Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Claim" (WP:WTA)

[edit]
  • ... and her claim that Albus Dumbledore is gay without, as Pugh argues, showing this in the books

Per WP:CLAIM, surely the author of the work is in a position to state or say rather than claim? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that and then thought, well, hm, the author is dead (cc A C Santacruz). Can an author say, after she's published everything without explicitly stating anything in the books, that a character "really" is X or Y? An affirmative answer to that question would depend on a controversial theory of literary interpretation. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. consider how "her claim that Dumbledore is straight" sounds, for example. State is neutral to both. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now "statement". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re. queer... how about "the Harry Potter series is queer"? (Duggan also says the character himself is allegorically queer, which is what I was referring to...) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I had used italics to refer to the work as opposed to the character but perhaps that's a little precious. Changed to "the Harry Potter series". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation trans is used twice, without prior definition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just everyday English at this point? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it may be, but for an encyclopedia, it is a colloquialism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. NPR and Vox treat them as equivalent. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK … I see it is in the lead of transgender but hard to notice, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, re trans: just noticed Duggan uses the word "anti-trans" in page 14 to refer to Rowling's commentary; and so does Breslow in page 7. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like enough coverage that it's DUE to use "anti-trans", in some form, in the section. Is there any difference bt "anti-trans" and "transphobic"? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're the same. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion (which I have not yet read) on this very issue: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Is_"anti-trans"_equivalent_to_"transphobic"?. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cormoran Strike graf

[edit]

I was meh about including it because comments re the trans characters in the series are usually throwaway in the sources—no in-depth commentary. Should we remove it? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Vox article is clearly opinion, so WP:RSOPINION applies, and regarding the CNN piece, other sources, like The Guardian, disagree with that interpretation. Crossroads -talk- 06:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, as the coverage has been quite minimal, and while it may be due on the articles themselves (I note it is not currently mentioned at The Silkworm) I don't believe it is due here. BilledMammal (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critique

[edit]
  • It entirely removes any reference to the support Rowling received, which is well-sourced, and hence fails WP:NPOV. The RfC regarding the sentence in the lead was massively attended and required mentioning this aspect there; and of course it would have to be mentioned in the body too.
    • What encyclopedic value is there in saying, e.g., "Ayaan Hirsi Ali supported her" if we don't explain why—and, more importantly, can't explain why without violating WP:UNDUE, since there aren't secondary sources about such commentary we can use to weigh it appropriately? That's the problem with this section more broadly: it attempts to convey balance by simply citing a range of primary commentary from individuals who are thought to be prominent. That, in my view, is really WP:OR. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:52 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Many of the media sources are secondary sources. Primary sourcing would be citing, like, a tweet or something. But even if we say a story whose main point is 'so-and-so supported her' is primary, other news-report sources later on summarizing the controversy include those points and hence definitely act as secondary sources. I may cite some here tomorrow if needed. Bottom line, though, that support does need to be covered per NPOV and the RfC. Secondary sources by reputable media outlets work for this. Crossroads -talk- 07:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, it seems to excessively disfavor mainstream media sources in favor of some quite obscure academic sources, especially the two papers, and none of the three have any Google Scholar cites. These seem to be largely about developing new arguments of the respective authors, and hence seem equivalent to single research studies in other fields and hence WP:PRIMARY may apply. Between a few academic sources that are WP:BIASEDSOURCES and mainstream media reports that are more neutral, the latter should also carry significant weight when describing what happened.
    • Strongly disagree with the claim that we should not be basing this on academic commentary. First, what shows that the sources are biased? As to obscurity, the papers were published in 2021, which makes it unlikely they would be cited anywhere—and they would have to be published very recently, because they are about comments made in 2019 and 2020. The other option is news commentary, which is (because it is news) inevitably going to become a numbers-balancing game of "this paper said this and that paper said that". That's the fundamental problem with the section at present: it tries, unavoidably unsuccessfully, to create the appearance of balance and comprehensiveness by citing statement after statement made in the news. The purpose of using academic sources is that they filter the news commentary for us, as opposed to us using our own views about what news stories are really important. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say "not" to base it on academic commentary, just that it does not need to be near-solely that. Mainstream media coverage does not consist only of "commentary", which I agree is better left off. Some reporting sticks to the facts and summarizes the matter as a whole quite well. As I said above, I may cite some here tomorrow. Crossroads -talk- 07:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that post, she argued that activism on behalf of transgender people was pernicious and could amount to misogyny - pernicious how? Misogynistic why? This needs to be explained.
  • the Harry Potter series is queer - yeah, it's attributed, but this is confusing buzzwordism to most readers, or would be read as claiming Harry Potter is mostly gay characters. I also don't think this is necessarily an accurate picture of the source since she also calls the books "heteronormative". I think the following phrase starting with "invites" explains it better and this bit can just be dropped.

Crossroads -talk- 06:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I support Crossroads critique that this section is far more a matter of society and politics, of civil and human rights than that of literature, however I come from the different approach. It is extremely strange that the proposed section about her views on Transgender People would fail to include the response from the expert national trans organisations and the leading gender specialist are far more appropriate balance to Rowling than the op-ed of a fan or the opinions of actors whether they be supportive of JKR or not. ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The aim was to use high-quality secondary sources to support due weight. Duggan mentions Butler and Mermaids in a footnote and Breslow cites Mermaids, but none discuss them in-depth. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple of good news media sources: [1][2] I added these at the other page where sources are listed as well. Crossroads -talk- 06:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Crossroads, we've been assembling a list of good sources at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Best sources for Transgender people section. If you have more good ones, could you add them there? I would be more than willing to add sources that aren't just "Daniel Radcliffe did this" or "Robbie Coltrane did that". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back here on 12 Jan, I urged a slow and cautious approach to drafting. Two days later we had a formal draft in Wikipedia space; I suggest that was too fast, and did not allow time for adequate feedback, particularly for a controversial topic. Slow and steady wins the race; we also still have a lot of work to do on the less contentious parts of the article, so I hoped to avoid getting into the harder parts to write until that work was further along, to avoid splitting our limited resources.
Could we get back to a slower pace, and a discussion of sources sans drafting ?
I support Crossroads concerns about the obscurity and bias of the sources that are (possibly over)used, but on the other hand, I do not want to see us move back towards a he-said, she-said of who supports or not Rowling. Crossroads, please indicate some highest quality, best sources you believe should be considered (as I said early on, I was striking out on locating best sources, and only added Vox to the list as an inquiry into whether I had bracketed the dates of when the whole issue came to the attention of secondary sources).
Now that this page is up, we have a split discussion, which is what I hoped to avoid. I suggest that discussion should move back to the main FAR page, as this page was premature. I am also concerned that we not branch our efforts, considering the amount of work that remains in the body, by bringing in early discussion of what to do about the lead; so we now have multiple forked issues. If we can go back to simply discussing sources, weight, and length to be devoted to this section, we may find a better long-term solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a first crack at incorporating Crossroads's sources here. I think that diff should address a bunch of Crossroads's concerns raised above? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to somewhat emphatically state that I simply do not think it productive to be trying to write this section until we finish the bulk of the rest of the article. It is too much to keep up with at once. I will tune in later, but am not satisfied with some bits of this draft. Will opine later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll stop adding new material. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When/if I ever get the basic bio info together (keep getting pulled in too many directions), I'll put together my thoughts on this draft. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a big improvement. I'm okay with waiting until later to discuss this further per Sandy - I'm rather busy myself at the moment. Crossroads -talk- 06:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Queer series"

[edit]

I haven't reviewed all the sources yet, but from what I've read, the last paragraph to me belongs in reception, not here. Its substance is good, and including that critique is appropriate, but by placing it so we imply the broader criticisms are an offshoot of criticism of Rowling's views on trans people, whereas they go beyond that. An allusion to that criticism in this section would seem appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree. The third graf was meant as a way to contextualize the criticisms as they relate to her work (which, we ought to remember, is certainly her primary source of notability no matter what she's said since 2019), but that could be done more gracefully. One thing missing in Reception is HP on race, which there surely is commentary on but which I have been avoiding till now. Introducing the issue of race in Reception and then somehow tying that back here—if the bits on race and indigeneity are retained at all in this section, that is—would be worthwhile. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether it's due to give several sentences in Rowling's biography to a single academic who has taken the (seemingly rather contrarian) position that Harry Potter is a queer series. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too. (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So this may require more research, but there is certainly a literature claiming that (in some sense) HP is queer. At PDF p 6, Duggan says "The queerness of the Harry Potter books has been well documented in previous research", although one of the previous researches is an article she wrote. Then there is the perplexing statement in doi:10.1521/jsyt.2007.26.2.13 that "If one reads Harry Potter against the grain, one finds support for Steven’s reading [Steven is a gay HP fan discussed in the article]. The Harry Potter books are in fact, very queer." This says at p 227 "Queer theory, with its emphasis on (hetero)normativity, explores other dimensions of societal inequalities. Labeling the Harry Potter books as queer, Michael Bronski points out that the original queer-theoretical meaning of this concept, homosexual, has acquired a broader significance, referring to general deviation and nonconformism (Bronski, “Queering Harry Potter”)." It is difficult to tell how much these pieces advocate a queer theory inflected reading of HP as opposed to stating outright that it is queer, but I think as a current in the scholarship it is DUE (altho, as Vanamonde points out, perhaps not right to put in this section). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best description of what Forstater said

[edit]

LokiTheLiar, re Special:Diff/1065727664, I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that's quite accurate either. My original version was based on the following statement from the BBC article: "Ms Forstater, from St Albans in Hertfordshire, did not have her contract renewed at the think tank Center for Global Development (CGD) in March 2019, after posting a series of tweets questioning government plans - which were later scrapped - to let people declare their own gender." Admittedly, though, that article is not super clear on exactly what the tipping point was—her view about the specific policy at issue, or her views about gender more generally. Also (and this is a genuine question), wouldn't the controversy be that Forstater believes one cannot change one's gender, not sex? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender critical feminists believe that *biological sex and gender are not separate things*, that no one can be transgender as no one can change their biological sex. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see where the previous version of the statement is from now. I have read Forstater's tweets and I think that's an insufficient description of them: they were not some kind of dry political statement nor were they directly about a change in the law. In several of them, she misgenders individuals deliberately. I don't think quoting them is really necessary, but if we need a source for the exact wording, here's one.
My version is from what seems to be a caption in that same BBC piece: A woman who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex has won an appeal against an employment tribunal. (Also yes, what Bodney said: trans exclusionary radical feminists believe that "gender" is at best a tool of the patriarchy and at worst completely fake, and that one cannot change their biological sex. This is likely what Rowling was signaling towards when she asserted that Forstater had been forced out of her job for stating that sex is real.) The other source we're citing there refers to Forstater's "anti-transgender beliefs", which I think is a reasonable summary as well. Loki (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm starting to get a better grip on this now. Basically: the context of her statement was a proposal to add some form of gender self-identification to UK law, but the content was the claim that people cannot change sex. This Guardian piece is a bit clearer:

The gender-critical views of a researcher who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex are a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act, a judge-led panel has ruled....

[Forstater] was accused of using “offensive and exclusionary” language in tweets opposing government proposals – later shelved – to reform the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to allow people to self-identify as a particular gender.

An attempt by Forstater, funded through the CrowdJustice website, to establish that her tweets, such as “men cannot change into women”, should be protected under the Equality Act failed in a test case at an employment tribunal in 2019. In April, Forstater appealed to the employment appeal tribunal (EAT).

So, Loki, I agree with you - your version is clearer. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Draft is appallingly One Sided

[edit]

The current draft regarding her views is extremely (add missing words) one sided and I do mean have been seriously extremely rewritten to be WP:UNDUE & WP:POV towards Rowling's fringe views, despite these being a minority view. You have deleted or hidden the current balance entirely. Why do we mention the support of a single trans entertainer but hide the criticism of several national and international trans specialist organisation including Mermaids, GLAAD and Stonewall that represent the views of 1000's of trans persons and whose views are far more notable. Why do we mention Bindel whose trans critical views are a minority amongst feminists, not mention it is a minority opinion and not balance it with views of more mainstream and qualified Judith Butler. What is the relevance of her domestic violence and sexual assault, does it have any relevance or why is the empty detail that she might have been tricked into becoming a man. Why are we including the Reuters report of her unsupported claim that the is a threat that people who she claims are men (questionable) are a danger to women in bathrooms as reported in reuters article of which the is no evidence with out balancing with the numerous UK and USA articles that report the is no such threat including Reuters which reported Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? the next day that, in the United States, women's rights groups said in 2016 that 200 municipalities which allowed trans people to use women's shelters reported no rise in any violence as a result; they also said that excluding transgender people from facilities consistent with their gender makes them vulnerable to assault. A few of the other articles include:

[Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate] [J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351] [Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html] [JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html] [J K Rowling, predatory men and the nuance we're all missing out https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jk-rowling-trans-people-tweets-letter-reaction-bathrooms-a9561871.html] [Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times' url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times] [Feminist writer Judith Butler has given her theory on why JK Rowling has deemed it necessary to speak out on url=https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/01/04/judith-butler-owen-jones-jk-rowling-british-feminism-transphobia/ [An open letter to J.K. Rowling https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/dear-jk-rowling/ ] President Says J.K. Rowling's Words Create Dangerous Environment for Transgender Community

This version will be thoroughly challenged if implemented. ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the proposal is an improvement over the current wording, and just needs some minor tweaks; adding a mention of "criticism by LGBT rights organizations", and perhaps removing the emphasis on "Harry Potter fans", as the fact they are fans isn't particularly relevant, should do it. I would also support removing the Cormoran Strike mention, but that is already being discussed. BilledMammal (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I do think that the current wording in the actual article is better than this draft, partially because of POV issues but also partially because this draft is just less comprehensive. This is an increasingly huge part of Rowling's notability. I think that the current section is way too short given that. Loki (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have strong opinions on the details of this section. I think it's quite overblown to say that this contributes in any way to Rowling's notability; think what you will of her, she is the author of the world's best-selling book series (with no further qualifiers). I do think Judith Butler's views are likely worth including. I also found this source, perhaps it's already been considered? A lot of it is literary analysis, which belongs elsewhere, but it does touch on her views on Trans people. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Duggan's article (doi:10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9) is the most helpful source I have found and is the base for much of this section. Secondary coverage of Judith Butler's reaction is sparse; reports are mainly interviews. This, in PinkNews (green, though with qualifications, at WP:RSP) is ok and summarizes at least two interviews she's given. I would not be averse to adding it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the correct place for this discussion or to where it was helpfully moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#The Current Draft regarding her trans views is appallingly One Sided Sorry the split over several pages has thoroughly confused me and I had no idea where was or is the correct place respond. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It has confused many of us. My suggestion is that the (premature) draft here should be marked historical so we can get back to discussing sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SG, you have repeatedly called my draft premature. In my defence, I find it very hard to discuss how content is going to look without having some sort of draft to look to as an anchor for our commentary. I thought it was odd to restrict comment to FAR participants when (as evidenced by this long discussion) there is project-wide interest in this section in particular. We had collectively assembled a list of sources which looked good; I built up a proposal based on it after that list seemed to have stabilized; people disagree about that proposal; we develop a consensus about how to improve it; we improve it; and life goes on. I find discussing sources in the abstract less helpful. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have, and yes I know, and yes I understand your well-meaning intent. But this was a very controversial aspect of the article, when we still had so much other work to do on the rest of the bio, and most editors had not yet even weighed in on the FAR at all, much less the issues of what weight to assign what sources and how much space in the article was needed to do this topic its DUE justice (I have yet to fully express my opinions on the draft, because I believe it to be premature). Now the draft has created alarm because it was put up before we had any consensus even on those basics.. Slow and steady wins the race, and the whole strength of the way FAR was designed is that it is and can be a slow and very deliberative process; there is no need to rush. We still have much work to do here. We are not "restrict[ing] comment to FAR participants" by keeping everything in one place, announcing a central place for discussions on article talk so that any one who wants to weigh in knows where to do that (before this split, that place was the main FAR page), and proceeding methodically.
    I disagree with the source list, the amount of emphasis placed on some of the sources, and what I view to be misrepresentation of some of the sources used, so there you have the problem; I have been drug in to that premature debate when I still have not written the basic bio portions of this article, which I have been trying to do for a week. If we can't write the core bio aspects of the article before branching to three pages for a difficult discussion, we will not succeed in anything in this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact remains, AleatoryPonderings, that your draft completely ignores the best literary and academic sources on the trans-related controversies, while also ignoring the responses of mainstream LGBT+ and feminist organizations and most other public figures. The current version (current at this time; I am not bothering with a diff) is hopelessly cherry-picked, BOTHSIDESist and WHITEWASHing. This is not policy-compliant for any article, much less a FAR BLP. It is as though you had not read any of the sources cited in the RfC about her trans-related views in the lead, and were prepared to simply take Crossroads' word for what the best sources are - talk about BIASED sourcing! Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid unnecessary personalizing; I have no doubts that AP's first draft was well-meaning, but this is why I suggested we needed a source-based discussion before we ever put pen to paper. A slow, steady and deliberative approach is possible at FAR: there is no need to start accusing others of bias in all caps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I don't think even Crossroads would object to my statement that he is biased in his selection of sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do object, for the record. Crossroads -talk- 06:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a good faith attempt based mainly on the academic sources cited. The Guardian and Reuters are hardly biased or unreliable (see WP:RSP). I do not plan to respond to any further comments here because—and this, I acknowledge, is partially my own fault—this meta discussion is not particularly helpful. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with AP, and am going to unwatch (for now) this page, as I need to seriously focus on writing the early parts of the bio, and seek to seriously avoid personalized discussions. It was a good-faith effort on AP's part, and there is no need for more heat than light here. Unwatching, following the main FAR page, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, AleatoryPonderings, you have ignored Hotine as well as Keller. And your use of Duggan seems strangely selected, at least to me - the choice of mainstream broadsheet/news sources seems equally selective, but that might be Crossroads' influence for all I know. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hotine appears to have no formal qualifications, and is writing in a surgical journal about non-surgical matters - it doesn't appear to be a suitable reference. The revuu magazine article appears to be an essay (an opinion piece?) written by someone with a BA in Film and Literary Studies. Again, it doesn't appear to be a suitable reference. BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hotine has published a peer-reviewed paper that is in scope for the journal in which it is published - it is therefore a higher-quality reference than anything else currently cited in the section, with the possible exception of the Duggan article. The revuu article is in a literary magazine, appears to be general long-form writing rather than "opinion", and as a contribution to a literary magazine is therefore a more proximate source, relevant to Rowling's sphere of cultural production, than the broadsheet news pieces.
    You seem oddly strongly motivated to dismiss some of the better sources available on this topic, for some reason. You have certainly not given any evidence that peer-reviewed scholarship and literary long-form writing are not suitable for this topic compared, e.g., to broadsheets. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion continuing here, though I would appreciate an explanation on the meaning of: You seem oddly strongly motivated to dismiss some of the better sources available on this topic, for some reason. BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested elsewhere, I have difficulty understanding why you object to higher quality sources for a section where lower-quality sources are used. AFAICT, you appear to be pursuing by other means the fairly extreme remove from body and lede !vote you offered in this RfC, (unfortunately you did not date your amended !vote, so a diff is not readily available, but it is the first comment under your name). Your position came nowhere near consensus, but the POV behind that position seems to animate your arguments on this issue. Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff you are looking for. I'm still not quite sure what you're suggesting, but I am sure it doesn't belong here. If you wish to discuss this further or in the future, please take it to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gender politics could barely be less in scope for a surgery journal. And BilledMammal's position did quite well in the RfC, even if it didn't prevail. Crossroads -talk- 06:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your first statement is WP:OR and your second statement is false. How many other editors !voted for removal of the issue from the article body? A negligible number. Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads you are clearly at error, I am unable to see BilledMammal's argument for the wholesale removal of the coverage of Rowling's views on trans people being supported by anyone else in that RfC. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I misremembered their position as just 'not in lead'... but my main point stands. Crossroads -talk- 00:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So until this morning I didn't know this page existed, thought Sandy had created it, see this query and suggestion, which is obviously wrong.

We should consolidate suggested sources in a single place, either Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Best sources for Transgender people section or, if it's decided to carry on here, then pin a thread at the top (not here on the talk page, but on the front page where the Suggested Draft currently lives) to park sources in. That's step one: gather, consolidate and post suggested sources.

We don't have a huge amount of space to work with in the article itself, so only a few of the suggested sources will make the cut. Discussing which to use should be step two. Once we've done a literature review, evaluated which sources to use, read them, assimilated them, then step three is to start writing, discussing. And repeat, and repeat, etc. until we reach consensus. It won't happen quickly. Victoria (tk) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR I know this is way beyond anyone's pay grade, but can a coord weigh in terms of where to discuss sourcing for the transgender section in J. K. Rowling?
In the comment above I floated the idea of having a pinned and dedicated section at the top of a page (not necessarily talk page) where sources can be parked. Discussion can take place in threads below. We did this back in the day when Karanacs and I [cough]... [cough] um ... were active on the Catholic Church page. Some of you remember those fifteen or so FACs, RfCs etc, etc.
Sorry, my ears are cold from shoveling snow, and now I'm plowing through comments duplicated or triplicated on multiple pages and want to try to impose some order. Victoria (tk) 02:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not FAR, but that seems like it would be helpful in avoiding a trainwreck. Perhaps a numbered list of sources, and then a discussion sub-section for each source? BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading this page today; disappointed to see personalizing continued after I unwatched. BilledMammal, my thoughts were the same; that is, to bring discussion back to a source list before we start writing … back to a numbered list accompanied by a survey to gather opinions on the sources and begin to see if there is any consensus on what to use, how much to use, etc. But again, in the vein of FAR allowing a very slow and deliberative approach, it would not hurt to wait a day or three before starting such a section (back on the main FAR page) because of the unhelpful heat that has been generated on this page, and with some discussions degenerating to statements about other editors’ motives. Ample discussion of sources first, without personalizing, followed by a survey (some of those in the original list are already clearly out, eg, I put up Vox only to question if I had bracketed the date range on all issues) which seeks to get an idea, yea or nay, of where editors stand on sources put forward so far. With no writing until there is some consensus on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Transgender_draft&oldid=1075655777"