Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Neutrality

I think this page should be reviewed for neutrality. I sense many of her political defenders have recently contributed to this page in ways that don't seem to support a neutral tone.

Examples include: "Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common. She has at times used Twitter unreservedly to reach her Harry Potter fans and followers. She often tweets about her political opinions using wit and sarcasm, sometimes generating controversy."

"Aware of the good fortune that led to her wealth and fame, Rowling wanted to use her public image to help others despite her concerns about publicity and the press; she became, in the words of Smith, "emboldened ... to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her". Rowling's charitable donations before 2012 were estimated by Forbes at $160 million. She was the second most generous UK donor in 2015 (following the singer Elton John), giving about $14 million."

"Some performers and feminists have supported her. Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her"." (I feel the lack of specifics here also detract from the neutrality of the article) Tordenofitami (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the four-month-long (January to April 2022) Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, which was to my knowledge the FAR with the highest participation ever (at least two dozen editors); it included editors of all stripes, colors and persuasions, and expertise and experience on Wikipedia, who worked collegially to come to consensus on text based on the highest quality sources. The FAR contains five pages of talk archives, and involved considerable work towards quality sourcing, prose, and obviously, neutrality.

Re your statement that you sense many of her political defenders have recently contributed to this page in ways that don't seem to support a neutral tone, this is the diff showing all changes since the FAR passed. To save you some time, anyone who has regularly followed this article during and since its FAR (which is dozens of editors) can tell you that your "sense" is incorrect.

You have provided no source or policy-based reason for tagging the article; that is, you have tagged it based on your sense. And you offered examples of text that is well supported by the sources cited.

The Neutrality tag is unwarranted and should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Providing specific examples of allegedly non-neutral content makes this a better NPOV complaint than 90% of the ones I come across, so thank you. That said, the missing piece is an analysis of the article text compared to the sources. For example, you object to "Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common", but this is explicit in the cited reliable source. I join with SandyGeorgia in thinking the tag should be removed. To put it in WP:WTRMT terms, I think we're at #3: "it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

‎Real4jyy just removed the tag. Pinging them here in case they'd like to say something. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the above responses. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Re-raising the neutrality issue

I wasn't involved in the featured article review discussions, and I don't have the time nor energy at the moment to get into the weeds of the full discussion and workshopping process on the transgender section, but I'll assume that the contents of this article roughly reflect what was considered neutral at that time. I nevertheless have concerns that I do want to put out there; given the recency of my sources relative to the early-2022 FAR discussions, I hope I'm not retreading old ground.

My main issue is that the article doesn't adequately address Rowling's relationship to the broader discourse surrounding trans issues. The current iteration refers to her "statements" on the topic that have "provoked controversy"; this strikes me as an understatement. There are by now extensive compendia (Vox, March 2023; Glamour, April 2023) of her views and statements on transgender people / the transgender movement, showcasing a yearslong focus on this topic that I think is not adequately described by the language in the article. (In fact, Vox characterizes "transphobia" as "a huge part of her identity.")

She has also been described by Vulture (February 2023) as a "prominent symbol" of trans-exclusionary feminism, while U.S. News & World Report (June 2022) has credited her with helping the movement to achieve "international prominence." Of course, we shouldn't uncritically repeat the framing of whichever reliable sources are least favorable to Rowling, but I do believe the article on Wikipedia should reflect her influence and involvement in the broader anti-trans sphere, and that it currently understates the degree to which she has committed herself to that political project.

I'm not sure of the best way to go about improving it, but I hope at least this can spark some discussion that isn't a rehash of what's already been said and done. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You haven't listed a single high-quality source (see WP:WIAFA); it's easy to cherry pick to find sources like those you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The featured article guide states that the article should "neglect no major facts or details" and be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." With the exception of Glamour (which is not listed), all the sources I cited are considered generally reliable on the perennial sources list. In addition, most of the sources currently used are from around 2020, which means they can neither confirm nor deny what I described above as a "yearslong focus" beginning in 2019.

As far as I can tell, I've listed several reliable sources, which were not available as of the FAR discussions, to indicate that between 2019 and the present this issue has become a more significant aspect of her life and image than is suggested by the article. Certainly I'm not suggesting that the sources and perspective I've listed constitute a complete and authoritative view on the subject; I'm contending that -- given the thoroughness and general reliability of at least Vox, and the multiplicity of reliable sources taking a similar perspective -- they represent a viewpoint whose inclusion would not be WP:UNDUE and whose exclusion threatens the article's neutrality.

At the very least, I believe what I've presented is a reasonable basis for new discussion, and is not so insubstantial as to be dismissed out of hand. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a re-read of WP:RSP re Vox and Vulture with respect to high-quality. On U.S. News, my apologies-- I read U.S. News but registered Newsweek, so that is my mistake. U.S. News has one fairly minor statement about Rowling; I don't think you've given us anything new or scholarly to work with here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a fair point about Vox and Vulture; I was seduced by the green background behind their names.

I think it would do me well to clarify what specifically I'm saying, for my own sake as well as anyone else's. In essence, there are some basic statements that I believe to be true, relevant, and well-sourced, such that they ought to be in the article in one way or another, but I don't believe they're addressed in its current iteration.

One such statement is that J. K. Rowling is a prominent voice in support of gender-critical feminism. This is what I was getting at when I worried that the current language was understatement. The article refers to statements that she's made, but it does not refer to her role as part of a larger movement. Aside from the Vox article (which I think still has some value in that it compiles an extensive list of relevant comments by Rowling), this is attested by sources including the U.S. News and the peer-reviewed Transgender Studies Quarterly (August 2022), where one article describes Rowling as a "highly visible TERF" who "articulate[s] the movement's brand of transphobia."

Another related point is that recent discourse about and by J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter has tended to involve her views on transgender issues. Vanity Fair (April 2023) says that "Rowling and her opponents have remained fiercely combative on the matter, leading to boycott efforts toward anything Potter-related." The New York Times (February 2023) and Washington Post (January 2023) both commented on boycotts of Hogwarts Legacy, with the former calling it "the latest battleground over the 'Harry Potter' author’s comments on transgender issues." Her most recent public project, a podcast entitled "The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling," is one in which she "Addresses Backlash to Her Anti-Trans Comments," per Variety (February 2023).

The third is perhaps least likely to gain traction, since I imagine it was already debated to death during the FAR discussions; it's the only one where I don't think evidence for it now is much different from what it was then. Nevertheless, I'll mention it for the record: the majority of feminists disagree with gender-critical views. The article as written says that Rowling's statements "have been criticised as transphobic by … some feminists, but have received support from other feminists," that they "have divided feminists," and that "[s]ome … feminists have supported her." This appears to give roughly equal if not slightly greater weight to the feminists who support her compared to those who oppose her, when according to sources already cited in the section on her views on transgender people, trans exclusion is a minority view among feminists:

A CNN article cited for the statement that she's divided feminists states, "Feminists began to split into factions … though mainstream feminists still largely defended transgender rights, Williams said. The term [TERF] was popularized in 2008 by feminist Viv Smythe to distinguish between transgender exclusionists and the larger swatch of radical feminists who supported transgender people."

In the New Statesman's interview with Judith Butler, cited in the same place, Butler says, "I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream."

Of course, this is a hairy point, and as I say, I imagine it's been debated to death and reopening debate on it may not be constructive. I wanted to mention it for the sake of completion, explaining my own point of view, and hopefully to elicit an explanation or a link to the discussion where WP:UNDUE on this matter was addressed.

Also, I see that you were instrumental in navigating this article to a consensus where it could remain a featured article despite the significant contention around its subject. That can't have been anything like an easy task, so kudos and thanks to you for your hard work, and I mean no disrespect when I note areas where I perceive room for improvement. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It was actually a surprisingly very pleasant collaboration, involving a couple of dozen editors of decidedly different viewpoints, so every time someone comes along and cries "POV", it's curious :) Thanks for the long explanation; I'm not ignoring it, but just much too tired to respond to all of it yet tonight, and quite busy for the next two days, so I hope others will weigh in meanwhile. We always planned to revisit when better scholarly sources are available, and are still waiting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and I hope your next couple of days go well. I'll admit that perhaps neutrality was not the best way to introduce my concerns if I wanted to distinguish myself from soapboxers! I share in your hope of more discussion, both on this talk page and in the scholarly world. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussions here have barely paused for a couple of years, so I don't find the idea of any transformation in the issue in the last couple of years very convincing. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@3-edit WP:Spa. Been there. Done that. Give it a rest. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC).

There are dozens of archives of talk pages relating to this article, and I'll admit I've only looked at a few of them, so it's quite possible my main concerns have already been addressed. However, the most recent substantive talk-page discussions on the topic at hand appear to predate almost all of the sources I've brought up, so I'm hoping that new discussion might be productive.

Could you point me to the archive pages that contain discussion of the following topics (which I currently see as the main things that are missing in the article as written), so I can get a better sense of what consensus was reached?

• J. K. Rowling is a prominent voice in support of gender-critical feminism.
• Recent discourse about and by J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter has tended to involve her views on transgender issues.
• The majority of feminists disagree with gender-critical views.

I'll also note that whatever my personal views on the topic, my three edits are backed up with sources generally considered reliable, and represent my best efforts to articulate why I feel that my input is aimed at improving this article with respect to Wikipedia's standards. All three edits are also talk-page edits attempting to spark productive conversation towards a consensus, not article edits or even semi-protected edit requests. I recognize that people on this talk page may be wary of those who would use Wikipedia as a soapbox, but I'm trying my best to avoid being mistaken for that type. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 and its associated talk pages. If I remember correctly one of the talk pages is devoted to the issue, but it's also perhaps sprinkled across other pages in the FAR. As for the sources you cite, I looked at the one from NYT. It's predominately about the release of the new game, mentions the controversy yet the game became quickly popular. I also came across another NYT piece written some weeks later - link here - which has a different take. This is why it's best to wait for it to show up in good secondary sources/biographies rather than reporting what the media says every few months. Victoria (tk) 02:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there appear to be extensive discussions on the transgender section, spanning multiple different talk page archives. Most of the discussion, as far as I can tell, appears to revolve around the extent and specifics of which statements of Rowling's to include/exclude, as well as the extent and specifics of which people's responses should be shared. I didn't find discussion of the specific points I raised above, which is what I was hoping for.

The NYT piece I shared was a reporting piece, describing a boycott in the context of a broader controversy. Citing this article was to bolster claims of fact: there was a boycott, and that boycott was just one of multiple battlegrounds. The NYT piece you found is an opinion piece, which in my understanding is not considered a reliable source in the same way that the NYT generally is. (In fact, this particular opinion piece made quite a splash at the time, so much so that other publications ran their own articles on it. See e.g. Vanity Fair, Slate, and the Independent.) 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that NYT piece is opinion. The point I was sorta trying to make there is that rather than scouring the net for sources - of which there are many and all need evaluating - it's best to wait for high quality secondary scholarly sources. Victoria (tk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, reading the opinion piece, it seems to be in complete agreement with the thesis that I was defending: i.e., that recent discourse about and by J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter has tended to involve her views on transgender issues. It even cites the NYT article I cited, as further reading on the claim that "an uproar ensued" regarding Hogwarts Legacy.

In any event, scholarly sources do seem to be looking at this issue as well. In a Google Scholar search for J.K. Rowling, looking at sources published since 2022, two of the first three results are articles in peer-reviewed journals (Transgender Studies Quarterly, August 2022, and Children's Literature in Education, first published online March 2021, and appearing in the June 2022 issue) that discuss Rowling's position with respect to the media, her audience, and the discourse around gender-critical views. 2601:189:8180:3C80:108:6E72:7ABF:5D1B (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ummmm ... Duggan is already in the article. And we've already reflected due weight on Rowling wrt transgender issues by a) adding that content to the lead, and b) giving it its own section with a relatively high word count. So back to your original three points. That she's a prominent voice is already incorporated and given due weight. Recent discourse per mostly pop culture-y sources falls into WP:RECENTISM; we've covered the scholarly sources. On the third point, this article is not the place to analyze what the majority of feminists think; that there is a division on the issue is covered and cited. Overall, I still think the best approach to this material is to wait for new and thorough and high-quality and comprehensive scholarly sources. Those would include sources beyond journals specializing in transgender issues, and getting into things like the freedom of speech and academic freedom and other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm beginning to appreciate what I imagine most people here recognized from the first: I came in here with far too sweeping a claim, having far too little understanding of the background of how this article in its current iteration came to be. In particular, I appreciate the reminder of WP:RECENTISM.

I do still feel, though, that there are a couple of points that are worth exploring further, reduced in scale.

The primary issue I perceive is that the article refers generally to "statements" she has made, and conveys a general impression that those statements consist entirely or primarily of the two tweets and essay mentioned. The reality that I think should be more clearly expressed is that she has engaged in a pattern of such statements stretching over several years. This is suggested in the lead ("Since 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions…"), but not clarified in the body.

The NYT article I cited says "Rowling has continued to opine on transgender issues since her 2020 essay." A sentence to indicate as much could clarify the matter and would not affect neutrality as far as I can tell. Could this be reasonable to add?

I'll hold off on my other thoughts for now, to keep from getting too long-winded and unfocused. 2601:189:8180:3C80:B9B1:A05E:7A5B:7197 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHENEWS, and its mission does not include giving blow-by-blow accounts of culture wars, however fascinating they may be to the participants. As an experienced editor has said above, it is appropriate to wait until the situation has been summarised and evaluated in a balanced way by high-quality secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC).

2601, on re-reading Duggan, I do think it possible to get a small change out of your last comment; I am iPad editing right now, but will put up a proposal as soon as I am on real computer. I appreciate the tone of your feedback and commentary. If/as you've read through some of the talk page archives on the Featured article review, you will have seen that using a Draft proposal format held us in good stead, so I'll use that format. Will get to it this morning, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft proposal to reflect discussion and new sources above

Current

Proposed (adds 23 words)

(LEAD) Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. (BODY) Rowling's statements have been called transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in response to her Twitter comments. She rejects these characterisations.

(LEAD) She has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights continually since 2017. (BODY) Rowling's statements – beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2023 – have been called transphobic by critics. She has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in response to her Twitter comments. She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.

Sources
References

Discussion of draft proposal

First, Duggan lays out continuity beginning in 2017, not 2019. Second, three new sources say it continues, but also offer her defense; leaving out her response (in her own bio) would be POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

PS, is this bit still useful? I don't think so ... in response to her Twitter comments ... I also suggest discussing removing that clause. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks reasonable, and I would agree with removing that; where she expressed the views isn't particularly relevant, and it misses that she has been criticized for expressing the same views elsewhere although I don't know if that aspect is reflected in the source. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I would second that, but I would also nitpick the use of the term "statements": Duggan's continuity begins in 2017 with posts shared on social media -- but not authored -- by Rowling, which I'm not sure count as her statements. Perhaps "Rowling's statements and social media activity"? Or would that be too clunky? 2601:189:8180:3C80:3DA7:E1B:2922:59BF (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What if we just change statements to views? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That could work, but it also seems a little less clear what it means for views to begin in 2019 and continue through 2023 as opposed to statements. Perhaps I'm overthinking it, though. 2601:189:8180:3C80:3DA7:E1B:2922:59BF (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Or 2017, rather. 2601:189:8180:3C80:3DA7:E1B:2922:59BF (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that was a bad idea (I struck it); it assumes the interpretation of her statements accurately reflect her views, which she denies. Still thinking ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So "social media activity" might be better ... will see what others think. It is true that what she shared in 2017 was not her own statement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Does Rowling use any social media sites aside from Twitter? I know she has a presence on Instagram and Facebook, but those accounts read more like they're management/PR company ran than Rowling's Twitter presence. Rowling's Twitter presence however seems to be more personal in nature.

I worry that if we lose the specificity from the Schwirblat et al. source, we're implying something that might not actually be verifiable or truthful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I'm not aware of what specificity we might be losing, as Schwirblat isn't available online. If that specificity is opaque to me, it probably is to many readers. Rowling wrote a long response on her website, and now she has also done a podcast, all other uses of the internet mentioned in scores of sources, so I'm unclear what the specificity is adding. What does Schwirblat say? (Did someone send me Schwirblat in the past, and I've forgotten where I put it??) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I've re-sent the Schwirblat paper to you now. Relevant content is on pages 367-368. Schwirblat only discusses Rowling's activities on Twitter, and doesn't mention any other website (social media or otherwise). Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again ... yes, you did send it to me last year, and it got lost in the archives complicated by my personal way-too-busy-IRLness; thanks again.

I do think that Schwirblat gives us what we need (emphasis mine):

She has impacted several generations through her storytelling, world-building and characters. Reaching beyond her influence in the literary world, Rowling has 14.2 million followers on Twitter, which acts as her main social media outlet. Rowling has been a force of influence on our culture and now operates with authority as a SMI [Social Media Influencer], giving her words the same weight and power online as they do on paper. Rowling has a bold presence on social media. She does now cower in the face of expectations and does not hold back for the sake of her reputation. She is outspoken about issues she finds important and, whether deemed controversial or not, she provides her opinion. ... [snip discussion of 2019 issue] ... Subsequently in June 2020, Rowling spoke out once again regarding her political stance about sex and the trans community. During this time, the discussion went beyond the news outlets and Twitter community and included many personal responses from people involved in the Harry Potter Franchise.

That is, we have it going beyond Twitter wrt her 2020 web essay. (I'm trying my hardest to overlook the now–not typo (hello, editor) and "subsequently"–"once again" fingernails-on-chalboard-writing :) If we still need more info on her Twitter presence as an "influencer", we could beef that up in the first lines under Views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Just quick comments: my impression is that she has actually tried to keep out of this debate/controversy/whatever in recent years, but of course journalists always ask about it. If she really wanted to wade in there's a lot she could easily do/write that she hasn't. When was the last piece (longer than twitter) she actually wrote herself on any part of the issue? I don't know but not very recent I think. The podcast Vanity Fair covers seems to be about her controversy rather than the issue itself. Secondly, I don't see she has ever claimed or appeared to be a "radical feminist" at all, so the dubious term TERF should not be used. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Johnbod, she participated in a ted talk or podcast or live interview or broadcast or some such on the matter just this year (mentioned in the sources).

  The issues with the TERF term will probably have to be sorted somewhere besides this article-- it's a global thing, where any woman who holds certain views on transgender issues is labeled a "radical feminist". The labeling per se may be problematic, but I don't think this article is the place to sort that ... here it only mentions that is what she has been called, and we can let that speak for itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's my point - per Vanity Fair that seems to be about her personal controversy rather than the issue itself. That was supposed to have been released some months ago, btw, shouldn't we cover it? Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  At the time it was released, we didn't have really good sources; now we do have some, so we might consider adding a sentence ... unsure what that sentence would look like or where it would go, because I haven't had time to focus on it. Ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is a bit of a strawman argument. No one is suggestion that the "TERF" term be sorted out here. They're suggesting not using it. If she doesn't use it, I don't think it makes sense to use it here, as Johnbod says. I don't think Wikipedia has room for an exhaustive list of slurs notable people have "been called". I'm not a standards guy, but I bet the standards say that random name-calling is not to be included. And if your argument is that it's not a slur, then I would disagree, as I would not appreciate being called a radical. It implies her views are marginal. 124.219.136.96 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd consider removing and continuing through 2023 per MOS:CURRENT. It's the sort of content that quickly becomes dated, and Rowling currently shows no significant signs of changing her point of view on this. Unless and until Rowling stops expressing views that others describe as transphobic, this is something we'd need to update every twelve months. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How about "continuously since 2017"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that would work for me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Great ... once everyone has opined, I'll put up a second version, incorporating all revisions so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the appropriate adverb would be "continually" (which I understand to mean "on a regular basis") as opposed to "continuously" (which I understand to mean "nonstop"), unless this is a difference between American and British English. As long as the more appropriate adverb is used, I'm on board with this proposal. 2601:189:8180:3C80:B89F:771B:92C7:87B2 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Got it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft proposal 2 to reflect discussion and new sources above

Current

Proposed (adds 15 words)

(LEAD) Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. (BODY) Rowling's statements have been called transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in response to her Twitter comments. She rejects these characterisations.

(LEAD) She has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights continually since 2017. (BODY) Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017 – have been called transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.

Sources
References

Discussion of draft 2 proposal

Sorry it took me so long to put up the new summary based on our discussion from the first draft; real life has not settled down, but there it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, and I like the way you sidestepped the continuous/continuously/continually issue. Taking into account the previous discussion I'm not seeing anything I'd really change here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Installed,[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

US Museum

https://deadline.com/2023/08/jk-rowling-airbrushed-from-pop-culture-museum-harry-potter-display-for-alleged-transphobic-views-1235455925/ Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Possibly material for Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights, although the material there still needs a serious pruning and better summarizing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE and low-quality source on Galbraith name

Outnproud, please see the message on your talk page regarding this edit warring on a contentious topic. Featured articles must use high quality sources, Rowling has explained her choice of the name, the addition is WP:UNDUE, and this article was the subject of a deep and broad recent Featured article review. You should gain consensus before reinstating text removed once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The article, published by Time, doesn't strike me as particularly low-quality. Is there a specific problem with it? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a particular problem; do a preponderance of highest quality sources (translation: scholarly) raise this issue ?

Rowling chose the name before 2013; it stretches credibility to think her reasons were anything other than what she stated. If the consensus is to add text about this issue, it needs to be decided a) whether it is added here or the sub-article Political views of J. K. Rowling; b) a comprehensive survey of highest quality (scholarly) sources undertaken to assess due weight; and c) prose issues.

Regardless of that outcome, edit warring on a contentious topic is a problem. Discuss first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember who has the full Pugh article (I have only the first chapter); @Victoriaearle: I believe you do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to purge this article of all non-academic sources (my aversion to the use of newsmedia as a source on Wikipedia is well known I think) but it'd likely leave it nothing but a stub. Which would be fine for me if that's the path you want to take this article. Requiring a higher standard for some content within an article than for other content seems a perilous path. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Different kinds of content requires different kinds of sources. Further, we don't use lesser quality sources to refute higher quality sources. If you find something incorrectly sourced here, please point it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe Time as "low-quality", but it isn't high quality. The mention of the Robert Galbraith Heath controversy gets a passing mention in the Time article, and it goes on to restate Rowling's method of formulating the name.

From a process perspective, both inclusion and exclusion of the content are not so drastically problematic that this is worth editing over. I urge Outnproud to self-revert. We're likely to reach rough consensus soonish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct; taking the time to get it right is the fastest and best approach. My scholarly source search is only turning up masters theses, and quite a few articles that mention Galbraith without mentioning this controversy, but I don't have full journal access (hence my ping to Victoria, as google search reveals that Pugh does mention Galbraith). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of that outcome, edit warring on a contentious topic is a problem. Discuss first. – Mind you, I'm not the same person as Outnproud.

I couldn't find any online news sources by websearch, but it didn't turn up the Time article or the one I'm about to mention either, so it might be a search term problem. The Time article links to this article in Them (which we AFAIK haven't had any problems with as a source) which does focus on this. This is still not that much, so might not be worth including, but I'd like to note that we have After the revelation of her identity, sales of Cuckoo's Calling escalated. in there, seemingly based on a two-sentence mention in the Guardian. The bar for including critical content shouldn't be higher than for content of laudatory nature. If we do include it, I think it'd be sensible to have it here where the pseudonym is also otherwise discussed, but Political views of J. K. Rowling does have a paragraph on Troubled Blood, so it could fit in there, too. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you view that content as "laudatory"; it gives context for her donation of all of the proceeds to a charity (if I recall the story correctly, it's pretty astounding for a paralegal at a law firm partner to leak client-privileged information such that the law firm then has to make a charitable donation to avoid a malpractice suit ... as well as Rowling giving all proceeds to charity ... I could be misremembering, though, since I read all of these sources a year ago). Those are plain vanilla facts verifiable to many sources (that is, due weight; that only one source is listed does not mean only one source exists). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I sent the Pugh chapter that discusses her adult fiction. See page 116 for an explanation of the name. In my view what we had here is fine for this article; anything else can go to a subarticle. Apols for short reply; will try to look over it later. I had a bit about this in a sandbox that might need to can be undeleted if we know an admin willing to do so. Victoria (tk) 16:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Struck re sandbox. It's still there. Will trawl through as soon as a I can. Victoria (tk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding After the revelation of her identity, sales of Cuckoo's Calling escalated – this is covered not only in the Guardian but also in Pugh and many other sources (eg. BBC). It's not comparable to the Heath issue. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem with using Time as a source. Insisting on "scholarly sources" seems to be an unreasonably high and arbitrary bar. Also a single reversion is not an "edit war", so let's tamp down on that particular unfounded accusation./ Zaathras (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to test that (1RR) on a contentious topic ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Giving due weight to scholarly sources is not unreasonable on a Featured article (that's part of what an FA is). If we've got one or a few mid-rate reliable sources mentioning something that scholarly sources don't even consider, that's a WP:DUE consideration. But let's wait and see what others come up with from scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings, and Olivaw-Daneel: re other sources (I've found two-- please number sources below for discussion purposes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

1. (Ravell): I have found this 2023 source:

• Ravell

Could others give opinions on the quality of this source? Next, if it's a good source, how much weight (if any) do we want to give to what some fans think based on a tweet (notice the careful wording and attribution in the source):

Nonetheless, a tweet from the theme ‘transphobia’ brought to light that this pen name Rowling chose is the same name as an American psychiatrist who ‘experimented on a gay individual through the process of gay conversion theory ... [claiming] that homosexuality could be “cured”’ (see Figure 21). Rowling is yet to comment on this correlation, however according to tweets from this hashtag fans appear to not believe this name similarity was mere coincidence.

That's one source so far, making it clear it's an opinion based on a tweet. If we're going to start introducing opinions from one source based on one tweet, that's a floodgate. (Keeping discussion focused on sources has been the way we've resolved all content matters for two years now; there's no rush, and I also recommend that Outnproud self-revert and collaborate on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

2. Pugh: I now have Chapter 7 of Pugh (the chapter devoted to Galbraith) and while it mentions how Rowling benefitted from the name, there is no mention whatsoever of this controversy, as far as I can tell from skimming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

3. New York Times, 2013, [2].

The name she chose, Ms. Rowling explained, is a mash-up of that of one of her heroes, Robert F. Kennedy, and Ella Galbraith, a fantasy name she chose for herself as a girl.

Ms. Rowling wrote the book under a man’s name, she said, to take her writing persona “as far away as possible” from herself. She said she remembered too late that the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who died in 2006, shared her first two initials, and feared that might be a clue to her identity.

Victoria (tk) 19:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's one source so far – The relevant section already cites popular sources liberally. Is there a good reason to insist on only academic sources here? As for the source itself, well. It's in a real journal. The author is a PhD student with an h-index of 0. The article itself has not been cited anywhere, though it is only a little over a week old. If we're just talking reliability, I'd say it's good enough to say that some people on Twitter think the name's an intentional reference. For considering weight, I did a little review of a few queer news sources/magazines (off the top of my head) to see what they have to say on this. Them has the article I mentioned above, plus two more that mention it ([3],[4]). Them seems like an okay source to me. I can't tell if it's been on RSN before as the title makes it very hard to search for. LGBTQ Nation mentions it ([5]). According to this RSN discussion, LGBTQ Nation has a tabloidical bent, and might be WP:MREL. PinkNews and The Advocate did not make the connection when discussing Rowling's work under the pseudonym. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The relevant section already cites popular sources liberally; what is an example of what you refer to from the relevant section? Yes, there are places in the article that use popular sources; generally all well discussed at the FAR and supported by multiple sources (DUE weight) and not controversial. If you see something different, pls give an example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

For considering weight, I did a little review of a few queer news sources/magazines (off the top of my head) to see what they have to say on this; I could be misremembering (but I don't think I am). Whenever we used such sources, it was because they were saying the same things most other sources were also saying; we were giving a good representation of all sources, but not undue weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed and consensus appears to be that most editors don't have a problem with this information and it passes FA requirements. Cheers! Outnproud (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [6]

I don't see how you come to that conclusion, unless you are misunderstanding the discussion above relative to both WP:DUE and the WP:WIAFA requirement for high-quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And we haven't yet heard from the three main contributors of the article, who are the ones most familiar with and who have access to all the highest quality sources: @Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings, and Olivaw-Daneel:. I suspect the reason we haven't heard more is that the onus is upon you to come up with due weight from high-quality sources to support the content you want to add, and since you haven't done that, there has been little need for further discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

At least at first glance/first research the "controversy" over the pen name feels rather hyped and constructed to me. As long as this isn't seriously considered in scholarly sources, I'd strongly oppose the inclusion. Finding a "bad" (but not particular well known) person with similar name and few people speculating in social media or a few press outlets, that Rowling might have picked her pen name intentionally after that person (despite her giving a different explanation) is imho borderline ridiculous and certainly no reason for inclusion into an encyclopedic biography. At this point the whole thing is essentially a baseless rumour/speculation, which deserves no mentioning. Unless it becomes a rather highly publicised/well known meme, that describing it might be justified, but the judgement for that would be via scholarly literature dealing with it in a significant fashion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Your only major edit to this article (April 2019) [7] didn't require a scholarly source and was poorly formatted and appears to be borderline puffery. Furthermore, that non-scholarly source remains in the Philanthropy section including a REPETITION of the exact same info in the Galbraith para. Even after an April 2022 FAR.

The same info TWICE. Which also begs the question - How did this article pass an FA review? Outnproud (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [8]

The information is not duplicated in the two sections, and that sort of uncontroversial content does not require a source any better than the one used. The article passed a five-month FAR, with more than five pages of discussion, with a record number of participants. Hope that helps you understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Link to the previous time this issue came up. I don't see much change in the sourcing since then, so I agree with the consensus there (don't include). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussions don't hold precedence, particularly when there is more info. Outnproud (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the Time article, which grounds the new content, is remarkably thin. It says, "And Rowling’s choice of pen name has also been subject to controversy—Robert Galbraith Heath was the name of a mid-20th century anti-LGBTQ conversion therapist. (Rowling has previously said that the name was a conflation of her political hero, Robert F. Kennedy, and a childhood fantasy name ‘Ella Galbraith’.)" So there is controversy because unnamed people are drawing a connection there is no other basis to draw? A Them article cited above ([9]) makes a similar "there is controversy" assertion without explaining who has drawn this connection and if Rowling or others have responded to it. And. "Robert" and "Galbraith" are common English names. Ultimately, I'm not concerned about the quality of the sources providing these assertions—I have no reason to doubt the credentials of Them and Time. I doubt the quality of the assertion they are making: it is unattributed innuendo. I no longer have university access to Pugh's book; he's likely the only scholar who would have commented on this (or not). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand your misgivings about what defines the controversy, but that's how it was reported, therefore a matter of record. As a Wikipedia editor, you can't define the content based on your own interpretation. Therefore, your acceptance of JKR's account at face value as the only viewpoint, then justifying it with "Robert" and "Galbraith" being common names was incorrect. Whilst "Robert" is a very common name in the UK, "Galbraith" is not. Also the similarities in the name requiring disambiguation should have been in your consideration. However, your analysis on the sources being of sufficient quality is correct but worded negatively. Pugh's book was published in June 2020, therefore unlikely to have a record from late 2020 onwards when these articles came out. JKR publicly acknowledged the controversy in a tweet, claiming the accusations were unfounded, making this notable. Outnproud (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [10]

• {{rpp}} I lack the time to explore this issue at present, but I would generally say that I would need to see multiple high-quality sources for a certain line of critique before incorporating it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You may need multiple sources but Wikipedia doesn't. One reliable quality source is sufficient. However, here are many more quality sources: [11] [12] [13][14] Happy reading... Outnproud (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [15]

Those are not high-quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

One high quality source has been provided, which editors don't have a problem with, and that is sufficient. Outnproud (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [16]

In summary, consensus remains that most editors don't have a problem with the information. A previous discussion's consensus was to exclude with the caveat to provide more information from reliable quality sources and evidence of coverage in future. In the current discussion, with quality sources provided, some editors disagreed with the inferences of the controversy from their own POV. However, their NPOV conclusion is that the sources are of high enough quality in the absence (i.e. there is no requirement) for a "scholarly source". Cheers! Outnproud (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [17]

I'm not seeing any sort of consensus here for inclusion, nor am I seeing a consensus that the balance of the sources provided have been high quality, or that this content meets WP:DUE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is that one high quality source has been provided, which editors don't have a problem with, and that is sufficient. Outnproud (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, [18]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal on Galbraith name

The following discussion 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.

---

Current, 31 words

Proposed, 68 words

Rowling later said she enjoyed working as Robert Galbraith, a name she took from Robert F. Kennedy, a personal hero, and Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood.

Rowling later said she enjoyed working as Robert Galbraith, a name she took from Robert F. Kennedy, a personal hero, and Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood. Followers of the hashtag #RIPJKRowling believed that the name was similar to Robert Galbraith Heath, a psychiatrist who had experimented with gay conversion therapy in the 1970s; Rowling's spokesperson said the claim was "unfounded and untrue".

Sources

References Pugh, Tison (2020). Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions. University of South Carolina Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvs09qwv. ISBN 978-1-64336-088-1. OCLC 1142046769. S2CID 225791872. Ravell, Hannah (2023). "#RIPJKRowling: A tale of a fandom, Twitter and a haunting author who refuses to die". Public Relations Inquiry. 0 (0): 1–32. doi:10.1177/2046147X231180501.

• Oppose any addition, and certainly oppose the addition of 37 WP:UNDUE words to add a topic that is not mentioned in a preponderance of reliable or high-quality sources and is basically based on a tweeted rumor. The best source, Pugh, omits it altogether. I agree with Kmhkmh that "the whole thing is essentially a baseless rumour/speculation, which deserves no mentioning. Unless it becomes rather highly publicised/well known meme ... ". I concur with Olivaw-Daneel that nothing has changed since we last visited the topic in terms of it earning due weight. I agree with AleatoryPonderings that it is "unattributed innuendo". As Vanamonde93 states, in accordance with Kmhkmh, we should "see multiple high-quality sources for a certain line of critique before incorporating it", because it is nothing more than a tweeted rumor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support: the sourcing for this is as strong as anything else in this article. There's no reason to exclude it other than the general reluctance of editors to say negative things about WP:BLP subjects, which, while understandable, is against WP:NPOV. Loki (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Absent something beyond speculation this sort of content is undue. I also agree with the "unattributed innuendo" aspects. Springee (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per wp;undue as linked above. This essentially boils down to "some people on a social media site started a rumour, let's republish it." There's nothing to suggest the rumour is true or that the opinions of the #RIP contributors are inherently notable enough to guarantee inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unsubstantiated internet rumours are also a dime a dozen; if we set this as the bar for inclusion we'll end up copypasting half of reddit. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While the sourcing is OK, and I'd weigh the paper by Ravell quite high, on balance I'm not convinced that this is due. While there is certainly a vocal subset of commentators on social media speculating as to whether or not there is a deliberate link between the names, beyond the surface level similarities, I don't it raises to how DUE describes a significant minority. The lack of easily identifiable prominent adherents beyond a subset who contributed to the hashtag is what clinches it for me. If there was, for example, one or more prominent feminists or activists who mentioned the link between the names, and this was reflected in high quality sources like Ravell, then it might be due per If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Definitely undue and really seems to be included to disparage the subject. — Czello ^(music) 17:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose generally per SG. The fact that even the highest-quality sources identified can point only to "followers of" a X-fka-Twitter hashtag without any uptake by mainstream sources or named persons—let alone experts—confirms that giving this theory encyclopedic airtime is UNDUE. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of the many sources that discuss the Galbraith pen name (Pugh, NYT, etc.), only a small fraction mention this issue. And even they seem to mention it only in passing (both Time and Ravell focus more on anti-trans tropes in Galbraith's writing). So it seems undue. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2023 (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.

wording change

−

She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.

+

She says that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.

i am proposing this change in wording, as saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood already implies the deleted text. ltbdl (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the proposed change tells the reader anything useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

fewer words are better. ltbdl (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@sandygeorgia: how am i supposed to get consensus for my change, then? ltbdl (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you see the lengthy discussion above at #Re-raising the neutrality issue? If anyone agreed with your change here, only shortly after that discussion, they would have said so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

and if anyone disagreed with my change, they would have said so. ltbdl (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be better to have the explanation on why she thinks her viewpoint has been misunderstood. - Rajan51 (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It might, if the sourcing for it existed. However from when I last looked at the sourcing, I don't think that it did. That aside, the length of this section needs to be carefully balanced, as this Rowling's biography is not the primary article for her views on trans rights. If we were to go into more detail anywhere, it would probably best be elaborated in Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender_rights. The content that is here is largely a summary of the other article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not entirely clear on the details of this controversy, so if the current statement is not accurate, correcting it would be a good idea. - Rajan51 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If you can't understand what is meant by the wording there, given that it's all explained in the entire section, I don't see how either adding verbosity, or subtracting context, will improve that. Her viewpoint is laid out throughout the section (she rejects changes to laws that she believes degrade women's rights), as are the characterisations of her viewpoint (she holds animosity towards transgender people) that she disagrees with. It's her BLP; we can't omit the right of response to characterisations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As much of a fan of a KISS as I am, I don't think this is a good simplification. While you could argue that the text you're removing is implicit from the rest of the sentence, when you look at this in context it is not overly implicit from the sentence prior. When reading the two sentences together I think the more explicit version we currently have is better overall. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

"The primary antagonists of Harry Potter, Voldemort and his followers, believe blood purity is paramount, and that non-wizards, or "muggles", are subhuman." - § Gender and social division

"Subhuman" strikes me as a dubious word choice here. It implies that one group think of themselves as normal humans, and of the other group as worse than said norm. But due to their being a tiny minority, Rowling's wizards typically think of themselves as special, and so maybe as "superhuman", instead of vice versa. Plus, neither of the accessibile refs uses the term, AFAI can tell. Replace with simply "inferior"?

- 2A02:560:59AD:9900:C006:3167:F814:E377 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Tagging this as not done for now, as it'll require a consensus for change. We can discuss it in this section though.

Going largely off memory here, as it's been a couple of years since I actually read the books. With respect to Voldemort and the Death Eater's perspectives on muggles, and to a lesser extend, muggle-born wizards, either "subhuman" or "inferior" strike me as accurate terms to use. Voldemort's position is that both muggles and muggle-born are there to be dominated by his followers and himself. They are definitely seen as lesser than pure-blooded wizards.

The content in the article is currently cited to a bundle of sources, that I unfortunately don't have access to. If someone does currently have access, what do those sources say on the cited pages? Do they use "subhuman" or some synonym? Or do they use different terminology altogether? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: from looking at the page history, it seems you added the text during the FAR? Any chance you still have access to the sources on this sentence, or recall what they say? I checked the FAR archives to see if this text had been discussed, but my quick search came up dry. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I will take your word for it that I am the one who added "subhuman" and the accompanying text. I no longer have access to Barrat (gone are my university days) but Nel and Eccleshare are on archive.org and your summaries of them (and Barrat) below are helpful. I agree in part with the IP's distinction between "inferior" and "subhuman"—that is, one human being could be inferior to another in some putative hierarchy without being any less human than the other. But I think the sources support using "subhuman" and not "inferior". If, according to HP's baddies, muggles are no better than animals and occupy a lower order of being, "inferior" doesn't capture the depth of their hatred. They think of themselves as humans (or the only beings worthy of respect) and muggles as mere animals. I think "inferior beings" could work, if we needed a compromise? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

How about using "lower order of being" as is? It occurred to me in the meantime that my dislike for "subhuman" may have to do with the source material occasionally using phrasings like "It is my job to arm you against the foulest creatures known to wizardkind!" (Chamber of Secrets), where "wizard" (et cetera) directly replace "human" (et cetera). Which is not to say that this article should use a coinage like that, of course, just that the reference point for the claimed inferiority or superiority ought to be the group making that claim. The explicit reference point of "subhuman" is suboptimal, unlike the implicit one of "inferior" or "lower order of being" or anything along those lines.

- 2A02:560:59AD:9900:C006:3167:F814:E377 (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Giving this some more thought still, tribalism is commonly described as viewing only members of one's own group as entirely "human", and everyone else as more or less "alien". Applying that sense to "subhuman", I suppose it works well enough, irrespective of context.

And then again, the circumstance that it only works well in one sense and not in another, and only when one makes one assumption and not another, and so forth, supports my assertion that it is suboptimal, doesn't it. :P

- 2A02:560:59AD:9900:C006:3167:F814:E377 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What I remember from the text is wizards saying things in the vein of "muggles are little better than animals", and it's surely safe to assume that they do not believe the same to apply to wizards. My quibble is that while this does directly translate to either "muggles are subwizard" or "wizards are supermuggle", replacing those more specific labels with "-human" isn't straightforward.

For a clearer-cut case, saying that a Star Trek Vulcan believes that humans are subhuman makes very little sense to me, and saying that a Star Trek Human believes that Vulcans are superhuman makes a lot of sense. Here, it's murkier, but in a way that makes the usage more unfortunate, not less.

Two of the three refs link to archive.org, and I searched those for the term, with no hits. I found the third at Google Books in the meantime, and got one relevant hit there:

“ Just as some wizards consider nonmagical folk to be subhuman, many Muggles believe it is the wizards who are abnormal and unfit to rule. If the two sides hold such extreme and diametrically opposed views, how factually based can they be? ”

A second hit uses the term in the, to my mind unproblematic, context of magical creatures. I don't think that's a fulltext version, though, so that may not be the only occurrences there.

- 2A02:560:59AD:9900:C006:3167:F814:E377 (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What I remember from the text is wizards saying things in the vein of "muggles are little better than animals", and it's surely safe to assume that they do not believe the same to apply to wizards. For Voldemort, his followers, and those sympathetic to his views, there are two "classes" of wizard kind. Pure-blood, and muggle-born. At some extremes (see Umbridge and the muggle-born trials she presided over on behalf of the Ministry of Magic during Deathly Hallows), muggle-born wizards were viewed as muggles who had simply stolen their powers.

As for the books, I'd tried searching for them through archive.org earlier, but the site was down and kept returning empty pages. Reading those two now, Nel contrasts Voldemort's views against Hitler's "Aryan ideal", which did have a concept of subhuman (see untermensch), though the source itself stops short of explicitly using those terms. Eccleshare meanwhile discusses briefly Voldemort's hatred of both muggles and those with mixed-muggle parentage, and how that was expressed in his views on wizarding blood purity. Unfortunately both Nel and Eccleshare were written when only three/four of the books had been published.

I've also now found a copy of Barrat. It also makes a comparison between Voldemort's views on wizarding purity and superiority, and Hitler's views. On page 67, it does directly support the text in the article; Finally, we know that for many wizards, nonmagical humans are not fully human at all—and may be no more than animals, that alone would support using "subhuman" as terminology for muggles, even if it doesn't use the term itself. As for muggle-born wizards, page 72 of Barrat mentions how Malfoy treated Hermione as an object, rather than a person in the fourth book, along with a selection of quotations from a portrait in the Black household, which Barrat states [implies] that they are a lower order of being. On pages 73-76 it goes on to describe the effects of the muggle-born registration committee during the Deathly Hallows, how muggle-born wizards were excluded from nearly every aspect of society, and how Umbridge used the legislation to take wands from muggle-born wizards as based on the twisted, biologically deterministic logic that no Muggle-born can be a real witch or wizard, and therefore could not have been chosen by a wand at Ollivanders.

After reading through all of this, I think subhuman is a reasonable term to use here. Even if much of how the sources are describing this is oblique, we are supposed to summarise what our sources state in our own words. Using subhuman here seems to succinctly encompass much of what these three sources are discussing without losing or adding meaning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing alleged “fairytale” inspiration to “gothic literature”

The parts of the summary that claim the books are, in any specific or notable way, inspired by “fairy tales” or are primarily “about good vs evil” morality seem like simplistic additions made by someone who is not actually that familiar with Harry Potter.

Rowling has repeatedly mentioned, specifically, how authors like Dickens and Brontë have inspired Harry Potter and her writing in general, but never any specific “fairy tales”. This connection to Charles Dickens, tonally, in terms of world building and storytelling conventions, has been frequently noted in media. All of the connections drawn to fairy tales seem relatively superficial.

Also, in keeping with what is written on the Harry Potter page, I think it would be more meaningful to describe death and love as being central themes of the series. Prejudice is also a more specific theme of the series, in a moral sense. Threefrgy (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Have you read all of the sources upon which the text in this article is based? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

yes, and none ever mention explicitly how Harry Potter resembles a "fairy tale", or what specific fairy tales significantly inspired the series. Threefrgy (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Rowling's most famous work, Harry Potter, has been defined as a fairy tale, a Bildungsroman and a boarding-school story.

References

• Heilman, Elizabeth E., ed. (7 August 2008). Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter (2nd ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203892817. ISBN 978-1-135-89154-1.
  • Alton, Anne Hiebert. "Playing the genre game: generic fusions of the Harry Potter series". In Heilman 2008.
• Berndt, Katrin; Steveker, Lena, eds. (22 April 2016). Heroism in the Harry Potter Series. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315586748. ISBN 978-1-317-12211-1.
  • Pharr, Mary. "A paradox: the Harry Potter series as both epic and postmodern". In Berndt & Steveker 2016.

• Pharr: "Rowling’s books were both praised and criticized as fairy tale, bildungsroman and schooldays ... "
• Alton: "The significance of certain numbers also invokes folk and fairy tale motifs,"

And if you go to scholar.google.com and search on "Harry Potter" "fairy tale", you will find scores of other scholarly sources supporting this text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings is there any significance to "understood" as a fairy talk versus the current "defined" as a fairy tale, and does it matter ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. To my ear, "defined" is stronger than "understood", but both would summarize critics describing HP as, e.g., a fairy tale. I have little skin in this game; the text stands or falls with the sources cited, and as you note immediately above, the sources say "fairy tale". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Add "ghost story writers"

This category I think applies, at least sort of; while ghosts only form a part of the HP novels, they are still significant enough in the narrative. 2A00:23C7:ED16:2401:49C0:A559:6272:6198 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, but mildly. I see where you're coming from, but ghosts are no way the main characters, or - when you get down to it - even that important to the plot. I suppose the Bloody Baron/Grey Lady interaction and the house ghosts themselves are frequently mentioned, but the storylines are not actually about them, which defines a ghost story. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2023

Please include the following quote from Rowling (Twitter, 2021), which evidences her transphobia:

“War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The Penised Individual Who Raped You Is a Woman.”

She said it; it is a legitimate part of her social legacy. Thanks! Lolotravelgogo (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Transphobia Controversy

The following quote was tweeted by Rowling in 2021, evidencing her public transphobia: Lolotravelgogo (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2023 (2)

Change "These have been...." to "The following quote from Rowling (Twitter, 2021), evidences her transphobia:

“War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The Penised Individual Who Raped You Is a Woman.”" Lolotravelgogo (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This is better handled at Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights than here—if this particular quote (if sourced) warrants inclusion at all. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

(Redacted) AndrewPelletier23 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussions aimed at improving articles; please read WP:NOTAFORUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

95.145.146.76 (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Please can you add "Transphobic advocate" to her list of titles?

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

TERF link

Editors here may not be aware that the article [[TERF]], as in "and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist)." was modified fairly recently (and controversially). Previously TERF was an article but its contents were moved to TERF (acronym) and TERF modified to become a redirect to Gender-critical feminism. I'm not here to reignite that debate right now, but to deal with what we have. I see from the archives, particularly Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 13#"and she has been referred to as a TERF", that editors were keen that the term TERF be linked to content that explains this term and controversies surrounding it (e.g., the "is a slur" debate). It no longer does.

Therefore, firstly, I propose that the text be modified to link to TERF (acronym): "and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist)." The article text is dealing with what Rowling has been labelled, or called. Rowling herself rejects the label and neutral reliable sources don't use that label for themselves (e.g., the BBC would mention she had been called it, not that she was one). This would restore the link to what it linked to until recently and had done for years.

Secondly is the matter of the parenthetical expansion. Rowling's blog post notes that the term "stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists". Academic feminist Finn Mackay's book "Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars" says:

That term, well-used today, is, of course, TERF - trans-exclusionary radical feminist. The acronym has become so widely shared in social media activism and mainstream journalism that it has become almost a void, as it is applied to anyone expressing transphobic, prejudiced, bigoted or otherwise exclusionary views about trans men, trans women and all transgender and trans people. It is applied to those who are not feminist activists and would never identify themselves as feminists; it is put onto those who may be feminists but are certainly not Radical Feminists; it has become a shorthand for transphobic, and mostly applied to women, although I have seen the related adjective terfy applied to men also.

The Oxford English Dictionary: TERF doesn't even expand the acronym in its explanation of the meaning (the acronym's words only appear in the etymology). And its meaning is explained to be much wider than the original use: "more generally: a person whose views on gender identity are (or are considered) hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people" and "TERF is now typically regarded as derogatory".

What this tells me is we should question whether or how we add the "(trans-exclusionary radical feminist)" parenthetical. The parenthetical suggests the word and its original expansion are, today, equivalent, and that Rowling really is frequently referred to as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (compared to being called a TERF). Any writer doing so would be awkwardly conscious that Rowling isn't known as a radical feminist thinker/writer (she writes patriarchy-endorsing fiction, as this article notes).

I wonder if the term TERF is now so widely known that we don't need to expand the acronym in this article (and a link suffices). That it has become like NATO, where nobody routinely expands the acronym when mentioning it. Or if we must, do so in a lettered footnote that explains the expansion is what it originally meant, but that the term has gained a wider meaning (for which Mackay or OED or a number of other reliable sources would support). I favour just dropping the expansion and treat TERF as a word like any other word, which is exactly how it is used today. -- Colin°^Talk 13:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've made the edit I proposed here. -- Colin°^Talk 12:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Colin, I thought I had responded to this, but apparently I got busy and forgot; my apologies. I agree the change is a reasonable one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Accolades and honours

@DrKay and Johnbod: could you check this edit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Pedantic silliness that renders the text unidiomatic and awkward. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to address it ... non-Brit! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

FAQ not being followed

The FAQ on this page tells editors to call her British, not English or Scottish. "Current consensus is that she is British, and that whether she is also English, Scottish or Welsh has no bearing on her work or her biography, and is best not discussed." Yet the article is in "English" people categories.

This means the FAQ are not being followed. Either the categories should be changed to British, or the FAQ should be changed. Kk.urban (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I was assuming the FAQ was intended for the text body, not necessarily categories. The practice in categories is to be as specific as possible, i.e., place subjects in a sub-category rather than a super-category, when possible. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If the consensus is that it's not clear whether she's English, then she shouldn't be in English people categories. Kk.urban (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I pay scant attention to categories, and have no idea what to do with this. @Vanamonde93, Olivaw-Daneel, AleatoryPonderings, and Johnbod: ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I find our categorization erratic at best, and haven't the stamina to deal with it unless there's an egregious error. I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered to investigate why the British/English categorization matters here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks fixable, all of the English categories seem to have a British parent category. I can do a quick replacement of them if we want, I'd also suggest doing a WP:PARENTCAT cleanup as well, as there's some cases where she's been categorised twice, like Category:British women philanthropists and Category:English women philanthropists, where the English women category is a subcategory of British women. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Also can't be bothered. Any duplicates should be removed, but otherwise... Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Smith biography

Does anyone know why the Smith biography is no longer available at the Open Library, or does anyone have a copy? I am quite certain this content was supported by Smith, but I don't know why I can no longer access the book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hachette v. Internet Archive would be the answer, I believe. A lot of books have been taken down after that decision. Hog Farm _Talk 15:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Darn it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

All right, so I purchased the Kindle book, which means I don't have the same pagination, but there is no doubt that content is supported. I don't know why we've had such a sudden rash of new accounts at this article, but I am planning two funerals for best friends at once, so it would be helpful if others would issue the contentious topic warnings to these new accounts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Condolences, Sandy. I'd drop the alerts but I don't think it's worth the effort, based on how infrequently that editor is active. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The article currently says "concerns from parents about the books' portrayals of the occult and gender roles." This makes it sound like Smith claims there were concerns by parents about, among other things, gender roles. This is not what he claims. In the book it says '[...] with her enormous American following came some unexpected [...] opposition from concerned parents. [...] The South Carolina Board of Education was told "The books have a serious tone of death[...]."' In this paragraph, gender roles are not mentioned. The next paragraph is about Christian Outreach College and their concerns with the occult (this is not a parents initiative, as the current article incorrectly implies). The third paragraph in that section is indeed about gender roles, but focuses on a the academic work of psychologist Dr Elizabeth Heilman, not 'concerned parents'. As it stands, the article does not correctly reflect the cited source. Oniichansugoi (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A suggestion for more accurate wording (I don't think the term "gender roles" even does Heilman's claims justice):

According to her biographer Sean Smith, the publicity became effective marketing for Harry Potter, but her journey from living on benefits to wealth brought, along with fame, concerns from different groups about the books' dark tone, its portrayals of the occult and the way girls were portrayed as inferior to boys. Oniichansugoi (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the concern; you are correct that not all concerns expressed were from parents, so I have adjusted the wording to "different groups" as suggested. I have left the occult and gender roles wording as is, as I believe they accurately reflect the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

PS, if anyone else would like to have a go at tweaking the wording, you can purchase the Kindle version for $2.99 on amazon.com, and search on the phrase "public profile rather than damage" to find the relevant section ... so unfortunate we have lost the pagination afforded by archive.org. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

.

Jk doesnot have wife. That you misspelled that BTS J.K has wife please correct that ok. 2001:DF5:2380:5EEE:F0A1:1FEE:3613:9D5F (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Any objections to modifying final sentence in lede in the following way

I don't know if we need a formal RfC for this change but here we go:

"These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals" - I don't think "individuals" helps inform the reader of anything as for any given issue, some individuals will support/oppose it. This sentence in the lede should suggest what the major positions of involved parties to the issues are, not the thoughts of indivudals generally. Additionally, "some" should be removed as it implies that it is the minority of feminists who are critical of Ms. Rowling, while we really can't say that for certain and I suspect it might be the opposite, regardless "some" is not necessary as we already make it clear by also including "other feminists."

If I don't hear any objections I'll WP:BEBOLD and change it in like a week or so. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we still need to include "some" as otherwise it suggests she has been criticized by all feminists. I think we also need to include "and individuals" to make it clear that it's not just feminists who have supported her. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Then why don't we have it say "some other feminists?" I think either way it expresses a viewpoint unless you remove some from the equation, and the fact that the second part says "other feminists" is fine. And who, if not just "other feminists" have supported her? The lack of precision is what concerns me. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that fixes the issues.

According to the article, it includes performers and figures from the art world. BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What makes those figures opinions WP:DUE to issues revolving around feminism, gender, and sexuality? Based off my reading of the citations the citation regarding Eddie Izzard is probably DUE as she is genderfluid, but I'm not sure why we should be giving weight in the lede to "figures from the art world". LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So we've discussed that particular piece of content heavily during the FAR in 2022, and some of our wording was defined by a large but poorly executed RfC from November 2021-January 2022. At the moment we're kinda beholden to some of that phrasing, though the FAR drafting did try to work around it as best we could. For now I'd suggest reading this pre-drafting discussion on the status of the lead, and the the FAR drafting discussion for the lead, as that'll provide a great deal of insight for why it's phrased in the way that it is.

I'm not opposed to changing it in principle, though we do have to be careful when changing it to make sure it reflects the content in the body. It might be possible to rephrase it a little more radically based on the body content though, if we can find a consensus for changing it. We're far enough away from the RfC that in theory, we could just come to a consensus here for a change without needing to have another one. Something like These views have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors might be a good starting point for a more radical of revision it, as it's far more directly supported by the article's actual content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

These views have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations.

I would support this version; in your version it's unclear what the subject of "divided feminists" is, while the last line seems WP:UNDUE compared to coverage in the body. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

90% of this is taken from the first paragraph of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people section which says Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. The remaining bit at the start is a juxtaposition of that against the third paragraph of the section, which states LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments, and the fourth paragraph of the section, which Rowling's statements – beginning in 2017 – have been called transphobic by critics, and she has been referred to as a TERF.

As for the subject of "divided feminists" being unclear, some of that could be my choice of punctuation. How about These views have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations. They have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors (changes in bold)? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That's better, but I would prefer to keep it in a single sentence (two, in my opinion, are WP:UNDUE emphasis on a relatively minor aspect of Rowling's life and works), and I remain unconvinced that the declarations of support are sufficiently relevant to the lede of Rowling's article. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, the declarations of support piece comes from the first paragraph of the transgender people section. I don't really see any issue with that minimal mention in the lead. When it was discussed during the FAR, the biggest concern with that sentence was making sure that it didn't deviate from the massively imperfect version the 2021 RfC left us with. If we now consider ourselves free of that particular burden, then re-writing it to better reflect what we actually say in the body

As for the length and two sentences, 43 words from a lead that contains 400 others prior to the current version of the sentence, for a section that currently takes up 505 words doesn't really seem that undue to me. A two sentence structure more neatly addresses your concern about the subject of "divided feminists" being unclear. And I think that your one sentence version has a similar problem in that it's not directly explaining why the views have divided feminists. The division is because the majority of feminists and feminist bodies consider the views to be transphobic, and I think we kinda need say that descriptor up front before we can say that the views have divided feminists. Otherwise we leave open the question of "why have they divided feminists?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If I may respond to the last sentence there? It's absolutely fine not to answer that question in the lede. The point of the lede isn't to present all the relevant information contained in an article, but to give the reader an accurate representation of what the article contains. Why her statements divided feminists is explained in the relevant section of the page as a whole. Robrecht (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Sideswipe9th was objecting to the order of BilledMammal's sentence (which mentions a division before explaining that the views have been described as transphobic by..) and we may have gone a bit too deeply thinking about "why have they divided feminists" because in fact neither proposed sentence explains that at all, nor does the body. It isn't for this article to explain why some feminists are pro trans and some are trans exclusionary, why some think some attitudes are transphobic and some don't. The word we are looking for is "what". What is it that the feminists are divided about, wrt supporting or criticising Rowling. -- Colin°^Talk 19:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, what Colin just said. I think I just explained my thoughts on that poorly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That is 100% better than what I proposed kudos to you for whipping up such great language in like two seconds flat. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Mostly I'm just kitbashing the content that's already in the article's body. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think Siwdeswip9th's summary is better and agree that this is actually a small number of words for something that has come to dominate any discussion of Rowling (no review of her books, films or TV programmes fails to mention this, particularly wrt young audiences). I see that it is taken/summarising the body and I would question the "academic freedom" clause. I looked at the source and although it mentions Rowling, nowhere AFAICS does it say her comments have "fuelled debate" on that matter. The academics have had plenty of their own kind fuelling debate without considering the twitter comments of a children's fantasy author. So I propose those two words are dropped from the body and this proposed lead sentence. -- Colin°^Talk 08:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any issue dropping "academic freedom" from the body and the draft given what you've said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft proposal in context

Ok, so that it's clearer for everyone, here's where we're at with the proposed changes to the lead:

Current	Proposed (adds 20 words)
These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.	These views have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations. They have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors.

And transgender people section:

Current	Proposed (removes 2 words)
Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors.	Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors.

Sources
References

Discussion of proposal

For the lead, these changes bring it more in line with the article's body text. It means we're going against the flawed 2021 RfC, but I think it's an improvement to the article and we are far enough away from that time that we can just make this change, if there's a consensus for it. For the transgender people section, this is the incorporation of Colin's proposal to drop "academic freedom" from the "fuelled debates" sentence. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the first sentence in the first proposed change, I'm uncertain about "divided feminists" however, for the simple reason that as is, it seems incredibly vague and doesn't really tell the reader, anything. What feminists, divided how? Snokalok (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the body content and the sources her statements have divided feminist opinion. If you want to see how that content in the body was developed and why that phrasing was selected, I'd recommend reviewing this discussion from June 2022, as well as this section of the FAR in March 2022. We can't really go into that much detail in the article lead, as that is what the body is for. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't enough to put it at the end of the lead. It needs to be within the first three sentences of the article. It is one of the most notable and significant aspects of who she is in public society.

Furthermore, as per comments in the "It's time to include anti-transgender activist in the first sentence" discussion, there is sufficient scholarly, peer-reviewed evidence to state that she is "widely known for her anti-trans views." The term "anti-trans" should be explicit--not making this explicit is whitewashing / shielding her, which would be a form of sociopolitical bias. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the article body content supports bringing this up to being something said within the first three sentences of the lead. While it's certainly noteworthy enough for the lead overall, when looked at in the scope of the rest of the content about Rowling I just don't see that being feasible.

As for widely known for her anti-trans views, I don't think the body content nor the sourcing we currently cite supports it with that broad a qualifier (ie, widely known). That might change if we're able to do a broader rewrite of the second paragraph of the transgender people section, per my comment above suggesting that we look for sourcing that describes the changes in her expressed views over time. But for now, I don't think it's really possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue at this point that a broader rewrite may be in order, focusing less on individual instances (which can be detailed in the separate views article), and more on the general pattern that's been established. There's certainly enough RSP sources to support that. Snokalok (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You won't find me objecting to re-writing that second paragraph. Let's start a new discussion section for that, with step 1 being finding and listing here all of the highest quality sources available that would support a substantial change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Just realised after reviewing the bold implementation of this by LegalSmeagolian that while I'd removed "academic freedom" from the body in the proposal, I'd forgotten to remove it from the lead of the proposal. I've just removed the words from both places now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I did not catch that. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)