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

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 4 as Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archived

Archive 1

1. Article stats at FAR initiation
2. Notifications not done: when FAR was launched, notifications were not done.
3. Biographies - to cite or not to cite: questions about which basic bios to cite (used Smith, Kirk)
4. Proposal to trim "Politics" section: first trim of Politics section
5. Accio: list of copyright violations the article was hosting, all corrected.
6. Converting Awards and honours to prose: a listy Awards section was converted to prose, sub-article created
7. Additional sources: some literary sources proposed but not used
8. To Do List: first list, now done, copied from main FAR page
9. Archives: discussion about setting up talk archive
10. Notes from bio reading; issues resolved from Smith biography

Archive 2

1. Update 8 Jan: archived from main FAR page
2. Politics 2: Discussion of how to characterize her politics
3. Spanish source - needs evalution: discussion of El Pais
4. Reception: addition to Reception from sandbox
5. Philanthropy: question about more general sourcing
6. Dashes: endashes or emdashes?
7. Notes and queries from Kirk: Kirk material to be worked in
8. Literary analysis redux: more on literary analysis
9. Pugh: general biographical info, Philanthropy, Honours and awards, Political views, and Transgender people: summary of Pugh for weight
10. Promoting literacy: content removed
11. Mendelian inheritance: content removed
12. To do: Resolved: from To do list
13. Trimming: content cut for size
14. Sentence of title case in citations: used sentence, converted chapters to cite encyclopedia
15. Citation overkill: resolved except Transgender
16. Small points: Johnbod BrEng ce
17. Legal/press daughter privacy: content worked in
18. Alkestrand: Alkestrand unused, removed
19. Relationship with father: emphasis corrected
20. Muggles need fixing: muggles used before defined, corrected
21. Reversion in literary analysis section
22. Z1720's comments: Scottish Arts Council and ISBNs
23. Laird of Killiechassie: removed
24. Rita Skeeter: removed

Archive 3 (Transgender section)

1. Drafting: Draft 12 Jan; The Current Draft regarding her trans views is appallingly One Sided; Discussion of split discussion
2. Checking in
3. Best sources for Transgender people section initial list of sources
4. Initial queries about how to proceed with work

Archive 4

1. Update 14 January: from main FAR page
2. Cursed Child: weight question addressed
3. Secrets of ... April release: commented out until April release
4. Sectioning
5. Reception/politics of Harry Potter
6. Template blindness
7. "Argue"
8. Text size
9. Ordering
10. Style & allusions, paragraph 2
11. Aza24 comments
12. HF comments
13. Archiving
14. Update 1 February 2022 from main FAR page
15. To Do list, (parial, resolved from talk)
16. Tackling the lead, installed on 2 March

Archive 5

1. To do list
2. Generalized statement about social media, internet usage installed
3. Query about why work is on an archiveX page

Ping list

@A. C. Santacruz, Barkeep49, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, LokiTheLiar, Newimpartial, Olivaw-Daneel, Sdkb, Vanamonde93, and Victoriaearle: I believe this is everyone who has weighed in on the two talk pages regarding drafting the Transgender people section (pls ping if I have missed anyone). I have started a section #Discussion of source list above, but here, you might indicate for future reference whether you prefer or not to be pinged on this page. Since restructuring and reworking of the literary analysis portions of the article is underway, we might take advantage of the delay to register views above on best sources. I will also notify Talk:J. K. Rowling of the source discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm preparing an update, which brings to mind that we might have a list of who has the page watchlisted and prefers never to be pinged, who always wants a ping, and anything in between. Please sign on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Never needed, but don't mind if you ping me: I have this page watchlisted, check it regularly, never need to be pinged, but don't mind if you do ping me (although I only get pings via email, which I don't check as often as I do my watchlist). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Never needed unless you want a direct response from me. I'm watching everything and pings slightly freak me out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Same preference here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Watchlisted. but there's too much to follow here, so please ping. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Same preference. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Same preference. Loki (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Same preference (many thanks for setting up this ping list SandyGeorgia). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Same preference. Thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please ping me if you a) need a direct response, or b) are discussing her literature, broadly speaking (anything currently under influences/themes/analysis/reception). Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Casually interested but not watching; ping me if there's anything big like an RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not able to pay attention outside of pings to this discussion but am happy to be pinged at times when my input may be useful. I really wish I were in a place to be able to contribute a lot more than that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Best no ping. I've fallen behind, cannot catch up, and when I am pinged feel pressured to get here and try to address issues which never goes well when not feeling great. Will probably unwatch for a while. Victoria (tk) 22:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Adding User:Sideswipe9th per this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Adding User:Crossroads per this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Text size

User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6#Rowling text size SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Nitpicks

As we wait to see how the interim lead does, before we proceed to the TG section, looking at straggling nitpicks ... please add if you have any! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Rowling has a difficult relationship with the press and has tried to influence the type of coverage she receives.. What "celebrity" doesn't have a difficult relationship with the (nasty) UK press, or hasn't tried to influence coverage? I am wondering if we can improve on this. This is sourced to Sattler and Stanfill, which I can't view. What do they say? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Have we sufficiently explained that the reason "when she conceived the idea for the Harry Potter series while on a delayed train from Manchester to London" is in the lead is that (as she has said according to many sources) she had fully developed in her mind the seven-series plots before she started writing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not that up on what is typically included under "Influences", but while scholarly sources may not mention it, she does, repeatedly ... we haven't mentioned the influence of her mother in this section. We did cover it in the personal life (She later said that the Mirror of Erised is about her mother's death ... and ... Anne had a strong influence on her daughter ... etc); is that adequate ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I see that section as being about literary influences, and also I think the information about her mother flows well where it is; but if someone wanted to collate and relocate it to influences, I would not object. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  No strong opinion from me, defer to all of you, who know better how literary articles are typically constructed. Meaning; don't spend too much time on this :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice to avoid having multiple sentences in a row start with "She". It doesn't read well and comes off as rather mechanical. I would think that two in a row is ok but three in a row or more seems like it's hurting the prose. For example: "She was named to ... She has used the ... She co-founded the"; "She was writing Harry Potter ... She had a ... She later said that"; I think these are the only two, though it might be worth double checking for more. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Better? I didn't check for others ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Much better; I double checked and did not find any other instances.

The only other thing nitpick I have is wondering if ref 2 in the lead's 2nd paragraph is really needed. Otherwise, I commend everyone involved in this process for a remarkable improvement in the quality of prose, content, referencing and information for this article! – Aza24 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to losing it; defer to others. Thanks, Aza24! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done, I missed that this was dealt with long ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, late to the party on this. My main thought is that a line more should be given to the subject/world of HP, perhaps saying it is set in a somewhat mildly alternative reality UK for example, where the wizarding world goes about it business with the non-wizard population unaware of them. Generally fine. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• I just realized that MOS:PAGERANGE changed sometime in the last years, when I wasn't following, and that full page ranges (rather than truncating final digits) are now called for. So, I'll be going through and re-fixing my fixes on page ranges (when not iPad typing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

   Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

To do stragglers

From earlier To do list, now archived:

• I would like citations to twitter to be replaced. If those tweets in particular are what caused controversy, then they ought to be citable to secondary sources; if those tweets in particular did not receive attention from other sources, then us including them is original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oxford comma usage isn't standardized; should likely be checked as we finish up. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod from your edits yesterday, has Oxford comma usage been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Starting on gender section

See also Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3

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

Pinging only those who have asked for pings at #Ping list (please add yourself to that list if you have a preference). @Johnbod, Olivaw-Daneel, LokiTheLiar, Bodney, Sideswipe9th, and Crossroads: Per their preferences, I have left off AleatoryPonderings, A. C. Santacruz, Vanamonde93, Sdkb, and Barkeep49; I would ping them, along with others who have participated in this FAR, if/as we approach consensus (or if/as we are unable to gain consensus and need more feedback). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Housekeeping items as we get going:

• A list of older FAR discussions can be found at #Archived; gender discussions will go to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3 if/as the page size here becomes unwieldy. If you start a section, and find it resolved, please mark that it's OK for me to archive, so the page size stays manageable. Sometimes, if the page grows too large, I am forced to go ahead and archive; please AGF :) :)
• The readable prose WP:SIZE of J. K. Rowling is updated at #Text size. I haven't updated since the addition of two sentences about philanthropy in Ukraine, and one sentence added this week per this recent discussion; those aren't big enough additions to make the work of doing the math worth it-- the trend is still the same and the numbers are close enough. (Of course, if someone insists, I will do the work.)
• I anticipate that our work will proceed something like it did in Tackling the lead, where we went through quite a few iterations before we came to consensus.
• A blank template that I typically use for proposals is at the top of User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5. (I seem less able than most to sort a proposed wording change unless I can see the whole thing, side-by-side: YMMV.)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Pugh

If anyone else needs the rest of the snipped content from page 7 from Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2#Pugh: general biographical info, Philanthropy, Honours and awards, Political views, and Transgender people, please send me an email. For copyright, I can't (or shouldn't) excerpt the whole page here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Update

Just to keep everyone updated, I've been plugging away at an initial draft to trim the transgender section, but have taken my time to revisit all past commentary, so slow going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

First draft ready

I was frustrated while attempting to respect all of the commentary, requests and past discussion and balance the use of the sources, as sources sometimes disappear once you access them too many times. If I missed some important sources, I apologize, but in frustration, I am just going to put up what I've got. I could not find some of the supporters/opposers mentioned in mainstream sources, but I think/hope I covered the gist of it. I hope I have dealt with:

• WP:CITATION OVERKILL
• WP:PROSELINE
• First sentence fails verification (!!!), did not cite that original Forstater case was overturned on appeal
• Replace primary sources
• Use newer sources, scholarly where available
• Trim verbosity and litany of who supports her who doesn't
• Deal with some issue
• Court decision due in May 2022 makes it hard(er) to summarize Forstater case
• Sources differ on what exactly Forstater tweeted before she was fired versus after, so glossed
• Terminology? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Is_%22anti-trans%22_equivalent_to_%22transphobic%22? ... I tried to use both?
• "transphobic" in lead is never explicitly addressed in body ... it's sort of hidden in there, but needs clarity, added that
• Considerable background missing as to context of all tweets
• Political views of J. K. Rowling was missing that Fiennes (Voldemort) supports Rowling, so that changed what could have been an easier statement about all the Potter film stars criticizing her.

Will start a new section on drafts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Another initial query: status of the lead

I don't usually discuss the lead until the body is all wrapped up; leads are last, as they summarize the body. But in this case, I'm going to deviate from my Standard Operating Procedure, to see if we have a point of agreement that may help us determine the direction of work.

In all of the discussions so far, I don't believe anyone has taken the position that the lead is so unacceptable that a new RFC is in order; it's possible I missed something though. There seems to be a general feeling that the article is at FA standard now, with some trimming and cleanup needed in transgender material, but with no complaints about the lead summary.

Would it be correct to assume that no one is wildly dissatisfied with the RFC-consenus lead we have now, with the exception of one minor word change mentioned by Sideswipe9th on talk? (And I would change one "but" to an "and", but all that is another discussion, for later.). If that is the case, it gives a better idea of where we're headed on the trimming needed, and we could dispense with our comments/concerns about the lead early on (recognizing that consensus could change as we work).

Comments? If you are dissatisfied with the lead to the extent that you would consider it a deal-breaker on continued FA status, please speak up here so we can know if we also need to work on it. I'll add my views after others have weighed in, but they basically amount to "not the best ever for an FA, but I can live with what we've got, subject to discussion of the "some" and one "but" to "and". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the lead as it stands, and believe it is not a barrier to FA status. I would like to reserve judgement on the final sentence of the lead, the one on Rowling's views on transgender people, until that section is revised; it's hard to judge if it's accurately summarizing something that hasn't been written yet. Otherwise, I don't see any need for changes at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies again if this in the wrong place but I am answering your question (it can be discussed elsewhere/later) personally I do worry that the trans lead sentence is written sentence has a wrong implication, "criticised as transphobic by .... some feminists, but have received support from other feminists To me it implies that some or a few feminists are critical but ALL other feminists agree with Rowling, which is not the case. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Similar to Sideswipe9th's comment on talk ... so I think we should be able to revisit that via a few simple word changes, without triggering a new RFC. Will see what others think before starting a work plan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The article mentions three feminists:

1. Judith Butler (critical of Rowling), but I could find no mainstream source that mentioned her
2. Julie Bindel (supportive), The Guardian, adds "Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel ... "
3. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (supportive), her own opinion piece and Evening Standard

On the other hand, scores of higher quality sources mention the actors' positions, yet they aren't in the lead. Considering that an entire RFC was conducted around "feminism" in the lead, what are the other sources to indicate this belongs in the lead at all? Perhaps I have missed them in my frustration with paywalled sources, but as of now, this looks like more than an issue with where to put the word some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect to the placement of the word some. From memory, which I'll be happy to strike or amend this if my recall is not accurate. One of the points of contention in that RfC was the equivalence implied by the text, that the number of feminists who supported Rowling is (roughly) equal to the number who criticise her. At least one of the proposed replacements clarified this, by explicitly stating that Rowling's views were criticised by mainstream feminists and feminist organisations, with support coming from a smaller number of fringe trans-exclusionary feminists.

To answer the specific question, I'll need to re-read the article (both in its current and past states) to answer that, which I'll try and do tomorrow. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the RFC came to no consensus, would it be more expedient to come up with sources? Because the sources I've seen so far do not warrant this being in the lead at all (per due weight). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, but I have this vague memory that it was supported in the text sometime around the date of the RfC. If that's the case, then it makes finding the sources easier as it'll just be a case of copy/pasting here for review. There were also other sources discussed in the RfC that weren't used in the text. You mentioned before about being frustrated by paywalled sources, would you be able to list those in case any of us here have access and can summarise? Also general note on paywalled media, like The Telegraph or The Times, I've found that checking the article URL in the various web archiving sites like archive.today or web.archive.org often unlocks the full text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That text is unchanged since the article entered FAR. The RFC closed on 1 January. The text is mostly unchanged since 30 November. Here is 9 November. Older versions have one bit of additional text: "and some feminists", cited to Thorpe (which we still have, and states that "an array of feminists" supported Rowling. So we are at the same place. An entire contentious RFC was held over three names, one unmentioned in mainstream sources, one with marginal mention, and one generalized statement from The Guardian. Not one of the three having broad enough coverage to even be in the article. And yet, the statement that ended up in the lead goes the opposite direction of what those sources support, and none of them are due weight enough to warrant being in the lead at all. And information is in the lead that was and is not in the body and not supported by sources. It appears to me (and this is something I only realized yesterday) that the RFC was a supreme waste of time, and was all about apparently original research in the article, attempting to label and separate feminists into groups. So ... how to fix this now??? We have a bogus RFC that saddles us with unsupported text in the lead. Crossroads can you shed any light here? You have referred to the RFC several times; what happened? Unless we can find some sources to support the text in the lead, we have a faulty lead sentence and I don't know by what process we fix that now ... hold another RFC only three months after the last one?

Re paywalled sources, yes, I try that trick. Sometimes I find info that would be helpful when I am iPad editing (see the top of my talk page for explanation about the tree that fell on me), and when I am next at the computer and try to pull up same, I find it paywalled. So I can't remember what I find and lose, but it wasn't relevant to this portion of text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, what do you mean by the statement that ended up in the lead goes the opposite direction of what those sources support? There are many potential "opposite direcrions" that could be taken, and I don't want to mistake your meaning. Could you spell that out a little? Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I am referring to the whole matter of where to place the infamous some. We have sources so far for one feminist critical of Rohling, and two plus an array supporting her (and none of those showing any weight to warrant being in the lead at all, as far as I know at this point, but I am in the process of reviewing every link on the RFC now). Even if we were to add the word some somewhere, it would not be where it is now (on "some feminists" referring apparently only to one, Judith Butler). What am I missing? I am going through the entire RFC; right now I'm starting on the list of sources listed by Aquillion at 07:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC). As I said earlier, it would probably be faster for us to start over and see if we can locate any sources to support this text, other than the one Guardian "array of feminists". And it looks to me like the RFC missed the boat on where a real statement could be made about most/some, as that was in Hollywood re the list of performers. But I'm still looking at sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

So far, I'm only coming up with Dave Chapelle re categorization of position on Rowling relative to feminism. Does anyone else have sources for the statements in the article now? I've checked most of Aquillon's list of 20 sources at 07:57 on the RFC. It does not appear to me that most of the RFC participants actually even looked at whether the terms were supported; someone please correct me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to dig too deeply into the matter of "who supports and who criticizes Rowling", but plenty of her critics on this issue - aside from Judith Butler - are feminists, including Cynthia Nixon, Tegan & Sara, A J Sass, and Tinashe (that being a totally arbitrary selection I pulled together using only secondary, independent sources). So I'm not seeing how or some...other could be inaccurate wording as far as feminists are concerned, much less misleading as you seem to imply. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you have such sources can you please provide them? Right now (and during the RFC), there is unsupported text in the article. Having sources might resolve the dilemma without the need for a new RFC. We can't really avoid "dig[ging] too deeply into the matter of 'who supports and who criticizes Rowling'," as that is what is stated in the RFC-imposed lead, and I don't see how we can remove it without a new RFC; does anyone propose any other way around this dilemma, resulting from a poorly-formed RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you mean by It does not appear to me that most of the RFC participants actually even looked at whether the terms were supported - are you referring to the terms proposed for the lead, or the term "feminists" or something else? On the former question, Sideswipe9th and I added and discussed additional RS besides those introduced by Aquilion, as can be seen in this diff. Hell, my whole motivation for introducing Option E into the RfC was as a result of the reading I did for that discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I am referring to this statement in the lead:

• These (refers back to "her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights") have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

We need high quality sources/due weight references to those "some feminists" who criticised her and "feminists and individuals" who supported her. Master's theses are not reliable sources. Thanks for the diff above, which I hadn't yet gotten to. For example, I see Vanity Fair supporting Cynthia Nixon; that is not in the article, nor are there sources supporting any of the names you mention (which makes one wonder if participants in the RFC were even examining the article). If you can give me that list of sources (more quickly than I can find them myself), we can more easily and quickly sync the body and lead. Cynthia Nixon is not identified as a feminist in the Vanity Fair article or in her own article, so from whence come these divisions by labels, if not original research? All we really have as of now is one statement from The Guardian about "an array of feminists"; we hardly have due weight in high-quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

To take this in small pieces, for Cynthia Nixon as feminist we do indeed have multiple, reliable sources; the Crossroads position that it has to be the same sources that indicate Nixon's feminism that also indicate her opposition to Rowling's stance on Trans issues is a mistaken (potentially TENDentious) reading of policy, in my view.

It is certainly true that the LGBTQ organizations' positions on Rowling's stance on trans issues are better documented than those of feminists - can we agree on that, at least, or is that also part of the sourcing that you find suspect? There is another category of commentators - human rights groups - that were also fairly consistent in their criticism of Rowling's comments, according to reliable sources. It might be worth including them as well.

I'm not sure how you're interpreting the RfC, but it was not organized as a referendum on the elements of the status quo of the discussion of these issues of the lead - it became a back-door endorsement of the (flawed) status quo because of the No Consensus close. Editors could not decide whether to endorse one of the (also flawed) specific proposals to change the language, to decide to remove the mention from the lede, or to retain a mention in the lede using language to be developed later (my proposal). I am confident that the existing language would not have been chosen in a bottom-up, 'tabula rasa process based on the sources, but I am equally convinced that policy-based consensus would not decide to remove mention of the issue, based on the currently available sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't personalize on this page; your statements above would have been equally understood without the tendentious personalization or singling out any individudal's views: please remove them so as not to derail this discussion.

I don't know or care what anyone's opinions were in poorly positioned, chaotic RFC; anyone with a keyboard can influence an RFC-- that is not the case at FAC or FAR, where WP:WIAFA must be upheld.

We have text in the article's lead that is not supported anywhere in the article, and I'd like to find the easiest way to solve that without having to hold a new RFC. Yes, to state that feminists per se were aligned for or against Rohling requires sources that state that, just as The Guardian does-- not our WP:SYNTH of sources, or breach of WP:DUE to draw a conclusion not stated in the preponderance of high-quality sources. I have searched every name you gave above, and come up empty. Most curiously, the Cynthia Nixon example supports what I now see in the sources, which is the due weight should have been accorded to performers, rather than feminists, in the lead, as that's what the majority of sources are concerned with and explicitly mention.

I am seeking solutions here, not personalization. We have a faulty lead based on a poorly formed RFC: how can we fix that? Those who attended the RFC might opine here whether a) we can simply drop "feminism" from the lead, and b) whether we can exchange it for something like "leading actors" as well supported by sources. We had a faulty RFC: what's the solution now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I have struck my reference to a particular editor, though I find your characterization of that reference (as contentious personalization) to be much more inflammatory than my original comment (and I would appreciate you striking it in return).

As far as the formulation of the lead, I see the status quo as having two essential aspects: (1) that some have criticized the tweets as transphobic, while others have supported Rowling and (2) who has taken what view. My sense is that the basic structure (1) has much better support - from the RfC (and previous discussions), from the community, and from the sources - than does the current version of (2). So I think a bottom-up approach to "who holds what view" might work, which is why I was asking you how you felt about the sourcing for "LGBT rights organizations". Performers have mostly been critical but obviously some have supported Rowling, and "gender critical" activists have been lavish in their support. So if we can come up with a balanced construction that doesn't mention feminists at all, I would be fine with that - the underlying requirement is to answer the inevitable "by whom?" citation tag were the text to say simply that her tweets had been criticized as transphobic but were defended by others. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Right now, I'll accept anything that will a) gain consensus among participants here, to b) avoid a new RFC, and c) allow us to move forward when we are so close. If a re-formulation of this small aspect of the lead is a possibility, we might leave that until after we finish drafting the transgender section, and return to it later. I agree that the fastest easiest solution at this point is to remove mention of feminism from the lead, but I have no sense at all of whether that will generate controversy. You mentioned rights organizations, but avoiding digging in to any specific group will get us there fastest. I wonder if the best way out of this dilemma is just to broadly generalize ... we don't need to specify any individuals or groups when we have so many sources all over the place:

• These have been both criticised as transphobic (we have tons of sources to support that) and upheld as supporting women's rights. (see Guardian as sample, as well as Duggan p. 2 and others)

If you can live with something like that, we can formulate a proposal, but that might be best done after we finish our workshopping of the transgender section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I can certainly live without mention of feminism; my problem with "upheld as supporting women's rights" is that this seems to lean into a "criticized by LBGTQ but supported by women" framing that simply does not fit either reality or the way the reliable sources depict reality. Feminists and women (overlapping groups) take both critical and supportive stances (but mostly critical, when push comes to shove) and men (mostly celebrities in this context) also take both critical and supportive stances. (I am not attributing any particular framing to you, SandyGeorgia, just noting genre of objection to some of the language you propose, which will need to be navigated at some point.)

I do agree that the best time to propose new lede language is after there is substantial agreement on the relevant section, per LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It would no longer say "criticised by LBGTQ", and considering all the performers criticising it as transphobic without regard to LBGTQ status, why need it quantify or specify the criticism to certain groups? This general formulation does not exclude overlapping groups; in fact, embraces them. (PS, many men are feminists.) We have no source that specifies broadly which group thinks what with the exception of The Guardian "broad array of feminists" supporting her, and another Guardian source that qualifies "leading actors" criticising her; one source does not due weight for lead inclusion make.

Here's why I'm after some tentative (non-binding) agreement now. We have an article that cannot pass FAR in its current state; it has a lead unsupported by sources (which we only discovered yesterday). If the large group of participants on this FAR can come to some consensus (after we finish the body) that we can present on article talk as having our consensus, we have a better chance of that being accepted without controversy. If we can't do that, we're spinning our wheels on FAR. Once an article is defeatured, it turns to black goo on the internet because you lose WP:FAOWN and WP:WIAFA: we all lose. We don't need to do this now, but we do need to know that it's doable when the time comes.

If you reject my general formulation, how would you do it in a way that is likely to gain consensus and is verifiable with due weight to high quality sources? That is, the launch point should probably be Duggan, Pugh, or something of that caliber. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What about:

• These have been viewed alternately as transphobic or upholding women's rights.

... completely removed the words support/criticise? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

My own view is that this is going too far into FALSEBALANCE interpretation, more than guesstimates of who holds what view are likely to do - have been viewed ... as transphobic is supported by numerous, quality sources. What is the sourcing for viewed as ... upholding women's rights? Should we really be presenting both of these interpretations in parallel? Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I listed (some of) those in my post at 20:29, 28 March 2022 ... But I'm not tied to anything; again, what would you do to resolve this dilemma? It's think-outside-the-box time, unless we want to run a new RFC. And even if we did opt to run a new RFC, it's probably too early, and we'd have to generate options for the RFC anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Quick history recap; though my memory is not perfect, I pieced this together from the linked discussions: it was originally added in February 2021, and for a long time the text said something very close to, have received criticism from some LGBT organisations and support from some feminists. At some point, this was whittled down to These views have led to controversy. In October 2021, a large discussion began when this was objected to, and in which I proposed reverting to the February version. What developed was the current version. The reason this sentence says "some feminists" in opposition despite the lack of textual support for (plural) feminists in the body is because some editors object to the only feminists being mentioned being the Rowling supporters.

Sandy, I recommend you read over the October 2021 discussion, especially the sources noted there - some of which likely have not found their way here. (There's also a link there to the February 2021 discussion in Archive 8 if you're interested.) Then, as you know, there was the massive (95 participants) November/December RfC, in which the official closure was no consensus (i.e. status quo remains) and a plurality of votes were specifically for Option A (the status quo). Beyond this there was division between full removal and a version which, in the view of myself and others, was far worse in unsupported text.

In case Newimpartial's question here is floating the idea of just mentioning the "transphobic" accusation without any mention of the main faction that supported her, this is contrary to numerous reliable sources clearly delineating these things. This would throw out dozens and dozens of votes from the RfC, who voted for options with that in place, and the closure for which left that version in place.

Personally, Sandy, I have no issue with your proposed summary sentence, but I doubt some others will accept it, and the recent RfC carries a lot of weight. I don't think rejecting the RfC status quo will lead to a better summary developing among the much smaller group here. I do very much want this article to remain an FA, especially after all the work put into it - the only thing currently unsupported is 'opposition from some feminists', correct? Can we find a way to support that in the body? I don't doubt it to be true at all. A quick additional mention of HP actors, if that is felt to be necessary, probably wouldn't be an issue.

Ultimately we do need to mention that who, broadly, is on each side of this social controversy. All of that is well sourced, but describing it concisely in the lead means editors need to put aside any personal conviction on who the 'true feminists' are or anything else and stick to the bird's eye view espoused in the best sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Crossroads; I appreciate particularly the detailed history of how an FA came to have text in the lead unsupported by any sources. I followed the RFC as it was happening, but knowing the article was likely to appear at FAR, and wanting to remain strictly neutral, I intentionally avoided seeing what position individuals took or what their reasoning was. When reviewing an article at FAC or FAR, I consider it imperative that I initially only look at what is on the page and in the sources, as I frequently have to critique writing of Wikifriends and associates, and don't want to be influenced. For the same reasons, I intentionally completely avoided visiting this text until the rest of the article was up to snuff. When I have read through the RFC, I have avoided reading through comments all the way to the sig line, unless they include sources. So that is my state of knowledge, which only changed a few days ago when I started trying to draft and discovered for the first time that the article does not have (nor do there seem to exist) sources supporting the text.

I did a lot of reading last night, and now have new sources and several ideas for helping clear up part of this. I think we all agree that revisiting the RFC would derail all of our work, so I want to find something workable, and I think I have enough sources now for putting forward proposals. Even if it takes us quite a few iterations to come up with something we can all accept, I at least feel now that it's doable within the restrictions the RFC left us under. I have quite a few possibilities for how to repair this, and will put them forward when not iPad typing, and as we continue work on the draft. Thanks again for the history, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Crossroads, I was not floating the idea of leaving out Rowlings' supporters, which would be daft. I was objecting to the interpolation, viewed as ... upholding women's rights, unless there is substantial RS support for this as the reason some have supported her. If, for example, the only sourcing for this is those of her supporters who happen to be "gender-critical feminists", then I think it would be more neutral to note who these supporters are (gender-critical feminists), than to try to explicate their logic - which necessarily involves POV issues.

In retrospect, I have the feeling that the whole "some feminists ... other feminists" business could have been avoided by specifying which feminists defend Rowling: gender-critical ones. My objection, at least, to the February 2021 text was that it painted Rowling's supporters as LGBTQ and feminists as supporting her, which is false on both counts. Plenty of non-LGBTQ people, including actors, human rights groups, and feminists (especially cultural producers) have criticized Rowling's tweets, while her defenders are not at all limited to feminists (I would hazard a guess that not all the UK Conservative Party's culture warriors are regarded as feminists, for instance). I have no objection to any form of inclusion of this in the lead that doesn't mislead our readers. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I think now I understand the gist of everyone's main concerns. I have several ideas forming somewhere in the depths of my still-uncaffeinated-brain this morning, but roughly the biggest roadblock with all my formulations is this. Sources give us several ways to categorize those opposed to Rowling: we have sources supporting due weight to the LGBTQ charities, the leading actors, and even the Potter fansites if we feel they are warranted in the lead. So I have no problem giving the opposition their due weight in the lead. (I still don't have sources to explicitly put feminists in that group.) It is much harder to categorize her supporters, although I did find several new sources mentioning feminists in last night's reading. The problem then is ending up with a sentence that is very specific as to who opposed her, while a vaguer generalization about some individuals that supported her. The only "group" identified in sources is feminists, which takes us back to something like "feminists and some individuals". But it seems that the core dispute here was around the use of feminists in the lead. Thus, I'll end up putting forward several ideas (once I gather the new sources together), and we'll just have to see what we can come up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus based on the issues raised above, could I get your opinion as to what leeway we have to repair the lead, considering the no consensus close? If the participants in this FAR (which has been well advertised at each step on the article talk page) come to consensus to adjust the lead to reflect reliable sources and due weight (which the current lead does not), would that be in breach of the RFC close? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

PS, just noting that this has been one of the best attended (if not the best attended) FAR I've ever seen; it is rare to have so many editors participating, and we have a good number for forming consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, since it was a no-consensus close (Convenience link) I don't think there is much to say. I think one point that comes through in that RfC is that you need to be super careful on how to write and source the lead statements, in particular to not generalize/extrapolate too much and to keep it in line with how the rest of the article discusses the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jo-Jo! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, and Vanamonde93: I realize this section is a lot to read, and there is no hurry on this, but when you have time, could you tell us if any of the literary sources you have (I already have added Duggan and Pugh) specifically address the concerns here: that is, do they have anything mentioning or categorizing support/opposition to Rowling's views on the transgender tweets along cultural lines, feminism, women's rights, and similar? If so, perhaps email me those sources if you are able? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

New sources

@Crossroads and Newimpartial: here are the sources I found last night. I think these will provide the possibility of more broadly framing the controversy as it relates to differences among feminists (Pape also frames it as a freedom of speech issue, which makes me lean towards combining Pape with a much briefer mention of that issue from the Russell Award). I also found defense of Rohling among rights charities, conservative opinion, and the like, but I've checked today, and since they are not covered by any secondary sources, not usable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Kottasová, Ivana; Andrew, Scottie (20 December 2019). "J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists". CNN. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
• "JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism". BBC News. Reuters. 11 June 2020. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
• Pape, Madeleine (2022). "Feminism, trans justice, and speech rights: a comparative perspective". Law and Contemporary Problems. 85 (1): 215–240. Retrieved 29 March 2022.

Workshopping the transgender section

For background, please see notes at #Starting on gender section, #First draft ready and #Another initial query: status of the lead. I don't know if I got it all, but tired, and posting what I've done so we can get moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft 1

Current (497 words)

Ideas (355 words)

In December 2019, Rowling tweeted her support for Maya Forstater, a British woman who initially lost her employment tribunal case (Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development) but won on appeal against her former employer, the Center for Global Development, after her contract was not renewed due to her comments about transgender people. Rowling wrote on Twitter, "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?" On 6 June 2020, Rowling tweeted criticism of the phrase "people who menstruate", and stated "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives." Rowling's tweets were criticised by GLAAD, who called them "cruel" and "anti-trans". Some members of the cast of the Harry Potter film series criticised Rowling's views or spoke out in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leung, as did Fantastic Beasts lead actor Eddie Redmayne and the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron. The actress Noma Dumezweni (who played Hermione Granger in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child) initially expressed support for Rowling but backtracked following criticism. On 10 June 2020, Rowling published a 3,600-word essay on her website in response to the criticism. She again wrote that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning. She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. Rowling's essay was criticised by, among others, the children's charity Mermaids (which supports transgender and gender non-conforming children and their parents), Stonewall, GLAAD and the feminist gender theorist Judith Butler. Rowling has been referred to as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) on multiple occasions, though she rejects the label. Rowling has received support from actors Robbie Coltrane and Eddie Izzard, and some feminists such as activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the radical feminist Julie Bindel. The BBC nominated her essay for its annual Russell Prize for best writing. In August 2020, Rowling returned her Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award after Kerry Kennedy released a statement expressing her "profound disappointment" in Rowling's "attacks upon the transgender community", which Kennedy called "inconsistent with the fundamental beliefs and values of RFK Human Rights and ... a repudiation of my father's vision". Rowling stated that she was "deeply saddened" by Kennedy's statement, but maintained that no award would encourage her to "forfeit the right to follow the dictates" of her conscience.

Some critics have labeled Rowling's statements relating to women's rights and transgender people as transphobic. Beginning around 2017, her responses to proposed changes to UK laws and her general views on sex and gender have been criticised. Rowling expressed support in 2019 for Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed when she tweeted gender-critical views. In response, Rowling said trans people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In a June 2020 controversial tweet, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate". She expressed empathy with trans people, along with concern that women's rights and reality were "erased" if "sex isn’t real". LGBT charities and leading actors of the Harry Potter film series condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with a 3,600-word essay. She revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that most trans people were "vulnerable" and "deserved protection", she expressed concerns about allowing "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. The BBC nominated her essay for its annual Russell Prize for best writing, acknowledging that she had offended many people, but stating that: "Offence is the price of free speech." The fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, and charities Mermaids and Stonewall, also criticised Rowling. She has been referred to as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), though she rejects the label. As Rowling's views on transgender issues came under fire, some performers and feminists have supported her. Rowling returned her Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award after Kerry Kennedy expressed her "profound disappointment" in what Kennedy labeled Rowling's "attacks upon the transgender community … inconsistent with the fundamental beliefs and values of RFK Human Rights and ... a repudiation of my father's vision". Rowling was "deeply saddened" by Kennedy's statement, but maintained that no award would encourage her to "forfeit the right to follow the dictates" of her conscience.

Sources
References

Discussion of draft 1

Let her rip ... but remember, it will probably take multiple iterations, slow and steady wins the race, and collegiality will get us there faster. As most of you know, my prose always needs polishing, but if we stay focused on content early on (what goes, what stays), we can polish the prose in the later iterations. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin

I suppose at this point, we're going to need a sentence at the end summarizing the recent Putin speech and her response, aren't we? Silverseren^C 00:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so; why do you? (Or perhaps you are referring to adding that to the Politics section, rather than Transgender? I don't think that rises to the level of inclusion here, as it can be fit in somewhere at Political views of J. K. Rowling. It's more a matter of him trying to stir people up by associating himself with her than it is about her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

While Putin's overall comparison was the effect sanctions were having on Russian cultural output, when Putin mentioned Rowling's views he specifically did so in the context that her views on transgender people were the reason why she was being cancelled. Per UK media Putin said They cancelled Joanne Rowling recently – the children’s author, her books are published all over the world – just because she didn’t satisfy the demands of gender rights The Guardian, The Independent, Sky News, BBC News, The i. While a broader mention would be in order at the Political views page, I think it is on balance due that a brief mention should be made in the transgender views section, as well as her response. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see ... when we get to Draft 2, I'll add a sentence. For now, I want to keep focus :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair! Thanks for understanding. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th I've looked at all those sources now, and I'm still unconvinced that this article needs to entertain Putin's fantasies. This is not something we'll remember Rowling for five or ten years from now, and WP:NOTNEWS seems apt. Firefangledfeathers seems to agree that mention of Putin isn't warranted here (see next section), so with you and Silver seren wanting to include it, we're split, and need to get further views from others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose including Putin. This is a perfect example of the WP:RECENTISM that has plagued this section from the beginning. I agree that this is hardly going to be memorable in the future. It's just Putin stirring up the West, as usual. Maybe WP:DENY applies... 😁 yes it is sourced, but definitely a WP:NOTNEWS matter for this article. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

So we are still somewhat split. I'd like to move forward to the next draft by tomorrow, and wish we'd hear from more people. If we don't hear from others soon, I'll probably put the next version forward with a reminder of what is still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose including Putin, per.... well, yes, WP:DENY 😁 and common sense! Rowling has been cancelled? Really? Has anyone told the people buying her books - 678 weeks in the NYT bestseller list? Heavily advertised blockbuster film coming out in a couple of weeks? Putin's remarks won't be remembered in 10 years. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Kennedy

Thanks for the draft! I am happy with the way you condensed the various reactions to her 2020 tweets and essay. My first read on the prose is that it's good enough, and it's likely that we'll want to tackle the ideas before we get into the wordsmithing. I don't think the Putin content needs a mention (yet?). I have some thoughts about the Russell prize that I'll bring up in a subsection below. I think the Kennedy stuff is afforded too much weight, which I see as a carryover issue from the current version. I'd cut it to something nearly as short as "Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the group Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights after its president, Kerry Kennedy, criticised her views." Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more on that; I considered trimming it, but it is twice-fold relevant: Kenndy was her personal hero, and it's a kinda big-deal award. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Good reasons, but there's too much big-deal stuff to cover here, and we have a sub-article. Of all the major beats in this history, I wouldn't single this one out for near-equal length when compared to the sub-article's treatment. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

If others agree, will trim in draft 2, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that trimming it would be good. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I can work the significance of her returning this award into one sentence by making use of the sourced statement "Rowling called it 'one of the highest honours I’ve ever been given' ..." or something to that effect. Unless others speak up soon and have different opinions, will work on that in draft 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Film franchise

With regards to the third paragraph, how separately are we treating the Fantastic Beasts films from the Harry Potter films? Both fall under the Wizarding World umbrella franchise, but in the text we're only specifically mentioning the Potter films. Given that actors from the Fantastic Beasts series have also criticised her, Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, and Dan Fogler have done so, should we amend that sentence to either include reference by name to both films, or the umbrella franchise as a whole? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

How about changing "Harry Potter film series" to Harry Potter and related films? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems overly clunky to me? If we want to mention both franchises in the same statement, I think we'd be better using the Wizarding World umbrella. Something like ...and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned..., otherwise though it is more wordy, it would be clearer to mention both film series by name, eg ...and leading actors of the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts film series contemned... Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Either version works for me; will wait to see what others prefer, for draft 2. (The source says "the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise" ... does that encompass both, or do I need to pile on more sources? Keep in mind I am not a Harry Potter fan, and did not know a Hogwart from a warthog before this FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

From a quick look at the source it is only referring to the actors in the Potter films, and only Daniel Radcliffe by name. We'd need other sources for the other actors from that franchise, as well as the dissension by Fiennes. We'd also need a source for the Fantastic Beasts actors. As for how to explain the differences between the two film series to a non-Potter fan, it's similar to the differences between Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. Both series are part of the Star Trek franchise, and have overlapping characters who make cross-series appearances. But aside from the shared setting, the series are independent. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Got it ... on the list for round 2! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Is "leading" actors necessary? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe? How could it be phrased differently to accurately convey that all bar one of the primary actors of the Potter series, and at least three (I've not done an exclusive source search yet to check if there are others) of the leads from Fantastic Beasts have commented on this? Without specifying, we could run the risk of misinforming our readers that the comments were made by guest actors, or prominent background/supporting actors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Sideswipe9th, and it's what the source said, so provided a neat way to tie up the list. I don't know how we could make an accurate statement without going back to a list, and almost every reviewer wanted to be rid of the list of who supported or not. (Fiennes supported her after that source was published.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

How's this? I've found a source for Redmayne that allows me to continue the "leading actors" wording supported by The Guardian (to keep the construct simple), and removed the "exception" wording on Fiennes, which was original research on my part. The new wording encompasses Redmayne. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume it's the bullet point below this, and above the sources? If so, looks good to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• LGBT charities and and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".

Sources
References

Russell Prize

I'm not sure if anyone else has looked into it, but is the Russell Prize really much of a thing? As far as I can tell, the BBC's media editor just picks out work he liked that year and gave it a fancy name. There was no coverage of the prize before 2020 (he started in 2017), a bit of non-lasting coverage related to Rowling, and no prize was awarded in 2021. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly it's a recent prize. The first year of it was 2017, but there was mention of it on the BBC website in 2018, 2019, and 2020. You are correct though that there has been no prize awarded for 2021. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I am indifferent; will go with whatever the rest of you come to on consensus. I liked the mention of freedom of speech ... on the other hand, if we remove it, we can contain the size should we decide to add Putin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I seem to remember Olivaw-Daneel looking into this, and agreeing with Firefangledfeathers? O-D? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem notable, especially relative to the awards in the next section. See the description: [1] As always, the selection process was watertight, in that nominations were submitted by me, to a rigorous and impartial panel of one, also me, wherein I have self-identified as convenor, founder, chair, president, and - in a new designation for 2020, approved by me - CEO. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be included, per you. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

We're still somewhat split. Pending hearing from more editors, I'll try to trim it in draft 2 to only keeping the freedom of speech reference. Need More Feedback! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Essay summary incomplete

We have room for this when the Kennedy stuff is shortened.

Right now the description of Rowling's essay implies that it is almost entirely about security in bathrooms/changing rooms. Actually, her essay spends more length on other aspects that are covered in secondary sources about the essay and are mentioned at the Politics of J. K. Rowling spinoff article. I never got around to ensuring that was covered in the main article since, frankly, I didn't feel like dealing with the inevitable arguments about it. And I didn't want to do it early during the FAR and mess up the process. But it has to be done, and now's the time. Here's the summary in the spinoff article:

• She said she was concerned that girls were transitioning in order to escape womanhood, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".

References

Here are quotes from each of those sources supporting it (the first is already being used in your draft): Reuters: She also said she has wondered whether she might have sought to transition to being a man had she been born 30 years later. She said she had received abuse for her views including being told she was “literally killing people with your hate.” She said she refused to “bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class.” Deadline: “I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class"...Another reason why Rowling says she tweeted stemmed from her concern about “the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.” “The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”

Other secondary sources on the essay, like The Guardian, also go into this: In her essay, Rowling writes of her own struggles with sexism and misogyny, and her adolescent sense of being “mentally sexless”, adding that reading accounts of gender dysphoria by trans men had made her wonder “if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition”. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred,” she wrote....She said she believed misogyny and sexism were reasons behind the 4,400% increase in the number of girls being referred for transitioning treatment in the past decade.

I could easily cite more, but I hope this will suffice to show that this article's coverage of the essay has only been partially complete. These sources and the essay itself treat these aspects as just as much a part of it as the other matters. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I avoided adding more on the essay for several reasons:

1. Trying to contain size (agree we now have room when Kennedy trimmed, and also agree due weight of the sources allows for more here)
2. Wanting to eliminate over-quoting, per many complaints, but not confident in my own writing to summarize the essence
3. Feeling it better to start small and see where others wanted to go

So, all-in-all, I agree the summary of the essay is now misleading. I'll work in more in draft 2, recognizing that others may need to start polishing my (stinky) prose by draft 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft 2

Current (497 words)

Draft 2 PROPOSAL (348 words)

In December 2019, Rowling tweeted her support for Maya Forstater, a British woman who initially lost her employment tribunal case (Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development) but won on appeal against her former employer, the Center for Global Development, after her contract was not renewed due to her comments about transgender people. Rowling wrote on Twitter, "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?" On 6 June 2020, Rowling tweeted criticism of the phrase "people who menstruate", and stated "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives." Rowling's tweets were criticised by GLAAD, who called them "cruel" and "anti-trans". Some members of the cast of the Harry Potter film series criticised Rowling's views or spoke out in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leung, as did Fantastic Beasts lead actor Eddie Redmayne and the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron. The actress Noma Dumezweni (who played Hermione Granger in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child) initially expressed support for Rowling but backtracked following criticism. On 10 June 2020, Rowling published a 3,600-word essay on her website in response to the criticism. She again wrote that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning. She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. Rowling's essay was criticised by, among others, the children's charity Mermaids (which supports transgender and gender non-conforming children and their parents), Stonewall, GLAAD and the feminist gender theorist Judith Butler. Rowling has been referred to as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) on multiple occasions, though she rejects the label. Rowling has received support from actors Robbie Coltrane and Eddie Izzard, and some feminists such as activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the radical feminist Julie Bindel. The BBC nominated her essay for its annual Russell Prize for best writing. In August 2020, Rowling returned her Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award after Kerry Kennedy released a statement expressing her "profound disappointment" in Rowling's "attacks upon the transgender community", which Kennedy called "inconsistent with the fundamental beliefs and values of RFK Human Rights and ... a repudiation of my father's vision". Rowling stated that she was "deeply saddened" by Kennedy's statement, but maintained that no award would encourage her to "forfeit the right to follow the dictates" of her conscience.

Rowling's statements relating to transgender people have provoked controversy and have been deemed transphobic by critics. Her responses to proposed changes to UK laws and her general views on sex and gender have been criticised in a dispute that has divided feminists and fueled a freedom of speech debate. Rowling expressed support in December 2019 for Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views. In response, Rowling tweeted that trans people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate". While expressing empathy with trans people, Rowling was concerned that women's rights and reality were "erased" if "sex isn't real". LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with a 3,600-word essay. She revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that most trans people were "vulnerable" and "deserved protection", she believed safety was at risk by allowing "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny, she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class". The Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, UK charities Mermaids and Stonewall, and US charity Human Rights Campaign also criticised Rowling. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the group Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. Rowling has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), though she rejects the label. As her views on transgender issues came under fire, some performers and feminists have supported her.

Sources

References Duggan, Jennifer (28 March 2021). "Transformative readings: Harry Potter fan fiction, trans/queer reader response, and J. K. Rowling" (PDF). Children's Literature in Education. doi:10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9. ISSN 0045-6713. S2CID 233661189. Pape, Madeleine (2022). "Feminism, trans justice, and speech rights: a comparative perspective". Law and Contemporary Problems. 85 (1): 215–240. Retrieved 29 March 2022. 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.

Discussion of draft 2

I am putting this up without yet having heard from all participants because AleatoryPonderings indicated on my talk page that they have COVID; I thought it best then, to keep moving, even though I haven't gotten everything. Summary:

I have not yet dealt with #Putin: more feedback needed.

I have:

• trimmed #Kennedy
• addressed #Film franchise
• removed #Russell Prize while alluding to it along with a new source that mentions freedom of speech
• added one more sentence for #Essay summary incomplete
• added Human Rights Campaign

and significantly (I hope :) added three new sources to provide context on the feminism debate to hopefully (later) help us resolve #Another initial query: status of the lead more broadly, as opposed to naming/labeling who supports/who opposes. My sincere apologies if I missed something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"Some critics"

Partial adjustment made: "Some critics" and "women's rights" removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

First comment - I don't think "Some critics" is an appropriate opening for the section, for two reasons: (1) it isn't just "some" of the critics: it is most or nearly all of the critics, and (2) it is not only critics who make this statement; some independent, reliable sources use their own editorial voice for this. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I took that explicitly from a source, as it's hard to rejig that without original research. Propose a solution, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What if we just say "Critics"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a slight improvement, but I think the sources support (and I would prefer) "Rowling's statements relating to transgender issues have been widely criticized and labelled as transphobic". Here are multiple, reliable sources using these specific terms: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] including People, Reuters and Newsweek. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with widely criticised (other than continuing to fight the z to s issue). The problem with your recast, though, becomes the same I'm fighting throughout: we end up using the same word (criticised) in two consequent sentences in the lead. That's why I can't work piecemeal on this, and always put up a full new version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That's easy: change the second sentence to something like, provoked controversy, which would not only be less repetitive but would actually add information for the reader, since the ensuing controversy has spilled over well beyond discussion of Rowling herself - and the sources reflect this. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Just change "some critics" to "critics". "Widely criticized and labelled as transphobic" is a violation of WP:WEASEL: Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. (Emphasis added.) "Widely" is specifically named as a weasel word there. It would be wide open to a "by whom?" tag. Not all segments of society consider her comments such.

3 out of the 5 sources that Newimpartial points to are entertainment-focused outlets, hardly papers of record, and such sites make no pretense of politically unbiased reporting or of taking care to represent societal views in specific and non-sensational terms. Even then, People doesn't support "widely" for "transphobic", and ET Canada only says it with the very important limiting clause "on Twitter". Of the other two, Newsweek doesn't support "transphobic", and Newsweek is a questionable source, in yellow at RSP (WP:NEWSWEEK). That just leaves Reuters, which is a good source, but merely says (emphasis added) The essay was widely criticized by LGBTQ advocacy groups as divisive and transphobic.

Those few sources which do make the broader claim are also not representative of reliable sources in general. As noted, two of the ones already mentioned do not make it, and there are many, many others which discuss the broad situation, are highly reliable, and make no claims about "widely" (I can find more if needed, but here are two examples).

All in all, just stating "critics" works best. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, Crossroads. The support for "widely criticised" is stronger than you say, and the error would be limiting the criticism to "critics", as though Rowling had a pre-existing group of detractors waiting to respond negatively to whatever she said. My proposed text is "widely criticised" and "labelled as transphobic", each of which is strongly supported in the sources. My understanding was that you had conceded in prior discussions that "labelled as transphobic" is widely supported, but if you like, I can add sources for that too, later. This discussion is supposed to be about "widely".

So, for "widely criticized" we have This isn't the first time Rowling has been called out for anti-trans comments. In December, she was widely criticized for supporting a researcher who lost her job after saying she did not agree that "trans women are women." (Today), J.K. Rowling was widely criticized over the weekend for supporting anti-transgender sentiments in a series of social media posts (People), Routers The essay was widely criticized by LGBTQ advocacy groups as divisive and transphobic and ET Canada Rowling’s message has been widely criticized on Twitter, with many accusing her of being transphobic. I'll drop Newsweek, and add Insider Rowling has been widely criticized by LGBTQ people and allies since 2020 when she tweeted about her belief that trans activism hurts women and lesbians, Kirkus after a series of tweets from Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling was widely criticized as being transphobic and the New York Times Ms. Rowling was widely criticized in 2020 after voicing support for a researcher whose views on transgender people had been condemned by a court. From the UK we also have PinkNews Her comments have been widely criticised by fans and even Harry Potter stars, Metro Ms Rowling, who has been widely criticised for her views on transgender rights in recent years, NME after the author was widely criticised for her comments about transgender people, the Daily Record The author has been widely criticised by LGBTQ+ activists for her remarks about transgender people, which have been viewed as transphobic and The Independent Rowling, whose views on transgender rights have been widely criticised in recent years. And these are only sources using "widely". Business Insider Australia [7], and sources in India and Ireland also support "widely criticised". And these are only sources using "criticized". USA Today chose widely condemned as did EW.com and the Irish Mirror. I could go on all day. And while a few of these sources identify the criticism with certain groups (usually LGBTQ people, Harry Potter fans or actors), most of these sources do not, simply stating in their own editorial voice that Rowling's tweets or her essay (or Troubled Blood, but I have left all of those sources out of list) are widely criticized/condemned. To pretend that this language is found only in a few sources that are not representative of reliable sources in general is pure POV nonsense, as far as I can tell - reliable sources communicate, in varied language, that these tweets and the essay have been widely criticised. The Independent and The New York Times use this language exactly. Not to mention the many, many sources showing that not only activists and actors, but also other performers, writers, human rights groups, and people in politics and the culture industries - as well as random Twitter users - have also participated in this widespread criticism. Meanwhile, I am aware of no sources at all suggesting that Rowling was not "widely criticized"; this is a statement of uncontested fact, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder here, so we can keep the discussions focused, that a Featured article uses the highest quality sources. In this draft, and to support division among feminists, I added back the New Statesman source with the mention of Judith Butler in the spirit of compromise, although we have no higher quality or multiple mentions of her. If that level of sourcing means we're going to spend a lot of bandwidth here discussing sources that will never be used in the article, I fear people will be less inclined towards seeking middle ground and compromise here in the wording. Let's stay focused please on due weight from high quality sources, and consider whether spending time on a word like "widely" will have any impact ultimately on the lead, which is where we will eventually have to spend our time.

Also keep in mind that we'll move from working on what gets included to polishing prose in Wikipedia space once we have reached some stability among participants here: compromise consensus collaboration collegiality to get to a place where we can settle the body and move on to the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Much as I am tempted to get into the discussion of, say, how internet controversies are better covered by specialized sources than they are by more conventional "high quality" sources, I will hold off on that for now.

But SandyGeorgia, are you not under the impression that the New York Times, The Independent, Reuters, Business Insider and Kirkus Reviews are among the "high quality" sources we should be following, here?

My own actual view, by the way, is that we need to see sources as an ecosystem; I see many dangers that result when we impose personal hierarchies within the universe of independent RS (an act I have mostly seen done either TENDentiously or as a resource management strategy). While I would never suggest that the Irish Mirror ought to carry the same weight as the NYT or The Guardian, I do find a wide range of professionally written and edited sources to be relevant (and I have a particular fondness for literary magazines as sources, as discussed previously). Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In general (although the page hasn't covered everything) see WP:RSP. More specifically, I'm relying on what I have seen frequently questioned at WP:FAC and WP:FAR over 15 years of engagement there (and is likely to be questioned here when/if we reach the stage of postulating that the article is ready for a FAR decision). Business Insider is likely to be questioned, as is People magazine. Newsweek and Metro UK would be clearly unacceptable. New Statesman isn't even covered at RSP, so I convinced myself it was OK to add since it only gives background to the "some feminists" issue, without actually citing text about Judith Butler. Those are just some examples (I haven't yet this morning fully digested everything above). Then, moving even beyond RSP, and thinking of when we get to the lead (which is where the metal hits the pedal), we have to be really focusing on due weight in the highest quality sources. Just to keep the end goals in mind ... down in the body of the article, where do we best spend our time? I'm suggesting that the word widely isn't a hill worth dying on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

RSP is a useful quick checklist for source reliability, but it only explicitly has entries for sources that have multiple queries made about their reliability. That a source isn't on RSP isn't an obvious indicator of whether or not a source is reliable, just that it hasn't been frequently discussed. For that you really need to do a search of the RSN archives. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree (which is why I added that I am relying on what I have seen questioned over the years, and why I went ahead and added New Statesman ... against my better judgment and in the spirit of compromise to help resolve the lead problem). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If it helps, Duggan mentions Butler's interview in New Statesman in p. 15, footnote 6. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah ha ... yes, that makes me feel less un-FAish for having added the source :) Thanks, O-D! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: I'm not saying "widely or bust", but I also don't see how the sources using "widely" are at all inferior in quality to those not using "widely" (nor do I see how sources not using that word can be reasonably interpreted as !voting against "widely", an argument I have seen Crossroads make - with impressive tenacity - on parallel cases at WT:WTW). Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we stay focused. Widely is not in the RFC-imposed lead, and I doubt would make it into the lead even if a new RFC were held, now or any time in the future, unless boatloads of high quality RS support it. Whether that word is or isn't added way down in the body of a 9,000 word article is of no consequence to most readers. A non-FA JKR article will open it up to chaos, turn it to black goo on the internet, and a defeatured JKR over Hills Not Worth Dying On ultimately benefits no one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion on that, and I am entitled to mine. Mine is based on what I take to be WP:NPOV in this area - describing facts as facts, according to the sources; making sure that opinions are voiced as opinions; and ensuring that we follow the BALANCE of the best available sources without falling into FALSEBALANCE traps. At the moment, my only concern is that we end up with an article section that meets these criteria with high quality sources attached; if that is done, then the existing lead or any eventual future lead will work fine, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably just a prose issue and probably easily fixed. Suggest rephrasing the first sentence to something like this: There has been backlash against Rowling in response to her transphobic statements relating to women's rights and transgender people. Thoughts? Victoria (tk) 18:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I don't think we can put either women's rights OR transphobic statements in Wikivoice, since both of those characterizations are part of the dispute. As I note below, a typical phrase in French is jugé transphobique, which doesn't have a really convenient translation (though "labelled transphobic" comes closest, I think). Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

We can hedge with something like this: There has been backlash against Rowling in response to her statements relating to transgender people, which have been labelled transphobic. I've removed "women's rights", which we can probably put in a separate sentence or combine elsewhere, and used "labelled transphobic". Victoria (tk) 19:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I came across several sources (could not say which without digging) which used a phrase something like "deemed transphobic by critics". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Deemed transphobic works too. Here's the sentence w/ "labelled" struck and "deemed" instead. There has been backlash against Rowling in response to her statements relating to transgender people, which have been labelled deemed transphobic. In my view "critics" isn't really necessary because it's implied, but I could be wrong. At issue here is that we're working through a "draft" - by definition still in need of work (and thanks Sandy for presenting something to work from!). Victoria (tk) 19:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that "widely criticized" is more precise and better sourced than "backlash", but these new proposaals at least have the merit of not being misleading. Personally, I would probably prefer a "provoked controversy" statement in the first sentence and "widely criticized" in the second, or perhaps "accused of transphobia" or "widely condemned" in the second sentence. Any of these would be based on very good sources (NYT, Reuters and The Independednt for "widely criticized"; BBC, Times of London, LA Times for "accused of transphobia"; The Independent, Variety, and LA Times (again) for "condemned", among many - a number of good French sources also support "accused of transphobia", by the way). Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not in love with "backlash" myself. "Provoked controversy" is fine. How about this: Rowling has provoked controversy in response to her statements relating to transgender people. I've dropped "transphobic", because I agree that it shouldn't be in wikivoice and might prefer to use a quote or an attribution. So this iteration of the sentence is to make it a general topic sentence. Victoria (tk) 19:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

We have transphobic in the RFC-imposed lead; this draft is attempting to deal with that problem, and the second problem that we have unsupported claims about feminism in the lead. If we can't somehow source transphobic in the body, we risk having to run a new RFC only three months after the last one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

PS, that is precisely why I attributed "transphobic" to "critics" using a source (NBC News). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarification. Here's my last effort for the day (getting tired :)))Rowling's statements relating to women's rights and transgender people have provoked controversy and have been deemed transphobic. Still needs work, but I'm out for now, hopefully I can get back here tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's what is in the lead, and unsourced in the body:

• These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

All passed in an RFC never mind being unsourced in the body. Unless we keep in the body a) criticised as transphobic by LGBT groups (which the word critics was attempting to do), and b) can figure out how to source some feminists calling her transphobic (perhaps we can fudge on one feminist, Judith Butler), then our options are to run another RFC or find a fix to the lead that won't trigger controversy. The second part of the sentence (support from other feminists) and easily be or is already sourced and sourcable.

I am thinking we may need to separately workshop the first two sentences of this draft, so we can sort the evventual lead problem, including a formal survey of all participants here, so we can move on with the rest. We are trying to work around an RFC-imposed lead that was not sourced when it was RFC'd. This won't be easy, because we are contending with a fatally flawed RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sandy, it didn't "pass an RfC". An RfC closed no consensus (but consensus that something on the issue should stay in the lead), and that defaulted to the status quo. You make it sound as if the RfC offered a choice between one text and another, with sources presented for each, but that isn't remotely like what happened. (The RfC was intended by its movers as a choice of language but was then almost immediately brigaded using biased notices; a significant minority of !votes supported removal of any mention from the lead, which was not at all the question the RfC was designed to answer. This environment wasn't conducive to reaching any kind of consensus, much less evaluating sources for purposes of wordsmithing.) Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't disagree on the big picture (please ignore that I'm accustomed to using the word "passed" because of my work at FAC and FAR). I still think we are somewhat stuck with what we have based on similar reasoning to what Jo-Jo said, in that we have to be extremely careful if we try to change it. And most likely, as soon as we do try to change it, we'll have another fuss. Meaning we are walking a tightrope to find a compromise that won't generate controversy. Other people were stating on the main FAR page that we were close enough and should try to tweak/repair the body, but not attempt a full rewrite; this was before we knew that we had text in the lead that was never even supported in the body, so the tightrope became even thinner. While trying to remedy this, we seem to have deviated from our plan not to do a full rewrite, with requests to add material that has never been there.

My personal view is that a new, carefully planned RFC, developed in collaboration rather than launched by surprise, will be needed in a year regardless, since the article is now hamstrung by a poor RFC, but also has WP:RECENTISM issues that will need to be addressed over time ... we'll have more scholarly sources in a year and can stop going back and forth on what sources are best, and dipping in to lower quality sources. I'd like to see us reach a compromise for now, with the understanding that a better positioned RFC will be planned at about the year mark ... leaving plenty of time to plan the wording and launch it without the chaos of the last one (which seems to have been a surprise poorly planned launch, and no RFC works well that way). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've got a selection of other feminists for you, in case this helps square this peg. Unfortunately all, bar the two published in the English language version of De Correspondent and one in Current Affairs (magazine), are self published on blogs, their own websites, or social media in general. I've tried to find secondary sources citing these or other statements by these individuals as some have made many such examples, but I've not had much luck so far. If I can find any I will add them to the list.

• Julia Serano: Current Affairs, Julia's Twitter
• Laurie Penny: Laurie's Medium blog
• Valentijn de Hingh The Correspondent
• OluTimehin Adegbeye: The Correspondent
• Grace Lavery: Grace's website
• Katy Montgomerie: Katy's Medium blog Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you unpleased if we just say feminists are divided, as we now have in the draft, since that is decently sourced? I suspect an adjustment to the lead along those lines would not be controversial ... no? ... because it's close to what we have now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not unpleased by that, though I can't say I'm enthusiastic about it either. As a compromise it's OK. Mostly I was just trying to address where you said perhaps we can fudge on one feminist, Judith Butler by providing some other names to go alongside Butler. But if we've moved on from that in the time I was trying to find sources for this list, that's grand. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with New Statesman for Butler, and saying divided to avoid the one/some/many conundrum, but we just can't really use blogs in an FA; we need secondary source coverage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, a situated statement about transphobia has to be in the section, not because of the RfC but because the great mass of high-quality sources on the topic reliably document this as being what it is about: "accusations of transphobia" or "condemnation for transphobic tweets" or "positions that have been labelled transphobic" or what have you. Sources sympathetic to Rowling as well as those presenting more critical voices all agree that the issue concerns transphobia or anti-trans positions or statements that are (said to be) harmful to trans people. There isn't really another major topic here, though freedom of speech/"cancel culture" and doxxing and "women's sex-based rights" emerge as secondary topics in the RS.

Victoria, Rowling's statements relating to women's rights is a non-neutral phrase, taking one point of view that is disputed by others. Most of the RS do not agree that Rowling's statements "relate to women's rights", although of course some document that she sees her perspective in this light, and a minority of sources accept this framing. Many, however, disagree quite explicitly, so it isn't a thing we can say in wikivoice. Newimpartial (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

We edit conflicted, will look in later, tied up right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy to strike "women's rights". That gives us, Rowling's statements relating to transgender people have provoked controversy and have been deemed transphobic. Can you put up the next suggestion? I've run out of energy for the day. Victoria (tk) 20:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I support this content. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

PS, you can see from this RFC-imposed dilemma what I was hoping to accomplish with Draft 2: specifically source the first half of the lead sentence with "some critics" (which could be reduced to just "critics"), and find a way to split the difference on the feminism problem, by just saying it divided feminists (so we don't have to count one, some or many). With most sources supporting that many feminists don't see the statements as transphobic, then we can't make them transphobic in wikivoice. Hence "critics". I don't see a strong case for keeping "women's rights" at this point; I introduced before it Victoria educated me via NYT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Add "by critics" to the end of Victoria's sentence, and I'm good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

PS, my apologies that I am just discovering how the reply tool handles edit conflicts, so that my last two posts crossed in the mail with other people's posts ... I will take greater care going forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Does this work? Rowling's statements relating to transgender people have provoked controversy and have been deemed transphobic by critics. Victoria (tk) 20:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think, given we've (all ?? I think ??) agreed to drop "women's rights", and drop "some", that does the job. With those two adjustments, it's a better version of what is at the first sentence of Draft 2 now ... but I still need to look at whether we should reverse the order of the two sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Partial adjustment for now;[8] I played around with trying to switch the order of the sentences, but it just didn't work, and in fact, I thought ended up watering down the impact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I can live with it. Newimpartial (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Copy edit nitpick

Second comment - I'm not happy with She expressed empathy with trans people, along with concern that women's rights and reality were "erased" if "sex isn’t real". As a minimal change, I'd suggest While expressing empathy with trans people, Rowling was concerned that women's rights and reality were "erased" if "sex isn't real". Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

As a general note on this, I am struggling with too much repetitive prose throughout (eg, words like criticise, expressed, concern); looking for ways to vary prose, but for now, let's focus on what is in and what is out content-wise. We can fix my prose later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I didn't add any repetition. :p Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done [9] Since we don't seem to be approaching readiness for Draft 3, I am going ahead and fixing the little stuff in Draft 2. Better ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

UK-centrism?

Note for subsequent readers: "women's rights" removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Third comment - the reaction described in the section seems overly UK-centric (the sources cited in the section include non-UK performers among Rowling's critics, for example, but the proposed text doesn't communicate this). Also, the reaction from the writing, publishing and bookselling communities is missing, and seems more germane than some of what is included. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not following (possibly because I do not know what is UK centric vs. what is not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is that Rowling's comments have been widely criticized outside the UK, but your draft doesn't communicate this clearly.

As far as the literary and publishing communities are concerned, we have RS coverage of a letter by North American writers opposing Rowling's views and of letters on both sides of the controversy within the UK literary community.

The reactions of Canada's largest book retailer, Rowling's major rights-holder in Hollywood, and the president of the relevant game studio seem pertinent (and happen to represent the relevant cultural industries and non-UK perspectives, simultaneously).Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Got the literary, still confused on UK centric. I don't know where you think the text implies that the criticism is only in the UK or has not been criticized outside the UK ... ? Perhaps I am just too tired (after the query below your posts, it's probably time for me to walk away for the day). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it is her views on women's rights that first signals UK-centrism to me. I know that is Rowling's framing, but it is a framing that mainstream UK sources accept, at least in part, but I can't think of any non-UK sources that would use "women's rights" in this context (as opposed to "women's experience", which many non-UK sources would use instead).

Otherwise, the mainstream UK-based framing is "some people criticise her and others support her", while the mainstream framing in North America is "opinion in the UK is mysteriously divided, but around here most voices* are critical of her views". This difference between UK and non-UK (and in this context I mean mostly North American) reaction does not come across at all in the draft - it is only the UK framing that comes across. Hence, UK-centric.

• There are fringe right-wing voices in the US and Canada that are pro-Rowling on trans issues, but I think that reinforces rather than undermines my generalization here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to digest this tomorrow; hopefully others will weigh in and lend some clarity. I can only deal in what sources give me, and I don't know where to go with this. I think Duggan is in Norway, and Pape is in Switzerland (although educated in US and with US publishings and connections), and Pugh is in South Carolina ... but Pugh gives us little to work with as the paper was before the second Forstater tribunal. We've got a preponderance of UK sources, which is natural since Rowling is British, but important pieces from NYT, CNN, USA today, NBC News ... I just don't know how to address this. For Rowling it is a women's rights issue, no? She's from the UK: how do we leave that out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, just popping in for a moment. I read this NYT article some months ago, "How British Feminism Became Anti-Trans and found it interesting. It doesn't mention Rowling, (though it I found whilst searching for Rowling throught the NYT archives). For me, at least, it added perspective and I believe explains the differences UK vs. US framing. Anyway, putting it here, in case it's helpful - it might not be. I have some other sources too, but still fighting health issues. Will add what I can when I can if needed. Victoria (tk) 20:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Victoria. I was thinking of linking to this piece as background, and I'm glad you did. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we leave out Rowling's framing or marginalize UK perspectives. Also, I am talking here mostly about the difference in perspective among publishers: between, say, the perspectives of The Guardian and The Independent on the one hand and those of the NYT, People, Newsweek and, say CBC.ca on the other. I find that the way the section is currently drafted favors the former framing over the latter, mostly by leaving out the voices of writers, film and game studios and booksellers as well as "performers" (and here I am thinking especially of musicians more so than actors) who are, outside the UK, fairly uniformly critical of Rowling's views.

And I have to disagree with We've got a preponderance of UK sources, which is natural since Rowling is British - I don't think the preponderance of reliable sources specifically concerning the trans tweets and the essay is British, which is one of the reasons I've used some non-UK sources in my comments above in the "some critics" section. (In this section, I've cited a UK source on the US letter, which I suppose could be read as a kind of colonial anxiety on my part. But I digress...)

Finally, as far as For Rowling it is a women's rights issue, no? Well, for her, sure it is. And I'm not objecting to your second and third mentions of "women's rights", which are situated clearly in relation to her views/experience. But the first one, that critics have labelled Rowling's statements relating to women's rights and transgender people as transphobic puts "relating to women's rights" in wikivoice, and I think this is disputed. Deutsche Welle, for example, refers to controversial statements about trans rights and the classification of trans women as women. Canadian and US sources typically refer to statements "about the transgender community" or "about transgender people". Looking just now, I haven't been able to find any sources outside the UK that accept the "women's rights" framing, which in my view means that it must be avoided in wikivoice according to core WP:NPOV principles. Newimpartial (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If you don't sign your post, I can't use the reply tool (it doesn't give a link), and when I am iPad typing, that adds a whole 'nother level of frustration. The reason I had left out everything you listed is much simpler than all this ideology added SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC) (eg in the NY piece from Victoria): a) we decided not to do a complete rewrite, rather just patch up what was here and that stuff wasn't here (yours is the first mention of wanting to include more of this in an already long section), and b) this section is already too long in relation to the rest of the article. I can probably work in the writers etc in one or two sentences; will we have to sacrifice then something else that someone else wants? WP:SS; there's a sub-article. We don't have to include everything (eg Putin). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the signature glitch, which came from an edit conflict (with Victoria; not her fault, of course, and I should have seen my error).

You might have noticed that I was not someone who weighed in on the "patch what's there" question. My own method is dialectical - when I see something misaligned at a top level (this time, what I have called "UK-centrism") I look at the bottom level for what seems to be missing and what seems to be over its skis. In the case of your draft, I see you introducing the "women's rights" framing in Wikivoice (which is not in the status quo). Also, thanks to your much improved organisation and presentation of the material, I now notice that the reactions noted in the piece do not represent those I see in the broader RS coverage. I especially feel that responses from Rowling's literary peers and from her licensees at Warner are of more encyclopaedic interest than a lot of what we find in the status quo version.

I understand the desire to trim the section and don't disagree with that goal. However, the requirement to use NPOV language and to represent the available reliable sources as a whole, in relation to the more encyclopaedic elements of this topic, is more pressing for me than the desire to trim a sentence or to avoid rocking the boat by changing the list of elements included in the previous version. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

So are you saying more than a) lose the "women's rights" in the first para, and b) find space to add in the writers etc (which I may be able to do in one sentence, possibly two), or is that the full gist of this section? My thinking is that the size should not grow from where it is now. I could shorten the RFK award back to what Firefrangledfeathers suggested, and we wouldn't have room for Putin ... what else might we do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

At the outset I asked about how flexible the word limit is, and the response was that it wasn't set in stone. As we seem to be butting up against it a few times now, perhaps that is a sign that we need to increase it slightly? I understand wanting to stick to summary style, but it seems as though right now the approach is too rigid to cover the content without the potential for misunderstanding.

Or another alternative approach is to disregard it entirely for draft 3, to get the various bits of content in, and then trim it back again for draft 4. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's still flexible; I was expressing my personal view. I have a very hard time justifying the size of this WP:RECENTISM section when I look at the sizes of other sections at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6#Rowling text size. So far, I have included everything everyone has asked for; consensus is split on Putin, and Firefangledfeathers wanted Kennedy trimmed further than I did. So I think we're on track, unless there's something I'm leaving out that consensus says we need. I still think we can get this new content in, without sacrifice (if I am correctly understanding what Newimpartial wants).

My suggestion is that, after all have weighed in, we proceed to Draft 3, and then Draft 4 moves to the old Wikipedia space we set up at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft where everyone can edit to clean up prose. At that point, we make a prominent announcement on talk, and hope we don't get blowback for the Bastun notification concern, and determine if that version stabilizes. Then we discuss if it's ready to install.

And then we deal with the real problem, which is syncing the unsourced content in the lead with the body. The key dilemma is the lead problem more than this section, and whether others think that we can use my new sources to adjust the lead in a way that won't rock the RFC boat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

For Rowling it is a women's rights issue, no? Yes, but that also frames any resulting discussion of her arguments exclusively in her terms. It's not at all uncommon for a person making a controversial remark, especially in the areas of gender, sexuality, politics, or racism, to frame it in a way that sanitises their views. This is quite often done through euphemisms*. The people criticising those views will almost universally draw attention to that euphemism, to clarify what the actual intent of the words are. In transgender contexts, this is frequently done by making it seem as though women's rights are in conflict to, if not diametrically opposed to trans rights. This is especially the case in the UK, and Rowling herself is no stranger to doing so.

She's from the UK: how do we leave that out? I don't think we need to leave it out per say, more that we need to as Newimpartial says, avoid putting Rowling's framing in Wikivoice, as doing so would be a NPOV violation.

* Yes I know I just inline linked a YouTube video, I'm not suggesting we cite it in the article, nor am I suggesting or implying Rowling is in any way alt-right. It just the video explains better the use of euphemisms in a controversial topic area than I can. If I knew of a similar video that wasn't using alt-right politics as a framing mechanism, ideally one that used gender as its framing mechanism, I'd use it. Unfortunately I don't know of such a video. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on the NYT article from Victoria, I get the big picture now. By dropping women's rights in the first para, are the concerns satisfied or is there more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Would the first sentence then read Some critics have labeled Rowling's statements relating to transgender people as transphobic, with otherwise the same sources and subsequent sentences? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because Newimpartial had other issues (see #"Some critics" section above). I'll recast the two sentences once we've heard from others ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Right; in the earlier section I proposed Rowling's statements relating to transgender issues have been widely criticised and labelled as transphobic for the first sentence, and replacing the repetitive "criticised" in the second sentence with "provoked/led to/engendered controversy" (pick a verb; the key point is the controversy). I would also see the point in flipping the order of the two sentences, since in this instance I think the controversy is the big heading and the accusations and counter-claims must be brought in to explain what the controversy is about. Newimpartial (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Odd thing on Wikipedia how we also sometimes end up writing sentences around where the stupid little citations will be least bothersome. Sidswipe9th, the reason I like to have all suggestions in before rewriting is to sort repetitive prose and such ... I was also thinking of flipping the sentences, but prefer to work with the big picture ... someone else may come up with something else that needs to be factored in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Personally I prefer the other way, working with the small bits. I see details better that way before they feed in to the big picture. Also helps prevent me from becoming overwhelmed by the enormity of how a thing may be at the outset. Unfortunately for this specific bit, it will prevent me from giving any useful feedback on whether a proposed change will resolve the issue, until I can see the change as enacted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Well unless someone else comes up with something else that has to be factored in, Newimpartial summed it up ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, Sandy, to be clear - I'd have to see the actual draft, but in principle a recast of the first two sentences goes a long way to assuage my concerns, and some added content that includes the North American writers' letter could go the rest of the way (I'd rather have that plus Warner rather than that plus the much less-signed UK letters, but that's not an ultimatum). Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, unless someone else comes in with something major that affects overall size dramatically, I think everything raised so far is easily doable. I was quite set back today by Bastun's post, fearing we are moving too fast and I'm also worried about AleatoryPondering's absence per COVID, but I'm fairly certain AP has no strong concerns about this section, nor does Vanamonde93, so I'm hoping we've heard from everyone who has an opinion by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

PS prosewise, I'm still bothered that the live article now has 10 instances of the word criticism; that is unavoidable in a literary topic, but six of them are in the Transgender section. Wordsmiths alert ... we need to vary the prose. Fortunately, we have only one use of the word controversy there now, and we use condemned in this draft in one place ... have to watch for too many expressed concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

For now, I have adjusted to remove "women's rights";[10] I'm having a harder time with the suggested additions, as the sources are varied as to what each criticism was, and I'll need to work further tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any kind of "UK-centrism", any more than we would expect and be unable to avoid for a UK writer. I think "women's rights" is well-sourced, but as a compromise, if that phrase is deleted, I guess that's fine. However, I also see no need to mention anything about the game developer, a Canadian bookseller, etc. There are tons of opinions from variously-connected individuals that we have just summarized, even ones more closely connected that are not specifically named anymore. Not every person who opined on this will be mentioned.

If the American literary-figure group letter is mentioned, the two UK ones should also be mentioned. This is per NPOV and the fact that it would be quite odd to leave out the reaction of writers in her own country while emphasizing foreigners. And Americentrism is already a problem on Wikipedia.

The idea of "widely criticized" was floated here, but "critics" is much better, as I will address above under #"Some critics". Crossroads ^-talk- 04:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The thing about the letters is that the North American (Margaret Atwood isn't American) one was signed by far more literary figures than the two UK letters combined, and it is much easier to discuss - for the other two, it would be necessary to point out that the pro-Rowling letter came first, and was followed by a more widely signed critical letter. For North America, the story line is much simpler (and this is part of my point): long list of literary figures like up in support of trans people in response to Rowling's tweets. Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think it is right to distinguish fairly clearly between the UK & Nth American responses, not try to lump them together, but what about the rest of the world, since HP is a huge global phenomenon? We don't seem to have anything from anywhere else, rather typically for WP. In the absence of any evidence, I'd imagine it is more like the UK, perhyaps even less outraged. We should try to tackle this. SG, anything in Spanish? Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've linked coverage above from Germany, Ireland and India, though most of it is about what prominent voices in North America and the UK have to say (relevant for DUE but not able to preempt a "globalize" template). I've also seen coverage of booksellers in Australia reacting against Rowling, and of Australian politicos getting dragged into gender identity disputes linked to Rowling, but someone more familiar with the Australian media landscape would be better placed to sift through that coverage. The New Zealand coverage I've seen was (like the coverage from India) quite global in focus, though I had hoped to find something more local. I haven't looked at the non-English language sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    • As usual on WP of course. I forgot Putin, though I don't say he needs a mention. The French bio cites a number of local stories, as well as the Anglophone ones; the Italian bio rather fewer. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

      Outside of the UK matters regarding transgender issues as covered in Victoria's NYT article, I suspect most of the other coverage has been driven by Hollywood; I find nothing in Spanish-language sources to change that impression. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Johnbod how do you suggest we go about "distinguishing fairly clearly betwen the UK & Nth American responses", i.e., how do we do that without original research? We have now a CNN "explainer" (that seems to be intended to help bewildered people in the US understand the uproar in the UK), and we can't use the NYT source provided by Victoria, so a) what sources do we have to make a distinction without original research, and b) how would you word that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  The one thing I have done in draft 2 is bring in mention that a lot of the uproar started as a response to proposed changes in UK laws ... I am unclear on what else can be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Footnote b vis-a-vis this discussion

I'm having similar problems with Newimpartial's list at 29 March 19:07 as I had with footnote b. Could people please have a closer look, as I fear footnote b has not been scrutinized, and however we fix that will help me with the list of other critics.

• Ralph Fiennes supported Rowling;[50] Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint,[50] Eddie Redmayne[53] and others did not.[54]

Many of the sources at the 19:07 list avoid being outright critical of Rowling; they're just affirming their stances on transgender issues in general, while avoiding saying anything specific about her. So I'm going to have to cover those with a broad generalization about debate or statements supporting transgender rights or some such. It's hard to come up with a general statement that relates to her on her bio when not all of them even mentioned her.

I have the same issue at footnote b, and hope those more familiar will look more closely. I fudged the wording by saying first Fiennes supported [her], then added others that "did not". I'm not certain it's accurate they all didn't support her per se ... some may be just affirming their own stance on transgender issues rather than actually criticizing her. Please have a look and suggest wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Spanish-language coverage

Starting section to respond to Johnbod's question about coverage in Spanish.

The es.wiki article is alarming, as a translation of a very old English version with very little activity (talk page is dead), and using basically all English-language sources. In more than a year, the talk page has had two edits, dealing with a vandalism question. It claims to be a Featured article. Here are the last 100 or so edits (all trivial, as anyone can see even if they don't speak Spanish), so there appears to be very little interest in or concern about the article there. THey're taking our word (en.wiki) for it, on an old version, that is at least a pat on the back for how much progress we've made over here towards what a featured article is supposed to look like. So, getting no useful sources from them, I'll next go looking myself. Back later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Switching my google language to Spanish yields a lot of Spanish-language versions of English-language sources like the BBC, Huffington Post, LA Times, etc, so after looking at what google coughs up, I will have to individually go to each newspaper website.

• El País
  • 8 June 2020 nothing local, nothing new, same ole same ole, "multitude of critics" on Twitter

• La Vanguardia (Argentina)
  • 7 June 2020 byline from London so not really local, criticized on Twitter. After the Spanish versions of English-language sites and El Pais, this is the first hit on google, and it's a nothing burger.

• Infobae
  • 22 Nov 2021 nothing new, nothing local; appears to mimic English-language coverage, samples: [11] [12] [13]

• La Nación
  • Mimicing English-language coverage, samples: [14] [15] hit paywall.

• La Prensa (Mexico City)
  • Same ole same old ... Search their website

I suspect I'm wasting my time and that they basically parrot English-language coverage. The main indicator is, I believe, the lack of interest or local coverage on es.wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

French coverage

Setting aside sources from outside France, and concentrating on how Rowling's position has been characterized, Le Point refers to des propos considérés comme transphobes and un message jugé transphobe. Le Figaro refers to tweets jugés transphobes while l'Obs notes the repeated accusations of transphobia: Ce n’est pas la première fois que J. K. Rowling est taxée de transphobie. En juin, elle avait été accusée d’avoir tenu des propos jugés insultants pour les personnes transgenres dans un tweet.. People can read the sources for themselves, but the French coverage seems to align more with North American than with UK sources in its tone and substance. In the French sources, <<jugé transphobes>> ("labelled transphobic", essentially) is occasionally attributed (to LGBTQ activists or to <<internautes>>) but is usually left as a general statement in editorial voice. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nitpick from Guerillero

Since we don't use the term TERF later in the article, style guides normally dissuade this type of use of an acronym. I would either do TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) or just pipe the link full name to the article under the acronym. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done, [16] (since we appear not ready for Draft 3, doing the little stuff on this version). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Nitpick from Bodney

Sorry i have been in hospital and remain super tired, so mostly resting. The line she expressed concern that girls were transitioning in order to escape womanhood needs careful rewriting those wrongly described as 'girls' by JKR ought to be respectfully correctly addressed as Transmen. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this better? In that portion, she was actually speaking of herself, and I mangled it when trying to merge info from three different sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a better way to say it and maybe it's already implied, but her point in bringing that up is her belief that such a thing is actually happening today to many. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I aimed with this edit to reduce it to her own experiences, out of concern that if we go beyond that, we will be asked to add a "rebuttal", which will chunk up the size again. I am shifting my approach to a longer-term view, as I am more convinced we will need a full and better RFC down the road anyway. Publicity will happen when the film is released in April. Publicity will happen when the Forstater decision comes in in May. And within another six months, we'll have more scholarly sources. I think we should just compromise now and plan a late summer/early fall well organized and planned RFC, where each "camp" puts their best suggestion forward: 375 words, 2 sentences in the lead, and a panel to close the RFC. It is folly to think we can nail this down fully now, operating under the constraints of a the recent RFC, RECENTISM affecting the article, and knowing there will be better sources down the road. Out of respect for the three literary editors who wrote over 8.000 words of featured content, we shouldn't hold this up over 400 words that are pretty decent now. We can have a qualified FAR close, with declarations clearly stating this version is not "cast in concrete", and it is expected that a new RFC will be needed, recognizing that now is too soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

First phrase tweak

I suggest changing Rowling's statements relating to transgender people have provoked controversy... to Rowling's statements about transgender-related issues have provoked controversy... Most sources don't frame it as about people because it wasn't directed at specific people or specifically at trans people as a group, but was largely about policies or understandings of gender and gender transition, and related terminology. Focusing on people could be argued to be biased in favor of the critics who rhetorically tend to equate comments on those matters with being against a group of people. While we can certainly believe that personally as editors, NPOV requires not using a biased framing. Additionally, transgender-related topics would also work, following the example of our article Feminist views on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I have heard you make this claim before, but do you have actual RS attributing the controversy to statements on "issues" or "topics" rather than "people"? I have at least a half-dozen high-quality sources saying in their own editorial voice that the issues concern "people" or "communities", etc. Newimpartial (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Any of those that are WP:BIASEDSOURCES need to have that accounted for.

Here's 10 of my own: BBC: JK Rowling has said she spoke out about transgender issues in part due to...In a lengthy blog, she wrote her interest in trans issues... SCMP: A British school has dropped J.K. Rowling’s name from one of its houses because of the “Harry Potter” author’s controversial views on transgender issues. Independent: JK Rowling has said she believes there will be a “medical scandal” over NHS identity clinics, in her latest post about transgender issues. abc.net.au: Harry Potter author JK Rowling says she is returning a human rights award after the president of the organisation who gave her the honour criticised comments she made about transgender issues. Irish Times: Daniel Radcliffe, the star of the Harry Potter film series, and Eddie Redmayne, who leads the cast of Fantastic Beasts, have both criticised Rowling for her comments about transgender issues. NBC Out reporting on an anti-Rowling letter: "This decision is not made lightly, and we are saddened and disappointed it has come to this," the statement read. "After J. K. Rowling's — who is also signed to the agency — public comments on transgender issues..." CBC: Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling says she is returning an award from a human rights group linked to the Kennedy family after the president of the organization criticized her comments about transgender issues. The Times: First, she commented on transgender issues... Reuters: Author J.K. Rowling has joined 150 high-profile figures on an open letter warning that free speech is under threat due an "intolerance of opposing views", after coming under attack for her comments about transgender issues. Herald Scotland: In the blog post, Rowling also said she was motivated to address transgender issues via her Twitter account because of what she sees as an increasingly misogynistic society.

7 different countries represented, and I didn't even have to cite any tabloids or celeb gossip outlets for this! 😁 Crossroads ^-talk- 05:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Those sources look sound. I have long held the same concern about our writing here but haven't raised it for not wanting to rock the boat on a topic where I'm less familiar than the rest of you; will read this more thoroughly tomorrow, and hope that Crossroads source list is as sound as this one. What recently drove home to me the fallacy in the people-centered wording here was that "innuendo" YouTube posted somewhere in this section: plenty of Mexican-Americans support border security, and they don't "hate Mexicans". Views on issues and views on people are not always the same thing. Casting it in Wikivoice as if her comments were about people is exactly the same problem as raised vis-a-vis "women's rights"-- casting the issue in a light favorable to those who hold the view that anyone who speaks on trans issues hates trans people. I'm not fully up on the lingo, but I suspect this is what is meant when we call something a "dog whistle". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, if that is what you think about the RS I provide below, all of which use "transgender people" or "transgender community", then I don't know what to tell you. I don't think Reuters, Associated Press, The Scotsman or cbc.ca are doing "dog whistles" of any kind. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Crossroads. I'm afraid you are doing to have to do better if you intended to demonstrate your original claim, that Most sources don't frame it as about people. I can provide more, but here for a start are ten RS that do frame it as about "people" (and one about the "transgender community) from seven different national contexts. Several of these are sources you have shown using "issues" as well, but that doesn't mean you get to keep them because of "dibs".

• Associated Press: a series of tweets about transgender people
• Reuters: "transphobic" posts, which some said questioned trans people's identity and excluded them from public spaces
• Time: Rowling’s previous comments on transgender people and gender identity
• New York Times: after she expressed support for a British researcher whose views on transgender people...
• The Scotsman (UK): her comments about transgender people
• Sky News (UK): her tweets on transgender people
• CBC.ca (Canada) a series of tweets about transgender people
• Newshub (New Zealand) her commentary on transgender people
• Deutsche Welle (Germany) her comments on transgender people
• Le Figaro (France): une série de tweets, accusés d'aller à l'encontre des personnes transgenres (a series of tweets accused of being against transgender people).
• Irish Mirror (Ireland): comments that she has made in relation to gender identity and the transgender community

So here are two major news agencies, plus the NYT and Time, plus broadsheets and authoritative news sources in the UK, Germany, France, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand, all comfortable framing the topic in relation to Rowling's "tweets about transgender people" or "comments in relation to the transgender community". These aren't all the available sources, but they should be enough for you to back away from your original claim that "most sources" don't frame it this way - at least when it comes to quality sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That's also a good source list, so we are divided. (As I indicated in my earlier post, I don't actually know what a "dog whistle" is, and don't have much interest in learning :) Out for the day now, will check in this evening. Perhaps while I am out, a compromise will be found! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

How about "transgender topics or people"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Another compromise idea: change the section heading to topics or rights or issues; keep the people in the wording-- covers all bases. Or the reverse. Peeps, find a way to meet in the middle or to accommodate all sources and views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps bucking some previous trends (pun intended), I favour the first-mentioned compromise: people in the body text and issues in the heading. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for coming late to this discussion. : Topic is a synonym to issue & problem, though a bit more neutral. I remain a strong supporter of the use of Transgender people as argued at here, i am not sure if i should bore folks again. The phrase "Transgender issues" especially has negative connotations, implying that the group in question may have issues, or are an issue. The Cambridge Dictionary Issue (noun) = a subject or problem that people are thinking and talking about. So the section title could clearly be reasonably read "Transgender issues" with negative connotations, implying that the group in question are a problem. When discussing a person's negative views on a minority in society, especially their civil and human rights it is probably not OK to use the wording gay issues, lesbian issues, black problem, Jewish problem, in a section heading. I do not think we can separate her numerous 'issues' with trans people - from transgender people as a whole, thus the all inclusive heading phrase 'Transgender people' remains correct. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Procedural queries

1. Just checking that others have seen my suggestions of sections to archive at the top of the page, to keep the page size manageable. If anyone objects to archival of some older sections, please speak up; by keeping a list of archived sections pinned at the top of the article, I've hopefully made it easier to locate older archived sections should anyone need to refer to them.
2. Also, when we reach the point of moving to draft 3, my plan is to remove the "current version" from the table in #Draft 2, since that is included in #Draft 1 and will be repeated in Draft 3. This is a space-saving measure; if anyone objects to that, please speak up.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

1. No problem with archiving the older sections.
2. Sounds OK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

   Thanks! (PS, taking into account that you expressed that you processed diffs better than broad changes, I've figured out how to provide you with a diff when we move from Draft 2 to Draft 3 ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

   Ohh! Thank you! You didn't have to go to that trouble! I normally just read each page update by the diffs in the page history, then find the corresponding text later if I need to reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

   Sideswipe9th, once I activated my brain, it wasn't hard at all; just put before and after in sandbox. Here are all the changes to Draft 2 since I posted it: [17] I can now do the same when we move to Draft 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)