority of "LGBT rights organisations". This is why I want to qualify the statement with "some". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Another possibility: These have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. -- Just as concise as the current wording, and it more accurately summarises the body 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do we need a headcount of how many LGBT rights organizations have condemned Rowling's transphobia? What number is the tipping point, where you'd drop the call for "some" ? Zaathras (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- We'd need sources saying something along the lines of: "a majority of LGBT rights organisations have condemned R's comments" or "LGBT rights organisations have banded together in condemning R's comments -- some kind of collective language which suggests there is a consensus or majority opinion among "LGBT rights organizations". It's not up to us to make a headcount. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are you aware of a recognized or major LGBT org that did not condemn Rowling? At any rate, considering the lead was subjected to a recent and extremely well attended RFC, it is unlikely that sentence will be changed without very strong consensus, or possibly a new RFC which should only be launched after carefully crafting the wording, as discussed on the FAR, to avoid another no consensus outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some editors may be under the impression that the LGB Alliance is in some sense an LGBT rights organization, in the sense of this paragraph. It is not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the article as it stands, the only reference to the LGB Alliance is in a cite which makes it clear that they're a bunch of transphobes, so at least that's not a problem as it stands. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some editors may be under the impression that the LGB Alliance is in some sense an LGBT rights organization, in the sense of this paragraph. It is not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Paragraphing in the lead
While this edit introduced only a paragraph break, such an edit can be construed as POV by breaching the WP:LEAD guideline to create a separate (short and stubby) paragraph to highlight one issue. Considerable consensus went in to building the lead; I have reverted that edit and left a message to lettherebedarklight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Overlinking
Neveselbert in this edit, why did you delink fantasy literature (directly relevant in a literature article)? Also, could others opine on the delinking of pen name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- While I could somewhat see value in delinking Gloustershire per OVERLINK, I don't agree with delinking fantasy in the infobox, fantasy literature, or pen name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Sideswipe. "Fantasy" and "pen name" are directly relevant to the subject and should be linked imho. Victoria (tk) 16:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with Ss and Victoria; unless neveselbert weighs in shortly with a good reason, I suggest we restore the links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, I see no issue in restoring those links in lack of a response by Neveselbert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"temp jobs"
Is there a reason this article uses an abbreviation of "temporary"? Is that consistently reflected in the literature? Otherwise, I am inclined to expand it for the sake of formal writing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- To describe succinctly, it's a British English thing. Describing oneself as a "temp" or in a "temp job" was until recently, when it was replaced with zero hour contracts, just how we used the term here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- We discussed this at length somewhere; give me a moment to find that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Have a look here: Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 12#Not an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- PS, thanks for asking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, we also use "temp work(er)" in American English; it's just not an abbreviation I had assumed would be appropriate in formal written English. Interesting that there's some controversy over whether the abbreviation is itself meaningful; I agree you made the right choice, then. Thank you both, God bless. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, too ... so glad you asked before editing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Yeah, I've learned that wording choices that strike me as "obviously" wrong in TFAs have usually been discussed before. I always ask instead of being bold now. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, we also use "temp work(er)" in American English; it's just not an abbreviation I had assumed would be appropriate in formal written English. Interesting that there's some controversy over whether the abbreviation is itself meaningful; I agree you made the right choice, then. Thank you both, God bless. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Who’s idea was it to have this be the featured article during pride month?
Apologies to the people in charge of the featured articles, but this is not good optics 50.29.253.217 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think I agree. It would be hard for me to identify anyone else who has so successfully mobilized queer people (and others) in support of trans rights in online spaces - albeit as an unintended reaction. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Besides agreeing with Newimpartial's point, TFA is scheduled based on community consensus, and those who take difference with the scheduling are well advised to start following WP:TFAR. The 25th anniversary of Harry Potter was raised for TFA last February, and there has been considerable discussion of the blurb since (see links at the top of the page), with narry a soul raising an issue about pride month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- June as pride month isn't an international occurrence — different countries celebrate it at different times. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant, whether anybody is upset or not about the timing. The project doesn't run on a 'Don't offend anyone' basis, nor should it. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Our goal is to educate, and harm needs balanced with education. There are several Featured pictures that can't possibly run on the main page due to potential harms. See Wikipedia:POTD/Unused#Could cause harm. So it's not irrelevant. The relevant question is whether educational value outweighs potential harms. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- We shall have to disagree, on the 'It offends people, so we can't do that' topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we should never do it. I'm saying we have a duty to make sure educational value outweighs risk of harm. There are always potential harms. But trivial or unlikely harms are easily outweighed by the value of education. And not being overly conscious is a benefit too. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Political correctness, just isn't a good path to take. Anyways, Rowling's is an FA on the Main Page. So, what's done, is done. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we should never do it. I'm saying we have a duty to make sure educational value outweighs risk of harm. There are always potential harms. But trivial or unlikely harms are easily outweighed by the value of education. And not being overly conscious is a benefit too. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- We shall have to disagree, on the 'It offends people, so we can't do that' topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Our goal is to educate, and harm needs balanced with education. There are several Featured pictures that can't possibly run on the main page due to potential harms. See Wikipedia:POTD/Unused#Could cause harm. So it's not irrelevant. The relevant question is whether educational value outweighs potential harms. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"better known as"
Re this edit, pet peeve alert. We frequently see the phrase "best known for" in the leads of Wikipedia articles, and that can almost never be sourced. Yes, we may all know it, but it's not sourced and rarely can be. Why do we need this change? Even if we can source it in this case, it leaves a bad example for other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, she is better known by her pen name. Thus the name of the bio article itself. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it. She is better known as JK Rowling. I don't think a source is required per WP:BLUESKY. — Czello 19:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)