Jump to content

Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

add Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore to her filmography, she both cowrote and coproduced it 96.41.105.14 (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 That film is unreleased, and isn't due for release until 2022. There is an entry for it already in the source of the filmography table marked as "do not make visible until film is released". Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

FA review?

Article was nominated in 2008. I believe there's a couple problems that prevent this article from meeting the WP:FACR. First, the article is not stable. The length of the article may be an issue too, going into unnecessary detail that is not always summary style. I think a FA review may be in order. ––FormalDude talk 07:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, FormalDude. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
2007. The article is now more than twice the readable prose size as the version that passed FA, so there is a lot of unvetted content. It is still within WP:SIZE guidelines, though, so examples of what content needs trimming to meet WP:SS should be given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this BLP is going to be suitable for FA for a long time. It is currently contentious with POV warriors fighting backwards and forwards over it. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC).
Please remember that WP:FAR is not dispute resolution, so if someone submits this article to FAR based on 1e stable, they should be prepared to demonstrate lack of stability with specific diffs, specific issues where WP:SS is not adequately used, or specific problems with prose, neutrality, comprehensiveness, sourcing or MOS compliance. Since the original (and competent FA) nominator, Serendipodous, has not touched the article in over a year, I would not be surprised to find that the prose or sourcing has deteriorated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Demonstrating those things should not be difficult, and this article hasn't been FA material for quite some time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Likely, but if the article goes to FAR (after the two-week wait period from notification), I hope the nominator recognizes that dispute resolution does not continue to FAR, the issue there is only whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, and that is the case to be made. The case probably can be made, but I haven’t seen that addressed yet here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey: proceed to WP:FAR?

  • Yes. Seeing as there are significant problems with the article's ability to meet FACR, I think we should proceed with FA review. ––FormalDude talk 04:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    FormalDude do you see in this discussion, including in the next post, requests that you read the instructions at WP:FAR? Please a) describe exactly what the issues are, and b) complete the notifications at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. As you knew of these procedures in advance, someone else should not have to do the work for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    This is a procedural question, because I'm not familiar with how FAR works. Can a FAR even occur while an RfC is still in progress? Is it not horrendously premature, as there are also some editors in the discussion below who might nominate Politics of J. K. Rowling for deletion/merge with this one, which could result in a significant increase in this article's length. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Moot proposal, not how it works. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR. After a two-week wait period from notification on talk, anyone can submit to FAR. A survey, or consensus, is not needed. Please review other articles at FAR to understand that the only concern there is WP:WIAFA, not dispute resolution. Further, the notification (above) did not do a very good job of describing exactly what needs to be addressed for the article to meet WIAFA (as I’ve mentioned a few times). An honest talk effort to describe and resolve issues is expected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes Just from the stability point, if 16 out of the last 50 edits (per time and date of this comment) have been reverted, I'd expect an in-depth analysis of the last half a year would probably find a trend of instability. However, when moving on to the actual FAR step of the process (with its appropriate subpage) a stronger case would probably be needed. I'm not particularly experienced with FAs, though (much more with GAs and the step between them is a significant one), so I'd recommend someone else start this. I'd have to do a close reading as well to determine whether the article is a good summary or not. In any case, reviewing FAs every so often is good practice to keep sure they are "the very best of Wikipedia". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    The stability criterion at WP:WIAFA was never intended to account for normal editing, even when that occurs at a very fast pace to keep the article updated, so yes, the case for ongoing edit warring and disruption would have to be made. But you can probably save yourself(ves) some effort and make a stronger case re WIAFA based on the other criteria. I haven't looked, so am just guessing, but unstable articles are usually failing in other areas as well; I am intentionally not looking, rather just responding about how the WP:FAR process works, so as to be a neutral reviewer should the article appear at FAR. I hope the person who said the article was too long will lay out where the content needs trimming to meet WP:SS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    To be perfectly honest I agree with your reasoning. However, I don't have much intention to dedicate more time to J.K. Rowling than I already have as I am currently focusing on getting the Bank of North Dakota and the First Carlist War articles to GA and responding to RfC bots from time to time. Would be nice for there to be some kind of "FA articles identified as good candidates for review" noticeboard or something along those lines for cases like these. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    Where in my case, the time spent here making sure a potential FAR nom is done correctly saves time later! A._C._Santacruz in fact, there is such a place and we would love to have more hands helping at WP:URFA/2020 (I saw the news of this article where I check all new additions at WP:FARGIVEN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    I believe a thank you for both your time here and the link is in order, SandyGeorgia :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    And thank you for the interest! My verbosity pays off for once :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bristol Wikiproject

Please stop adding this article to the Bristol Wikiproject. This article is not relevant to the Bristol Wikiproject. JKR's Wikipedia page does not explain any connection to Bristol, and the Bristol article (and sub-articles) do not mention JKR. If there were a relevant, non-trivial connection, it would be mentioned in those articles. "The article might be of interest to Bristol editors" is not a good reason to add it to a Wikiproject - by that logic we could it add it to every Wikiproject, and make all Wikiprojects as cluttered with random articles as the Bristol project currently is. If an editor is interested in this topic, they will follow the article or one of the Wikiprojects that it's actually relevant to. The editors who follow the Bristol Wikiproject might be interested in all sorts of random topics, but they one thing they're all interested in is Bristol topics, of which JKR is not one.

Adding articles to Wikiprojects means that those projects get notifications for any issues that come up on those articles. When an article is subject to many such issues, as this one seems to be, those notifications can drown out everything else that is happening on those projects and become spam. Overfilling Wikiprojects with off topic or very very tenuously connected topics therefore makes them less useful, not more.

Thank you. Joe D (t) 13:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

She's "Bristol's most famous daughter" according to the BBC, in part because of her primary schooling in Winterbourne. I've added that to the article now. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This depends on how wide an area the Bristol Wikiproject covers - which I guess is a matter for them. Winterbourne is near Bristol but is certainly not within the City of Bristol, and it is very debatable (depending on precise definitions, which vary) whether it falls within the wider Bristol metropolitan area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Her Winterbourne school has a Bristol address[1]. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikiprojects are not based on postcodes, I think. The BS postcode area is quite extensive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
OK there are 2 different questions here now - whether it's correct/useful/normal to describe Winterbourne as part of Bristol, and whether it's useful for this page to be included in the Bristol Wikiproject, and I don't think the answer to the latter necessarily depends on the former. The latter question I think is also one which is more properly discussed over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bristol#JK_Rowling_-_relevant_to_this_Wikiproject, as it's a question which affects members of the Wikiproject while probably being of very little interest or relevance to people who follow this talk page. Joe D (t) 13:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Sources describe Winterbourne as being "Bristol". It has a Bristol address, and Winterbourne is within the scope of WPBristol; so that seems clear enough. Whether WPBristol members want to keep an eye on a person who may be (slightly) connected with Bristol is up to them. Maybe they could help clarify the extent of any Bristol aspect to Rowling's bio. But to assert there is no connection and three times remove it from the Project without discussions seems like a very odd way of going about things. Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The idea that anywhere with a BS postcode has "a Bristol address" is mistaken. As the map shows, the postcode area extends for at least 30 miles beyond Bristol in several directions. But, it's a matter for the WikiProject as to whether Rowling falls within their remit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
You're straw-manning. The school has a Bristol address: on its website it is literally "St Michael's C of E Primary School, Linden Close, Winterbourne, Bristol BS36 1LG". That might be debatable but to find it "bizarre" shows a rather ill-tuned sense of what is bizarre. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I changed "bizarre" to a more appropriate wording! As someone who used to work on policy issues for that area, I know that many (probably most) residents of Winterbourne would be extremely hostile to the idea that they were in any way, shape or form "part of" Bristol, postcode boundaries notwithstanding. But, that may not be relevant here (or sourced). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Philanthropist" in the opening sentence

I oppose the removal of the descriptor "philanthropist" in the opening sentence of the article. Her philanthropic activities have received extensive coverage by the media, to the point that it seems pointless to link to sources that attest to that. The article itself contains plenty of such sources. Searching "jk rowling philanthropist" gives me 91,300 results on Google, "jk rowling charity work" gives 859,000 results [As has been has pointed out below, the number of Google hits is a useless indicator, and not really relevant to my argument anyway]. Among the many public recognitions of her charity endeavours:

  • "Harry Potter creator JK Rowling named most influential woman in the UK": Rowling, who recently donated £10 million to set up a new multiple sclerosis research clinic in Edinburgh, was chosen for her writing skills, tenacity to succeed and philanthropic nature, the National Magazine Company said.[1]
  • "JK Rowling receives Humanitarian Award from British Red Cross": The British Red Cross has presented author JK Rowling with its Humanity Award, designed to honour philanthropists and humanitarians whose work has changed people’s lives across the world.[2]
  • "JK Rowling becomes Companion of Honour for charity work": After being made an OBE in 2001, she is now becoming a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for her services to literature and philanthropy.[3]
  • "JK Rowling to receive human rights award": JK Rowling is to receive a prestigious award from literary and human rights group Pen America. [...] Pen (Poets, Essayists and Novelists) said it was honouring the author in recognition of her support for free expression and charitable causes.[4]

The extent of coverage by the media and the recognitions by many institutions of her philanthropic work make clear that it is one of the most prominent aspects of her public persona—in fact probably only second to being the author of the Harry Potter books. Natuff (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC); edited Natuff (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/11/harry-potter-jkrowling-influential-woman
  2. ^ https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/03/12/jk-rowling-receives-humanitarian-award-from-british-red-cross/
  3. ^ https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-becomes-companion-honour-charity-work-1447141
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35408331
  • And my search for "J K Rowling transphobia" receives 466,000 google hits, while "J K Rowling transgender" nets 4.6 million. But the decision was made in a recent RfC not to mention this in the lead sentence - perhaps because we do not base these decisions on google hits. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I only mentioned the Google hits to show that media coverage of Rowling's philanthropic activities is certainly not lacking. It wasn't my only point though, I suggest you address the rest of my post too and elaborate on why you think she shouldn't be described as a philanthropist in the opening sentence. As you said, the transgender issue has already been debated and it's not relevant here, so why mention it? Natuff (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
      • As previously stated, my point was that we do not base these decisions on google hits. I don't see any evidence in your post that her philanthropy is one of the most prominent aspects of her public persona—in fact probably only second to being the author of the Harry Potter books. In fact, I would say that the controversies about trans issues now firmly place second to being the author of the Harry Potter books as what she is known for - perhaps third if her management of the Wizarding World IP is broken off as a distinct topic from actual authorship (she has played a more prominent and successful role than, say, George R. R. Martin or the Tolkien estate in that respect, I would argue). Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I certainly don't agree with your view of what makes Rowling renown besides the Harry Potter's books. As I already explained, my case doesn't rest solely on the number of Google hits. I produced sources that show how her philanthropic activity was acknowledged by notable institutions and commentators which assigned awards to Rowling because of it—weight, not just quantity. I would argue that if it is ever appropriate to describe a public figure as "philanthropist" in the opening sentence of their article, Rowling would qualify. However, after giving it some thought I must say that, since we don't have objective criteria to decide who is a philanthropist and who is not, the debate comes down to subjective views. In this case, it's probably best to leave "philanthropist" out of the opening sentence and stick with the definitions that are uncontroversial. Natuff (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
        • The main thing that led to the deletion was that a few people (Me being among them) wondered if that word wasn't a bit loaded for wikipedia, and what would qualify someone for that description. As the first removal mentioned, the "brief consensus" was that there are no clear rules for it, it is used somewhat randomly across Wikipedia, and therefore it was best to remove it. The example I used earlier was that Richard Branson and Bill gates both have fairly large sections on their contributions to humanitarian causes, yet only bill gates has it mentioned in the lead, which makes it seem like its application is more based on their general reputation rather than their actual actions. which seems like a wrong way to go about it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I just did a BRD edit removing it from bill gates' opening sentence too. seems logical that if we're going to to remove it we should be consistent about it.--Licks-rocks (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Greetings, Licks-rocks. Your removal of the "philanthropist" term from "Bill Gates" was clearly a mistake: Here we are discussing the merits of having that term in the lead sentence of "J. K. Rowling" without a consensus being reached yet about this specific case - and you go over to an entirely unrelated article and removed the term! Listing the term in BLPs is, as we all admit, practically the conventional approach. If we want the term "philanthropist" ostracized from any and all biographies, we should submit a proposal to the appropriate forum. Kudos, though, for re-introducing on your own the term. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
None of the search engine counts quoted by OP or responders have the slightest relation to the reality of how many reliable sources support any of the terms searched for; they are completely useless for the purposes of this discussion. Please see #sidebar on search engine hits below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I support the removal of "philanthropist", both as contrary to the spirit of NPOV and based on the relative prominence of the descriptor compared to other relevant descriptors. Her alleged philanthropic activities are exceedingly obscure compared to her anti-trans activism, as measured by the media coverage. The only sources I see constantly referring to her as a "philanthropist" are anti-trans groups, and they really seem to mean her support for causes that demean marginalised groups rather than what most people would understand as any genuine philanthropy. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is rich. When Wikipedia is crammed full of bios of minor CEOs, pop singers and politicians who are described as a "philanthropist" if they so much as give anything to charity, here we have a figure who actually does fulfil the definition by giving substantial portions of their large fortune to good causes, as is documented in the article. It seems to me from some of the above discussion there's an attempt to make a WP:POINT in relation to the trans discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I would love to see this label removed from BLP leads in general in general. It's just someone here used it in an argument during the RFC and it piqued my interest. I do notice that a few people do seem to compare the two. This discussion probably won't benefit from happening on such a controversial page. I notice you reverted my edit on bill gates' page. Doesn't "philanhtropist" seem like a bit of a value judgement to you? what qualifies someone for that title, is there a certain percentage of one's income above which one qualifies? --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC).
Those are questions best left to reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is an issue of compliance with WP:NPOV. "Philanthropist" can be used neutrally to describe someone who engages in philanthropic activities. It is not necessarily congratulatory, and philanthropic activities may be subjected to scrutiny and criticism. The word is commonly used in Wikipedia's articles. The issue here is the lack of objective criteria to determine who should be introduced as a philanthropist in the opening sentence of their article. As for Rowling's philanthropic activities being "exceedingly obscure compared to her anti-trans activism", that is patently false. They are described at length in the article, with plenty of reliable sources to back it up. Other sources, like the ones I posted here, show how they have been the object of public recognition multiple times. I don't know what you mean by "genuine philanthropy", but it seems to me that the last part of your comment reflects your subjective impressions rather than a demonstrable fact. Natuff (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain use of the term. There is no consensus to remove it, and WP:STATUS QUO demands it should remain while a discussion continues ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo"). I have no doubt this will be ignored - there seems to be some form of movement to paint Rowling as a dark figure, rather than retaining the neutral view. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Undecided (Possibly move to later in the lede) I believe generosity by rightfully famous and wealthy persons should be both recognised and applauded, but I do also believe the term is heavily overused/misused throughout Wikipedia. Wealthy people can afford to donate more than others this is a welcome and positive fact. Should it be mentioned in the first sentence i doubt it, but later in the the lede I am not sure (especially while other notable people are similarly praised). ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Above we have a whole lot of editors citing lead follows body for retaining two sentences on a viewpoint covered by a single sub section in the article. If thats the case we shouldn't remove a single word based on a whole section. In fact if lead follows body we should have more details in the lead about her philanthropy. Aircorn (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • That would be a stronger argument if the reliable, recent sourcing for the philanthropy were anywhere near as strong as the sourcing for the trans-related controversies. Just saying. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
      That's not how a lead works though. It summarises the body of the article. If there are problems with due weight in the body then fix that. Given that this is a well developed quality article with a lot of diverse attention I have no doubt that the body is in pretty good shape. Aircorn (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain As a recipient of a major honours' award for 'literature and philanthropy', it's reasonable to describe her as a philanthropist.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I support retaining the descriptor. The sourcing seems sufficient and due. The timing of this during a tough debate on trans views in the lead is unfortunate. I'd suggest to those opposing 'philanthropist' but supporting mention in the lead of her trans views that they may be on the riskier side of the double-edged sword of hypocrisy. There's room enough in the lead for both topics, and I think the most consistent position is that the oceans of reliable coverage of both show that mention in the lead is due. Firefangledfeathers 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Should one but not the other be in the lead sentence? especially if the strength of the reliable sources of the other is greater ? (due to overuse of the term throughout Wikipedia i have not selected removal). (I personally wish Philanthropy was discussed at another place to cover all BLPs equally). ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it’s entirely acceptable to have this in the lead sentence, but not the term in dispute. This is in line with MOS:OPENPARABIO “The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.” Rowling is known as an author; she received honours for literature and philanthropy. The philanthropic element needs to be in the lead. The trans question seems WP:UNDUE to me. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9DEB:AF22:C944:6AAE (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
According to many editors contributing to the RfC above the only thing J.K. Rowling is notable for is being a highly successful writer. Following that argument surely her positive generosity as as a philanthropist though much welcomed is a secondary side product of her success, it is certainly not something she is primary notable for. As such at best it should be later in the lead. Notability is not honours, it is whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you’re view of Rowling is being seen through the prism of the RfC above. She received an honour for literature and philanthropy. It’s difficult to ignore that aspect. To claim “Notability is not honours” is nonsense: recognition of activity from an official source is a measure of notability. I think trying to paint her as some darker figure than she really is completely breaches NPOV and NEUTRAL. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:780C:1D6B:539E:5075 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
If it were possible to perfectly balance nuance and brevity, I'd support mentioning her views on trans people earlier in the opening, but I'm convinced that it's not. Philanthropist is short, verified, and due. Firefangledfeathers 20:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we're turning this into a !Vote kind of thing, I'd support keeping philanthropist in the lede. One can be a philanthropist and still hold contrary views - the two are not exclusive. As the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article proper - there is an entire section devoted to philanthropy, so to mention it in the lede as a reflection of the article is justified. After all, this is the same reasoning that wishes to include any anti-trans commentary in the lede - that it has considerable mention in the article ergo warrants mention in the lede. Realistically, if ones stays then so should the other for the same reasons. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not say her philanthropy should be removed from the lead entirely. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has actually proposed to drop the philanthropy discussion from the lead section. As I understand it, the only issue in this section concerns the lead sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
At least two editors seem to advocate removal entirely, either that or they're vague in what they actually do want:
"Honestly I would love to see this label removed from BLP leads in general" - Licks-rocks
"I support the removal of 'philanthropist', both as contrary to the spirit of NPOV and based on the relative prominence of the descriptor compared to other relevant descriptors" - Amanda A. Brant
Tbh, much of Amanda A. Brant's commentary is concerning in itself and shows very little NPOV, at least in opinion and manner of expression.
Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
To be clear - I see no reason for the same arguments put forward earlier that "philanthropist" should not be in the opening sentence.
A defining reason should simply be "does she meet the criteria as laid out in the common understanding of the term, or the article?" Regardless of her opinions in other areas (trans or not) she meets the criteria for this particular statement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I do think the descriptor/badge is much abused/over used in BLPs in general, but I would much rather the was a separate discussion on a noticeboard that reached global consensus and guidance to limit the use of term in the leads and bodies of articles. So I very much agree with Licks-rocks regards a general site-wide approach to Philanthropy. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
It should be made clear that an editor who has not even participated in this discussion has made the edit being discussed three times, which is totally unacceptable. Edit warring and restoring against STATUSQUO when a tp discussion is happening is bad practice. 1 2 3 NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how you are at reading date stamps, NEDOCHAN, but the second and third diffs you provided come from before this discussion had opened, when a previous discussion had not revealed anyone opposing the removal of philanthropist. The first diff you provided seems - according to the edit summary - to have been an error, intended to move the adjective, as was accomplished by another editor. So maybe cool your jets, and pay a bit more attention to your own diffs before you throw accusations around. This wasn't edit warring ... when a tp discussion is happening, as you would have known had you checked your facts. Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything I said is true. An editor who has not participated in this discussion (true) has made the edit being discussed three times (true). Restoring against STATUSQUO when a discussion is taking place is bad practice (true). Your assessment as to how an edit summary should be interpreted is far harder to prove than than the facts are.NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

So you did not mean to imply that an editor had restored the same text three times while the Talk page discussion on the issue was taking place? If that is true, you did a terrible job of communicating what you actually meant, and a great job of suggesting to other editors that you were making the argument that I refuted. If you were making that suggestion on purpose while knowing that your individually true statements led to a false implication, that is a much worse violation of WP:CIVIL than I had assumed. I hope you were not doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The first comment in this discussion was made at 16:48 UTC, 29 November 2021. diff 3 was made at 07:41 UTC, 29 November 2021, approximately nine hours before this discussion began. diff 2 was made at 14.45 UTC on 29 November 2021, approximately two hours before this discussion began. diff 1 appears to have been a mistake made by FormalDude as the edit summary refers to putting the word back in it's correct place. This mistake was caught by Tewdar five minutes later.
So everything you said was true, except the details you are relying upon. The only diff that was after this discussion opened was, by analysis of the edit summary versus the content a clear mistake. Even if you want to discount that analysis, there was still only one diff after this discussion opened. So yeah, what Newimpartial said about cooling your jets and checking your facts before you make unsound accusations is solid advice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove it--here and in just about every other BLP of a rich and famous person. Few people are actually notable because they are philanthropists. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, Drmies, typically one has to first possess enough money to be a philantropist. I cannot think of any person giving away money when that person does not have money. (Putting in work to help the needy is not defined as philanthropy.) So, rich people are in. But, more importantly, in biographies we are not supposed to include only what the subject is mainly notable for, but anything the subject is notable for, provided of course that the information is properly sourced and that the sources are enough to assign notability to our subject. A trivial examination of sources shows that Rowling is notable, and quite enough too, for her philanthropic work, no matter what we think of her politics or her stance on trans-persons' issues. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • The Gnome, it seems like you're responding to someone who said that only rich people are philanthropists--I didn't. What I find disconcerting here is the slippage: a philanthropist is NOT someone who "gives away money". It's rather the opposite: many rich people tend to give away money because they can and it makes em look good. Philanthropy is doing work (and Bill Gates meets that requirement, for instance), not just giving money. So if some hypothetical rich person gave ten million bucks for some good cause, that doesn't necessarily make them a philanthropist: it makes them someone who gave away a bunch of money. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Drmies, your definition seems a little restrictive. Rowling isn't a doctor, so she donated £10 million to Edinburgh university to research multiple sclerosis because they are medical professionals and would be the best people to use the money. Seems that there are times when giving a bunch of money away is the best option. You're right, it doesn't necessarily make them a philanthropist, but it doesn't automatically exclude them either. And given the multiple occasions on her donations to wide and varied causes, that seems to meet the philanthropy requirement of "private initiatives, for the public good, focusing on quality of life". Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
          If she had donated 10 million to malaria prevention would she still be considered a philanthropist to the same level of Bill Gates, who has dedicated a large majority of his time over the last decade+ to establishing systems to do so, meeting with heads of state and industry leaders for this purpose? Would we consider Charlie Munger a philanthropist for donating 200 million to a dorm project in UCSB? I'm not sure those three are equivalent to each other and so the bar one needs to meet to be called philanthropist in the lead should be pretty high. Also, 10 million when you're a billionaire is less than I donate proportionally to my income every year and I don't get called a philanthropist. It's more of a symbolic sum of money than anything, if you ask me. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, A. C. Santacruz, your opinion as to what constitutes a "true" philanthropist might or might not be correct but, as we all know, what matters here are not our personal opinions. We go by sources. And, as I verified just now, to make sure, practically every source one can scare up confirms that Rowling is a philanthropist. Of course, if we want to set a certain "higher" bar for that attribute in biographies, we can always hoist up a specific proposal at the appropriate forum. I'd love to take part in such a discussion. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Nope. I'm responding to you, Drmies , no mistake there - and your subsequent commentary supports my response. First, you assign to all "rich people" ulterior, egoistical motives for all their philanthropy, which renders their philanthropy a strictly narcissistic endeavor. If that's what sources state, then start a proposal to drop all mentions of philanthropy from rich persons' biographies in Wikipedia. I doubt it'd get much traction, but go ahead. Second, you conflate philanthropy with volunteer work, e.g. helping out at a homeless shelter. But philanthropy is not strictly "doing work"! By your definition, a physically incapacitated person who cannot put in a minute's physical work yet gives away money for a good cause would not qualify as a philanthropist. As to Bill Gates, well, he is one because, first and foremost, -drum roll-, he gives away money. He's a rich fellow and can afford to. End of story - and whatever motives you want to assign to rich folks giving money you are obliged to do the same with ol' rich boy Bill. Your personal definition of philanthropy ("some hypothetical rich person gave ten million bucks for some good cause, that doesn't necessarily make them a philanthropist: it makes them someone who gave away a bunch of money") runs smack against the definition in every dictionary and Wikipedia (private initiatives, for the public good, focusing on quality of life, e.g. financing anti-poverty & children's welfare organizations, financind research for diseases, donating to charities that support sick persons, etc.: Exactly what Rowling's done). -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Those "private initiatives", that quote from the lead, how am I contradicting that at all? And that stuff about "a physically incapacitated person"--it's ridiculous to put those words in my mouth. "Work" doesn't mean grabbing a shovel and digging trenches. Come one. No, I'm not confusing anything, but I get the feeling that you enjoy twisting my words. Have fun. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Again, your take is entirely false: I did not "twist" your words, Drmies, nor did I "put words" in your mouth. The example of a "physically incapacitated person" was given by me, simply in order to demonstrate that your claim that philanthropists are only those who "put in the work" is totally off the mark. Take a breather and examine more closely who has qualified in the world's sources and Wikipedia as a "philanthropist" and you'll see. In any case, and to lay off this bagatelle, I leave the stage to you for any further commentary: I made my view clear and that's all I can do. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Undecided for now – but leaning to moving lower down in the lead. Quoting two items from MOS:LEADSENTENCE:
    • The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
    • Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
At first blush, it seems to me the first sentence says *too much* about what "hats" she wears, and *not enough* (actually, nothing at all) about what makes her notable, which we all know what it is. Based on this, I'd lean towards something like this for the first sentence:

Joanne Rowling [nominals, pronunciation] (born 31 July 1965), better known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British author, known around the world for her Harry Potter fantasy series, which has won multiple awards and sold more than 500 million copies,[2][3] becoming the best-selling book series in history.[4]

That adheres much better to the guideline, in my opinion. As to where to place information about her film and tv production hats, the fact is, the article says very little about either of these. There are 14 occurrences of producer in the body of the article, only one in the running text referring to her (i.e., not her agent or someone else), and four (implied) in the table from four "Yeses", so five mentions total, with almost no text devoted to it. As for philanthropist, there's an entire section about it, which means it's easily important enough to include in the Lead, but isn't principally what she is known for, so I'd lean to moving it further down. Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC) (see updated vote below; Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC))
The only suggestion I'd have for this, at this time, would be to maybe add her other pen name of Robert Galbraith, as that is what name her Cormoran Strike series is authored under. While not as large a cultural impact as Harry Potter, they are still somewhat well received and notable as far as I know. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Just a sidebar comment about producer - while I agree that this "hat" is not very important in itself, it seems to me that it represents an aspect of her very active role in management of the Wizarding World IP (as do her screenwriting contributions, for that matter). I suspect that this will eventually he looked on as part of Rowling's lasting legacy, and just wish the quality sources would pay more attention to it. End of sidebar. Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The content of the opening sentence has been decided through a previous, now-closed RfC. I strongly believe that, on controversial issues such as Rowling's biography article, editors should avoid repetition of arguments and RfC's. Otherwise, we would only march in place. (Your suggestion is not bad at all, in itself, IMHO. All I'm saying is that, after spending so many human-hours on this article, we should be aiming for progress.) -The Gnome (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's a fair point. Too bad I missed that one, and hopefully I'll get pinged or bot-summoned for the next one, or notice when it happens. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The above proposal truly is an excellent opening sentence, and we should endeavour to write many more like it. Actually give the reader a couple of key concrete facts, rather than a generic laundry list of roles that we always seem to default to.--Trystan (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove from lead sentence, but keep in lead section. The lead sentence is already quite long. It should only describe the most important key elements of the biography, and Rowling's philanthropy is not one of the most important topics. However, there is enough reliably sourced content dedicated to it that it can be mentioned elsewhere in the lead briefly. ––FormalDude talk 05:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with this. I feel we should remove philanthropy from the lead sentence here, but retain the existing brief mention further down in the lead. MOS:LEADSENTENCE says to try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; philanthropy is notable but tertiary and doesn't pass that standard - people are presenting sources sufficient to establish that it is notable for somewhere in the article, but the standard for the lead sentence is much stricter and should focus on the core definition of the topic needed for readers to orient themselves on what the article is about, comparable to how the subject is casually described in the preponderance of sources rather than trying to squeeze in everything potentially noteworthy written about them everywhere. That said, this argument is hardly limited to this article - philanthropy should, by default, not be mentioned in the lead sentence in any article where it's not a major aspect of the subject's notability; almost anyone with a lot of money tends to donate significant raw amounts of it, and these donations tend to attract coverage, but that doesn't make it a core defining aspect of the topic. The lead sentence should focus laser-tight on their main source of notability and their core description, as they appear when mentioned normally; very, very few people are casually introduced as "philanthropist" in settings outside those directly related to their philanthropy, meaning that it's rarely a good descriptor for a first sentence. We have the rest of the lead to discuss secondary stuff like what they did with the money earned from their main source of notability. That, however, is obviously a larger discussion that can't be settled here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Move lower in lead – exclude from the first sentence, in order "to not overload the first sentence by describing everything" about her; but keep in the lead, because there's a lot of information about it in reliable sources, and an entire section in the article that deserves summarization, and per "spread the relevant information out over the entire lead". Towards the end of the third paragraph, which introduces her " 'rags to riches' life" would be the perfect place for this. (this is an update of my undecided comment above) Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove from lead sentence, but keep in lead section per FormalDude. I like Mathglot's proposed lead sentence a lot. The vast majority of people know Rowling as the author of HP; far fewer know her other works and activities. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC) (Oops, just noticed the comment about the earlier RfC. So yeah, just remove from lead sentence but keep in the lead section).
  • Retain at least in the lead section. I've observed before that most very wealthy people engage in some philanthropy, but Rowling has received awards and honors for hers, which makes it a part of her broad notability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove from first sentence, keep in lead section per Aquillion and FormalDude. Squeezing too much into the first sentence is just poor form. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
She's not noted for being a producer. David Heyman produced all the HP films.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Move lower: as Mathglot says above and Aquillion says in the subsection below, it's a thing she's somewhat notable for (so, reasonable to mention in the lead section), but it's not the (or even a) defining WP:LEADSENTENCE thing. -sche (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain. The fact she has entire section dedicated to her philanthropy demonstrates that it is worth noting in the lead paragraph, per MOS:LEADPARA.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    I find (presumably unintended) hilarity in editors whose !votes argue that a philantropy section merits inclusion of "philanthropist" in the lead sentence, but the comparable section on the transgender controversies - for which the quality sourcing is considerably stronger - does not merit a mention in the lead section at all. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    An... interesting voting choice, yeah.--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    Not 100% what you are saying here but those two discussions are distinct. MOS:LABEL applies to something terms like "transphobic" unlike the term "philanthropist".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    I believe Newimpartial is observing that the two discussions are both content disputes over well-sourced material, and therefore one could assume your response to one would be based on at least somewhat similar reasoning as your response to the other. A lack of any such correlation suggests cherry-picking the justifications used in your response–rather than actually believing them. In other words, you appear to be deciding your !vote first and then coming up with policies that support it, when it should be the other way around. ––FormalDude talk 12:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain - Best not to hide in any way, that she is a philanthropist. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    The ongoing discussion about her political views is much closer to "hiding content" than this proposal is. Here all we're doing is suggesting a slightly lower placement in the lead, for an arguably equally well sourced topic, and yet at the other discussion you're supporting removing any mention of the political views in the lead entirely. That would be called censorship by some.
    It just seems very telling, especially with your lack of any policy-based argument here. ––FormalDude talk 02:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    Your attempts to annoy, isn't working. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    It was an opportunity for you to better explain and justify your lackluster comment. ––FormalDude talk 11:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    I don't owe you any kind of further explanation & won't be giving you any. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    No one owes anyone explanations, you are entitled to your inconsistencies like other editors here. You have every right to be contradictory and not give a rational reason why her less notable but generous Philanthropy should remain in the opening sentence, while at the same time you're voting to expunge any mention of Rowling's political views Leave it out completely. She's most notable as an author from the lead entirely, even though the latter has has far more international coverage in the reliable press media. (Please note: i have not voted to remove her Philanthropy from the lead but to move it down from lead sentence) ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    I'm content to allow the RFC closer to judge my 'survey' post at the aforementioned RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Move lower It's notable that she is no longer a billionaire because of her philanthropy. But, writing and producing got Rowling there.Fred (talk)

Please be careful about using the tally on the first SRP (search result page) of Google or other search engines indicating the "total number of results", especially for unquoted results This doesn't mean what most searchers think it does, and for most discussions like this one, is almost useless as evidence. For example, the claim at the top that

Searching "jk rowling philanthropist" gives me 91,300 results on Google...

is not helpful, because of how Google's relevance algorithm works, it will continue to show less and less relevant results, that do not contain all the search terms, and may not contain any of them. To get a better idea of the real number of results actually relevant to the query, you have to advance through the SRPs (click the "next" arrow, or one of the page numbers at the bottom). For this particular query, when you get to page 22 (containing results #210 and above) you will find that there are no more than 211 results for this query. (I should say, when "I get to page 22", because your results may be different based on your location, your settings, and your previous search history; your results may be different.)

But not even all of these 211 results are necessarily indicative of reliable sources about J.K. Rowling's philanthropy so you have to go through and examine them, or at least, sample them. For example, result #203 (for me) on page 21 of results, is "Ep. 10: Tom Hanks and Dave Chappelle Pardon Turkeys in a Time Machine". This is considered by Google the 203rd most relevant result for the search j k rowling philanthropist. Why? Because if you go to that page and scroll down, you'll find Player FM's blurb and link to "Ep. 5: J.K. Rowling and Bill Gates are Naked and Afraid after Scary E.R. Stories" about half-way down the page. Nothing about philanthropy, but there doesn't have to be; after all, we're on the 21st SRP. Many of the results before this are entirely irrelevant wrt to her philanthropy as well, so the number is considerably less than 200, not 91,000 or 500,000.

As another indication of why the initial numbers are not helpful, if j k rowling philanthropist returns 500k results, and j k rowling numismatist returns 200k, what does that tell us, that she collects coins two hours a day, and sends out checks to charity for five hours? (Anyone want to guess how many results for j k rowling marine biologist?)

So, please be very careful about using search engine hit counts for comparisons; none of the figures I've seen above contribute anything usable (positive or negative) about what the comparative standing in reliable sources really is. That doesn't mean one should give up and not use search engines; it means the queries have to be carefully composed and targeted, and the analysis has to be more sophisticated than just throwing numbers out there from the first page of simple, unquoted queries. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I edited my comment. Natuff (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I mean, in addition to this... J. K. Rowling with no qualifiers has 38,500,000 results. If we only have 91,300 results with "philanthropist" included, that suggests that she's referred to a philanthropist around 0.2% of the time she's discussed, which makes it hard to support the argument that it's a major aspect of her notability. For the record, "J.K. Rowling" "martian" has 195,000 results, so if we're going to say she's a philanthropist in the lead sentence based on those results, we should also make it clear to readers that she's a martian. Part of the underlying issue here is that even if the raw search results were accurate, the massive amount of coverage means that even very tangential things are going to have a lot of hits. That's why I feel a random sample is best, as I described below - we're not judging is there enough coverage to mention this at all, but is this one of the absolute most important things anyone could know about her? So the important thing is what percentage of references highlight that, rather than raw numbers. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Precisely. Put another way, is it majority, minority, or fringe coverage—i.e., is it WP:DUE in the lead or not? Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that the ideal way to try and judge things like this (how is the subject normally described? What is the balance of coverage?), especially for topics with a lot of coverage like this one, is to take a random selection from searching just their name with no qualifiers, and quote the primary description from each source the first time it comes up. I'd be willing to do that if people think it would resolve this (or someone else could), but I think it's obvious enough that that kind of random selection would not mention philanthropy with any particular frequency that I figure I should ask whether it's worth it first. --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, that's the way to do it. I'd just qualify it slightly, to: "description from each [independent] source the first time it comes up". Multiple, reliable, secondary sources are often, but not always, WP:INDEPENDENT. Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Biographies - to cite or not to cite

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1
 – AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Tagging suggestion

AleatoryPonderings in the instances where you are (rightfully) objecting to marginal sources, might you consider leaving the citation and tagging those with {{Better source needed}} rather than completely removing them? Sometimes the lesser sources provide important keywords that can be used to locate a better source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, will do, sorry. If there are any in particular you or others need, happy to rummage back in the history for the old ones. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
No, we're good ... I am plugging away in userspace at trimming the Politics section and will post that to the FAR when done (just so you don't waste time in there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Trimming

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Proposal to trim "Politics" section. Please comment there. I will insert later tonight unless someone objects (and minor tweaks can be made after/if it is inserted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on lead sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result was overwhelmingly (re: SNOW) in favor of option A. Thus, Rowling's stance on trans issues should not be mentioned in the lead sentence. See below for an ongoing RfC about how to mention this topic within the lead as a whole. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Should the lead sentence of this article mention Rowling's involvement in controversies about trans issues (roughly defined) and if so, how should it be mentioned?

Option A: Do not mention them in the lead sentence.

Option B: Mention them as a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g., "anti-transgender activist".

Option C: Mention the controversy without making a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g. "who has received criticism for statements that have widely been considered transphobic".

Hopefully specific options help clear up the disorganized discussion above. As I see it, there is consensus to keep mention of her other activities (e.g. producer) in the lead sentence, and only notable disagreement about the trans part. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 15:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As I read the question, "anti-transgender activist" is just an example for Option B. It would be entirely in-process to !vote for B but propose other terminology, such as "anti-transgender commentator". Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Rowling's primary notability was without doubt established as an author, however this does not exclude/blank out the fact that over the last few years she has now also become widely known (in the reliable media) as a prominent anti-trans commentator, I believe this is undisputable based on dozens of articles in numerous international high quality reliable sources (some of which are listed in bold above). One thing does not necessarily exclude the other, someone can become notable for more than one thing. Three years can be a long time in civil and human rights. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A. Notified to this discussion by bot. Mentioning the trans statements in the lead sentence is a gross overweighting, and even in the lead is questionable given her longstanding notability as an author and not as a political activist. Referring to her even by implication as "anti-trans" or as an "acitivist" on this subject is in my view an overstatement. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A. It seems to me that putting Rowling's views on trans issues in the first sentence is indeed lending undue weight, per the comments of Crossroads above with regards to NPOV and lead follows body. That said, I also don't think that the way her trans views are currently incorporated into the lede is very effective. The list of feminists who have supported Rowling's views on trans people is very short and is basically limited to gender-critical people/TERFs (the claims above that Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not fall under that category are erroneous, she has repeatedly promoted the work of noted anti-trans activist Helen Joyce).
My opinion here is that the following actions should be taken:
1. Keep the first sentence as it currently is written.
2. Reword the claim at the end of the lede that Rowling's views have received support from "some other feminists." It seems to indicate that feminists are evenly divided over support of Rowling when this is entirely false and is thus a violation of WP:UNDUE.
I am not entirely sure off the top of my head how a rewording of the last sentence of the lede would look, however at the least I think it should somehow be noted that Rowling's supporters are gender-crit/terf. This would almost certainly provide a more accurate description than just saying feminists, in any case. always forever (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[notified by bot]
  • Option A Her attitudes/opinion on transgender issues belong in the lead due to its coverage in the press and for the lead to provide an accurate summary of the article. However pushing in the first sentence strikes me as a ridiculous undue hype.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A. Totally WP:UNDUE for the lead sentence, and absolutely a PoV suggestion to include it. I'm actually kind of amazed this has been proposed, it's rather egregious. It's already mentioned within the lead itself, which is entirely appropriate. As a rule of thumb, don't try to fix what's not broken. — Czello 20:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A. C. Santacruz, I'd respectfully suggest that you start a new discussion or RfC, whatever you prefer. As soon this discussion is closed one way or another it will be shelved and untouchable. Any discussion started under your comment would have a very short life, if at all. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Waiting the weekend is probably good enough, I'd say, but it does seem headed towards a snow close. Most definitely a SNOW, am requesting closure now. In any case, it seems that year-on-year she's becoming more notable for her views so editors are highly encouraged to start a new RfC on this topic in the future if she continues to receive coverage about it in major publications. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 05:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC) (Appended 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC))
  • Option A. The opening, lead section is fairly long but quite adequate on account of the size of the main text. And, since the subject (controversial statements by Rowling regarding trans persons) is evidently notable, it deserves a place in the opening section. But not in the lead sentence! That would be a violation of the due weighting policy. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A. she is notable for her books. Thincat (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A - Rowling is notable primarily for her creation and continued management of the Wizarding World IP. No prejudice in this !vote against certain changes to the lead sentence, such as removal of the reference to her (largely non-notable) role in television production. Rowling's interventions in trans-related controversies are certainly notable, though less prominent than the IP she created, and do justify mention later in the lead section, as in the present article version. Also, the language used to refer to these should be tightened up in line with what the sources actually say - I value BLP principles rather than FALSEBALANCE and whitewashing. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting off list of awards

I don't see the need to include the whole list in this article. Some major ones (e.g. National Book Award, OBE, Principe de Asturias) are worth including, but other ones (Nestle) are definitely not as important, and could be better off in a separate list article called List of awards received by J. K. Rowling with a short summary of the important ones in this article. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Note, see Laurence_Olivier#Honours for a great example on how to do this, with its associated article (FL-class) here. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia: WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force, Wikipedia: WikiProject Women, Wikipedia: WikiProject Women writers, Wikipedia: WikiProject Children's literature, Wikipedia: WikiProject Bristol, Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia: Version 0.5. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the current content justifies a split. If you expand the section then that's another matter. I'm no fan of Nestlé's public image whitewashing campaigns to downplay their history of child endangerement, but the Children's Book Prize (given by BookTrust and sponsored by Nestlé) looks notable. JKR is not really comparable to Olivier as acting awards are more numerous than book awards. — Bilorv (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Bilorv. It's the same reason that J K Rowling bibliography simply redirects here. Despite being a notable author, she has published a very small selection of books and papers, which isn't extensive enough to justify a new article. The section could use some rewriting, though, and maybe then it would need to be split. Isabelle 🔔 15:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I would not say there needs to be a split, no. It seems fine as it is. Joe (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see the need to split this content. There is a lot of fat in the article that can be trimmed just by a good copyedit, so I don’t see the need for this relevant content to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Per the work at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, I have changed my opinion and now support creating List of honours and awards received by J. K. Rowling (it should not be confined to just "awards"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Could anyone still following this discussion please revisit per Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Update 8 Jan? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Please see follow up discussion on the Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging those who previously opined here, @Bilorv, Isabelle Belato, and JoePhin: (except A. C. Santacruz who is involved at the FAR and has already opined).

On the Featured article review, work has advanced towards converting the list now here to prose, and we have already trimmed some content from awards. Further, new sources indicate some awards and honours we have left out (see here, and Pugh has others).

Could previous participants revisit their opinions re the usefulness of a separate List of honours and awards received by J. K. Rowling, considering the trimming and conversion to prose proposed on the FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, SandyGeorgia. The prose version looks good, and is obviously an improvement over a simple list; I also appreciate removing some of the less notable awards. With the added prose, a separate article could be a useful place to add tables with the awards, as well as a place to further expand in the future. So I guess I wouldn't be against it. Isabelle 🔔 16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
A separate list is now up at List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Religious opposition

Zaathras, Respectfully, my addition regarding opposition to Harry Potter by Christian groups is more comprehensive and has better sources than Special:PermaLink/1064957190#Legal_disputes, which is meagre and undersourced. Further, religious opposition is not the same thing as a legal dispute. Please self-revert and/or add the religious opposition portions of #Legal disputes to the paragraph I added, as opposed to removing outright. Also, I think the single sentence you are referring to was left—either by me or one of the other editors helping on this WP:FA rescue project—before moving to a different section. It would have been much easier simply to remove that sentence than reverting the addition of an entire paragraph. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The reversion was of very well-sourced content. The legal disputes section has not yet been rewritten, and is not yet an adequate summary. Reversion of the content is not justified; discussing how to better rework both sections would be more productive, but Zaathras, please recognize that both sections are actively being reworked on the WP:FAR. Please self-revert, and discuss ways to improve both sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
No, I will not. The same content does not belong in 2 sections. Pick one. Zaathras (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
And so I have picked one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Zaathras the single misplaced sentence in Legal disputes is now gone. As this content is actively being improved and worked on, such an oversight is not unusual, and a collaborative approach is to point out duplication rather than reverting an entire well-sourced paragraph. The 2-section has been resolved by removing the wayward sentence and restoring the paragraph to the correct place; please discuss when you see such issues rather than revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_10&oldid=1069968521"