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

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archived

Archive 1

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

Article stats

Pre-FAR version 8,487 words

FAC Nominator User:Serendipodous

Authorship stats

1. Serendipodous 15.3%
2. Rodw 12.9%
3. AleatoryPonderings 6.6% (first edit 2022-01-05 02:45)

Top editor stats

1. Serendipodous · 1,126 (54.4%)
2. Eagle Owl · 225 (10.9%)
3. JennKR · 141 (6.8%)

Stats extracted on 2022-01-05, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Best sources for Transgender people section

Sources

For starting a list, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Breslow, Jacob (17 December 2021). "They would have transitioned me: third conditional TERF grammar of trans childhood". Feminist Theory. doi:10.1177/14647001211046442. ISSN 1464-7001.

  Close reading of Rowling's statements. Article is open access (yay) and CC-BY-NC (grr). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Rowling, J.K. (10 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling Writes About Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues". Retrieved 8 January 2022.

  Rowling, J.K. [@jk_rowling] (6 June 2020). "People Who Menstruate" (Tweet). Retrieved 8 January 2022 – via Twitter.

• Burns, Katelyn (19 December 2019). "J.K. Rowling's transphobia is a product of British culture". Vox. Retrieved 11 January 2022.

  Trying to get all the pieces to develop a timeline. This piece raises 2015 Silkworm, New York Times raises 2018 liking tweet of “men in dresses”, CNN raises 2020 Troubled Blood after the 2019 Maya Forestater tweet … @Newimpartial and Firefangledfeathers:, does this bracket the dates when the issue first came to attention in reliable sources, that is, is there anything missing in all the sources we have here now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  2018 is the beginning of the main sequence, yes, continuing to 2022. Newimpartial (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  I concur. As far as I know, nothing pre-2018 garnered enough attention to be due, except in retrospect. Firefangledfeathers 02:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not as good because Vox heavily mixes opinion and fact in its articles - which can affect whether the full picture is presented or if it is slanted; this is why we have WP:RSOPINION. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• 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..

  Decent, recent summary of her comments and fans' responses beginning with section titled "The 'Undead' Author: When Readers' and Authors Interpretations Collide". Journal is published by Springer Science+Business Media but we don't have an article on it (yet). Article is open access. Believe I dropped it into #Works cited at some point. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Gross, Jenny (7 June 2020). "Daniel Radcliffe Criticizes J.K. Rowling's Anti-Transgender Tweets". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
• Hotine, Emily (14 August 2021). "Biology, Society and Sex: Deconstructing anti-trans rhetoric and trans-exclusionary radical feminism". Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences.

  From User:Newimpartial, I can find no DOI or page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Best DOI I could find is https://doi.org/10.37707/jnds.v2i3 which links the whole journal issue, with links to each article. No page numbers. Firefangledfeathers 02:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, Hotine has no formal qualifications, and this article is published in a surgical journal, but is not related to surgery. I don't believe it is a suitable source. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the information provided by the journal, you will see that (1) the piece is peer-reviewed and (2) it is within the declared scope of the journal (it is the journal of a surgical sciences department, not a surgical journal) - you could easily have discovered by looking for yourself, but you seem strangely eager to dismiss this high-quality source out of apparent WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Unnecessary personalization ("you could easily have discovered by looking for yourself, but you seem strangely eager to dismiss this high-quality source out of apparent WP:IDONTLIKEIT"). Please stop it, and take it off this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I know, SandyGeorgia, this is a Talk page, and you do not WP:OWN it. If I am mistaken about this, you could advise me about it on my Talk page, since this discussion seems off-topic here. Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fwiw, the journal is not indexed in selective databases. I see one ISSN, which MIAR says is not listed in any database it tracks. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Being indexed in selective databases is not a prerequisite for reliability, nor is it necessary to make a peer-reviewed article superior to broadsheet news, per WP:RS policy. Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  If you read their author guidelines it appears to be out of the declared scope; it doesn't appear to fall within any of the seven article types. Further, the fact that the author appears to have no formal qualifications does raise some questions about how high quality this particular article is. BilledMammal (talk) 01:19, 17 January

  I'm not sure what part of We welcome submissions from researchers, practitioners and clinicians.... Educational articles will also be welcomed on any topic within the innovation sphere seems unclear to you. The journal's editors clearly see the article as relevant to innovation within the surgical space, and also seem to place a higher value than you do on the insights of practitioners. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the judgement of (non-predatory) journal editorial committees and peer reviewers should carry a higher degree of WP:WEIGHT than the judgements of Wikipedia editors about what the scope of a journal - seen from the outside - "ought" to be. Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  To help us advance this discussion, could you state which of the seven article types you believe this article to be? BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  An educational topic within Innovation in Surgery and Health, as noted in my previous comment. Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that is the correct type; the article is 1000 words too long, doesn't include an author bio, and doesn't seem to propose any innovation within the field. I also note that they tend to include the article type in the header, as can be seen in this editorial and this case study, while the Hotine article includes "Equality, Diversity, Inclusion" in that space, suggesting the article is included outside of their normal process. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, if the editors have added another arricle type without changing the submissions page (I'm not sure they have) that doesn't really invite Wikipedia editors to lawyer the board's editorial decisions, does it? The editorial policy still applies: All submissions undergo an initial Editorial board review. Only those manuscripts deemed of sufficient quality and meeting the aims and scopes of JNDS will progress to a second review. The second tier review is a double blind process by external reviewers, whereby the credentials of the author(s) will not be available to the reviewers. The Editorial team will make final decision on the submission. Editorial decisions are final. I do not see any good faith reason to object to the reliability of this as a quality source. Newimpartial (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If it was a submission, rather than included through another process. The fact that its type doesn't appear to be in the seven types of accepted submissions suggests that it was included through another process - and while it is possible that the author guidelines haven't been updated, it seems unlikely, as for the change to have an effect they need authors to be aware of the change. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keller, Mayke (16 November 2020). "In Defence of Cancel Culture: The War on Free Speech". RevUU. Retrieved 8 January 2022.

  From User:Newimpartial, I can't tell if I'm citing this correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  This appears to be an opinion piece (an essay) written by someone with a BA in Film and Literary Studies writing outside their field of expertise. I don't believe it is a suitable source. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  It is a long form piece in a literary magazine, and Rowling happens to be a literary figure. This seems closer to her field of endeavor than the many broadsheet sources listed on this page, and we rely on literary magazines to lend credence to the pieces they choose to publish, not the credentials of the author. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Even if this article was about trans themes in Harry Potter or similar, we would still have the issue that it appears to be an opinion piece published by a non-SME, which makes it unsuitable for use. BilledMammal (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  For most published works, the publisher typically grants RS status, not the authour. This appears to be long-form journalism, not an opinion piece, and the qualifications of the author are certainly no worse than those of most of the broadsheet journalists cited - journalists are not expected to be SMEs. Newimpartial (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  RevUU magazine defines articles as "reviews" or "essays". Essays advance an argument - an opinion - reviews do not, and per WP:NEWSORG Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I also note that this appears to be a student journal ("run by an international group of graduate students"), and while WP:RSSM does say it can sometimes be considered reliable for topics beyond their school and local community, other sources are generally preferred. BilledMammal (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  You have not shown that an essay in a literary journal is "opinion" in the sense of WP:RSOPINION, nor have you shown that a literary journal staffed by graduate students is less reliable than broadsheet journalism, within its area of specialty. And even if RSOPINION did apply in this case - I believe it does not - attributed opinions from the piece might be quite useful for the article, as setting out a widespread perspective on this issue with greater precision than broadsheet journalism allows. Newimpartial (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Kolirin, Lianne (15 September 2020). "JK Rowling's new book sparks fresh transgender rights row". CNN. Retrieved 10 January 2022.

  Ties her views to her latest book, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Noting here that this review in The Guardian takes a different view. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pugh, Tison (2020). Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvs09qwv. ISBN 978-1-64336-088-1. OCLC 1142046769.

  In a 20-page basic biography section, page 7 has a nice summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Stack, Liam (19 December 2019). "J.K. Rowling Criticized After Tweeting Support for Anti-Transgender Researcher". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 January 2022.
• Brooks, Libby (11 June 2020). "Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate?". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  • Explainer about the essay on Rowling's website. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ferber, Alona (22 September 2020). "Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'". New Statesman. Retrieved 26 March 2021.
• Parsons, Vic (4 January 2021). "Feminist writer Judith Butler has given her theory on why JK Rowling has deemed it necessary to speak out on". Pink News. Retrieved 26 March 2021.

  Two Sources featuring interviews with leading feminist gender theorist Judith Butler, I believe her analysis is far more relevant than the reactions of actors or a book fan. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• "An open letter to J.K. Rowling". Mermaids. 12 June 2020. Archived from the original on 12 June 2020. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
• Calvario, Liz (10 June 2020). "GLAAD President Says J.K. Rowling's Words Create Dangerous Environment for Transgender Community". ET Online. Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 14 June 2020.

  Two Sources from Two trans rights specialist expertise organisations, I believe their responses were far more relevant & important than those of individual actors or a single fan ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Petter, Olivia (2020-09-17). "Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people". The Independent. Retrieved 2022-01-19.

  secondary source for mermaids letter ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 07:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Shirbon, Estelle (10 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues". Reuters.
• Thorpe, Vanessa (14 June 2020). "JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm". The Observer.
  • Two news sources that summarize the matter well. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Milne, Amber (11 June 2020). "Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore?". Reuters. Retrieved 6 April 2021.
  • The second (and balancing) Reuters Source used in the current article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 08:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• McNamara, Mary (2020-06-18). "J.K. Rowling, trans rights and the curse of bathroom politics". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
• Robertson, Grace (2020-06-12). "Where J.K. Rowling's Transphobia Comes From". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2022-01-19.

  A couple more sources, that should have been added before ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 07:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Rosenblatt, Kalhan. "J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto'". NBC News. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
• Fitzpatrick, Oscar (2020-10-20). "TERF Wars | Masters of Media". mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl. Retrieved 2022-01-19.}}
• Tudor, Alyosxa (2020-06-19). "Terfism is White Distraction: On BLM, Decolonising the Curriculum, Anti-Gender Attacks and Feminist Transphobia". Engenderings. Retrieved 2022-01-19.}}
• Heiltjes, F. (2021-08-25). "Alive but Cancelled: The Public's Response to the Controversial Author". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

  another press report and 3 scholarly sources ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Drafting

This looks like a decent list of sources—Should we start a draft in userspace? Is there language that we must, or must not, include per any RfC or other local consensus? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an RfC closed "no consensus" (and therefore protecting the status quo) concerning the mention in the lead, but nothing at all concerning the body. Of course, body text that departs too fundamentally from the current lead summary may require an RfC or similar. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the entire LEAD is a wreck and needs a top-to-bottom rewrite. Due weight will become more clear once we get the body settled. I am appalled at several things in the lead: the (false) emphasis on “rags to riches” which is OR and not born out by sources, an entire paragraph on her wealth … I could go on … based on what I have read so far in the sources, I don’t see how we could NOT mention the transgender issue in the lead, but we need to get the entire lead much better balanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

AP, my thoughts are the following. First, I have wanted to get out a list of sources to encourage everyone participating to get up to speed on the sources; I have been slowly processing through them, but still have a bit more to read. Second, I don’t think we should advance in userspace until everyone is at least on that page. (That said, this list is by no means all the sources, just hopefully the best; the issue has been well covered by every major outlet. Today I found a Washington Post article which was similar to the rest, but I tend to avoid them when other sources cover same because, paywalled.) Third, we are still in a phase of chopping back some parts of the article, and have yet to build the basics of her early life bio (which I hope to have done in a few days). Until we have done all of that, and digested all of the sources, it may be hard to come up with how much space to allocate to this one issue, re DUE weight. I think it would be helpful if we all thought about the word counts we have tried to achieve in different sections of the article, and after reading all of the sources, start to think about how many words it will take to cover this (I can see already the need to cut back some of the he-said, she-said that’s in the article now, and better cut to the core of the matter.) There is a sub-article, and we have seriously cut back other sections to use strict summary style, although we have expanded quite a bit in the literary analysis direction, because we literally had zero going in. I think drafting will be more productive if we can decide if we are talking about a target of 300 words, 400, or 500, for example. I believe we cut all of her lifetime of political views on everything else down to about 400 words. We’ve gotten her considerable legal disputes well below that. We have her lifetime achievements in Honours and awards also down to the 400-word range. These highly summarized sections give us some ideas of how to better summarize the Transgender section, and writing may be easier if we agree on the sources and the size of the bit to write, and after we have the rest of the article better settled. We aren’t far from settling the rest, but several participants have expressed a need to work slower and to allow more time to digest. Maybe if people do want to get a head start on writing, they can start adding text at the sub-article, Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people, but we would not want that to lead to edit warring which would distract us from finishing. Just as I did in the Honours and awards section, I advise that we take this slow and methodical, and setting a word-count target may be one place to start, along with some good old-fashioned outlines from which to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I have very little idea of how many words is appropriate for any given section. IMO the starting point will have to be the academic sources listed above. We can see what incidents they highlight and see how many words are necessary to explain those clearly. The problem with Special:PermaLink/1065139073##Transgender_people now is that it's a blow-by-blow account sourced to up-to-the-minute news stories and even tweets themselves. Some of that is straightforward OR and some of it might as well be—we don't (or shouldn't) source articles about historical events to newspapers from that time, because we need to filter that through secondary commentary on it. Secondary sources become primary with time; we need to take a longer view. I don't say this because I think anyone participating in this discussion needs reminding about core policy, just that I have no idea how to target a word count in advance of seeing what the long-view sources say. Hence why I thought it would be worth starting a draft with the good sources we do have. Since there aren't nearly as many on this as on her biography or Harry Potter, clearly the trans section should be shorter than those. But other than that I don't know. So I thought it would be worth diving in, which I'll do unless there are objections. I will aim for 300 words and see if that feels constraining. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve read through most of the sources already, and suspect it can be done correctly in about 400 words, but wondered what others thought. Much of what is there now is not entirely helpful and never cuts to the core of the issue, rather dwells on what famous person said at what point in time … which is not surprising because it is the same sort of narrative we found throughout the rest of the article— built blow-by-blow from newsy accounts, suffering from proseline, too wordy, not well summarized … on such and so date, someone said X or did Y … the same we found elsewhere in the article. I didn’t get a clear sense of what even happened until I read the sources; we aren’t covering it well at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a rough draft. I've included most of the sources above to some degree, with heavy reliance on Breslow 2021 and Duggan 2021. I am not sure about the reliability of Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences or RevUU, and I didn't see a need to use the Stack piece. What I've found, comparing the sources, is that by far the most commonly discussed statements are "people who menstruate" and her blog post after there was a large response to that tweet. I also included the Cormoran Strike bits because (1) they were mentioned in the Vox and CNN pieces, which appear to be longer-view than some of the others; and (2) are connected to her career as a writer. Interestingly, none of the academic sources use the word "transphobic", so my draft doesn't either. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(You work fast :) At only 167 words, I continue to think it could go to the 300 to 400 word range. I too was concerned about what RevUU was. Much relieved that you got rid of the tweet-by-tweet, blow-by-blow, he-said, she-said. Should the “men in dresses” issue be included? I believe the Maya Forestater incident is key. Also, there are mentions throughout the sources of why her fanbase felt/feels so betrayed in terms of their connection to Harry Potter that might be explored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

AP can you get hold of Pugh? Page 7 has a very nice summary, which extends beyond gender … I will type up notes when not iPad typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have Pugh, and you're right, it's quite good. I will add his description of the Forstater case. Not sure about the broader context: Duggan puts it in terms of fandom, Breslow in terms of rhetoric, Pugh's I like best because it stays focused on Rowling and her work. I'll experiment and see with what works best. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, wish I had read Pugh earlier … very useful in philanthropy, awards, and early life bio. Will type up some later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling on trans people is now at 342 words according to my script. I have added a description of the Forstater case and "mini-reception" section using Pugh and Jennifer Duggan. I am not sure what to do about the part on Cormoran Strike. Sources have picked up on it but there's nothing really substantial about it I can see—more like, "see, she did this too". I would be fine to omit. Everyone should feel free to edit this draft although it might make sense to discuss major changes so we are all on the same page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings (and all), per Pugh's overall analysis, would we have a more enduring, more general, and more encyclopedic section heading if we switched it to Multiculturism or some such?

Also, AP, maybe considering how touchy this section is, you might consider moving it to a Wikipedia talk-space draft once the FAR participants are comfortable with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Very nice work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Idk about "Multiculturalism"—AFAIK there aren't whole journal articles talking about her views on multiculturalism, but there are at least two about her views on trans issues specifically. I think some of the content could be folded into Reception, especially since we already have a graf there about gender in HP, but burying it there—especially when readers are probably looking for it after the next tweet comes out—seems not that helpful if, as may be the case, WP is where people are going to quickly understand this complex topic. Should I move to something like Talk:J. K. Rowling/Proposed transgender section? Wasn't sure what you meant by "Wikipedia talk space". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft. By putting it in FAR space, we have an associated talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft 12 Jan

I have prepared a draft at User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling on trans people. All welcome to edit it in my userspace, although if you have substantive comments it may be best to put them here so we can discuss as a group. Per SG's suggestion, the plan is to move this to Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft for wider comment once/if FAR participants reach consensus on an appropriate version. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: just alerting you all to the split discussion on that talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Current Draft regarding her trans views is appallingly One Sided

I was not sure where to write this, apologies it is a repeat of Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft#The Current Draft is appallingly One Sided

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

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

Again I am not sure where this critique should have gone

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read what you have written & make basic language corrections so your meaning is clearer. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of split discussion

We have now an unfortunate three-way fork of a discussion; could we keep comments here, together? My response on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks to SandyGeorgia for your constructive help ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I'm not sure if I've accomplished anything. With commentary regarding the various sources now in three places, it is difficult to see where consensus stands even on the best sources to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia did you set up Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft as a subpage for centralized discussion re TG? If so, let's start advertising it and pushing all the discussion there. I noticed it linked at the top of Bodney's comment. If not, then we should have a single place for discussion. Bodney's comment made me take a look; I'd not realized discussion was spread across so many pages. Victoria (tk) 18:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not. To see the history of how this evolved, start here (above). After I started a section to begin to gain consensus on what sources we should be looking at, the draft was started in user space at User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling on trans people. I suggested we were moving too fast, and that the draft would eventually go in a sub-page of this FAR, but the draft was moved to that page in less than two days. It is unfortunate that we now have a three-way split and premature alarm about the state of the draft, which is based on little consensus, complicated by consensus that is hard to read because of the three-way split. My recommendation is that, to avoid fracturing the work on this FAR that had been proceeding so well, we should mark that draft historical to minimize the alarm that has been generated, and re-focus discussion on what sources to use, how much weight to give them, and how much space to give this item in the article. And it is extremely premature to begin discussing what to do about the lead, when there isn't even consensus yet on the body. We have been working very fast; my intent is not to point any fingers, but to sugggest a way to get us re-focused on the considerable work to be done, and to do that methodically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

PS, it is true that after the draft was launched and announced on talk (which surprised me), I did alert the Coords to the split, link the other discussions on talk, and ask that we move discussion to that talk page (hoping discussion would not continue in three places rather than one). That has proven to be a mistake; some have continued to weigh in on article talk, others here, and others at the draft. We now have alarm and a three-way split, with different editors offering opinions on three different pages. Perhaps we should ask @WP:FAR coordinators: to weigh in; it's possible that their brains can go three ways at once better than mine can :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Literary analysis redux

Continuing from Special:PermaLink/1064860872#Update 8 Jan. Trying to get a sense of how much there is left to go.

I'm now not sure whether subsections, as in Special:PermaLink/1064859562#Critical analysis, are warranted. "Characters" was always a stretch as a heading and is not really accurate now; I haven't found great lit-crit sources on individual characters, aside from bits on Harry himself (many of which are already in the article) and Hermione Granger (book I don't have access to). "Ordinary and extraordinary" is just a paragraph so I don't think the heading is needed—but the contrast between ordinary and extraordinary it is a constantly recurring theme in the scholarship.

As for sources, I think we now have a representative list of the current academic scholarship in Special:PermaLink/1064859562#Works cited, and most of those sources are used to a decent degree. The only source that sticks out for me as highly underused—because I have highly underused it—is Gupta's Re-Reading Harry Potter. I have, er, re-read (or rather, re-skimmed) it a few times and find it difficult to pick out any clear conclusions I'd feel comfortable summarizing, either as attributions or as wikivoice statements.

I think the section is more or less comprehensive. The only bit I would like more on is Cormoran Strike. Aside from Pugh's book, there isn't much on the series by academics. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to keep chipping away at it if that's ok with people. I have found info re characters and until all the sources have been read, material extracted, text rewritten, there's no way of knowing how the structure will change. But I have to work slowly, (just got in from a medical appt), so if there's a rush I'm not the person for it. Let me know whether to keep at it at my slow pace or to stop now. Victoria (tk) 17:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's ask Nikkimaria how we're doing. I was pushing/rushing early on to forestall what I viewed as early delist declarations, but feel like we are now solidly in hold in FARC territory, with the restored star within reach, meaning if Nikki agrees, it should be fine to take a slower pace at fine-tuning the literary analysis. I cannot recall a FAR article having advanced as quickly as this one has, acknowledging that we are leaving the touchy Transgender section 'til last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Slow is good for me if it's good for the coordinators. It occurred to me that we may want a capsule (1-2 graf) plot summary of the Potter series somewhere. I had been sort of assuming it was common knowledge but it's obviously not for everyone. I'll give that one a shot. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessary for a plot summary in the bio. The bio is bio, plus why this person is notable, i.e author, and lit criticism of her works. I'm kinda following the structure I used for Ernest Hemingway, which has a "Style" section, then a "Themes" section. Looking at The Sun Also Rises there's a plot summary and another, more specific, "Style" and "Themes" section. If that makes sense. Victoria (tk) 21:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I had drafted a bit of text before I saw this and decided to drop it in under #Reception. It's part of a more general line of criticism so I think it fits there. Won't go any further though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I may be an oddity, but never having read a Potter book or seen a Potter movie, I appreciate a bit of the plot, so I can understand who’s who and what’s what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Slow progress is fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on my read of the bios so far, and notes I am taking, I can see about another 500 words of biographical info— just to give everyone a heads up on the overall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pasted in an updated version tonight. I condensed and flattened the section headings. At the moment it comes in at 1106 words. Victoria (tk) 23:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I've been looking through "Hermione Granger Saves the World : Essays on the Feminist Heroine of Hogwarts", and I think we do need a short paragraph or a least a mention of Hermione as a feminist model. Are there any thoughts on what I should be looking for as I go through those essays? BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've got that essay in my "to read" folder; basically we're tapped out on word count in the main article so there's really only room for a sentence or so. But it would be great to add to any of the Harry Potter sub articles. Victoria (tk) 03:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I recall VM suggested way at the start that Gender in Harry Potter would be a worthy split, so if there's enough "leftovers" we could start that too. (Not that I am suggesting even more work ...) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll see if I can find the ideal sentence; a lot of the essays refer back to "Hermione Granger and the Heritage of Gender", in "Ivory Tower and Harry Potter : Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon" (currently used as a source under Whiting, though that particular section is unused) so I should be able to find something along the line of what User:AleatoryPonderings suggests. Otherwise, I'll keep notes and perhaps they will be suitable for Gender in Harry Potter. BilledMammal (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: A sentence about Hermione would fit well after the one about Molly Weasley (though I'm wondering if that character deserves mention there at all). Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  PS: Please do ping me if you start Gender in Harry Potter; with a little more time I'd love to write it myself, as gender in speculative fiction is something I've read a fair bit about; but alas, RL leaves me little time for Wikipedia these days. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Will do, though I have articles from October last year that I need to finish first. I've replaced the Molly Weasley example with a Hermione Granger example, but I would also like to introduce some of the opposition to the ideas presented in the last two sentences of that paragraph, though I'm not certain how yet. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not particularly happy with this insertion. It wasn't where I suggested it be placed; it's separating content from the source used for it, it's very hard to understand, and it's attributing to Berents a piece of an argument made by Heilman. Also, I really don't think the ideas in the last two sentences misrepresent scholarly sources on this topic. The weightiest sources are the ones used there; they are uniformly mixed in their assessments. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, even Berents acknowledges that Hermione's character is generally analyzed as a sidekick, while disputing that argument herself. I don't think we can reasonably include more counterpoint than already exists in this article, though it's all the more reason to write the sub-article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I placed it there after checking to make sure that Berents had made the same argument, forgetting about the quotes - apologies, and thank you for catching that. You have a good point about the split of; the view is sufficiently prominent to warrant mention, just not here. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think I've got through all the major sources discussing gender at this point, and I'm happy with where that paragraph is at; I hope you are too. I did add another sentence about Hermione elsewhere, not sure if you saw it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  I typically look for cases where one critic is summarizing, quoting, or responding to another critic's work. That's a sign that the analysis presented isn't just some person's opinion, but a view about the text that's gained some adherence in the literature. A rule of thumb, not an iron-clad law, but I've found it helpful in weeding through the reams of commentary. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Harold Bloom's review/commentary in the Wall Street Journal might be worth a mention. Firefangledfeathers 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Some literary criticism would be due, but I'm not sure that is the right article for it, as for the most part it criticizes without explaining the criticism. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pugh: general biographical info, Philanthropy, Honours and awards, Political views, and Transgender people

In a seven-chapter, 168-page 2020 book, Harry Potter and Beyond, Tison Pugh gives a 20-page biographical sketch in Chapter one.

The first four pages debunk the "rags to riches" myth (in ways that make Wikipedia sound irresponsible, as we have have hosted that uncited original research since mid-2008), and is largely in agreement with the 2002 Sean Smith bio, which paints the picture of a solid middle-class upbringing, with Rowling falling on hard times after her mother's death, the birth of her daughter, her divorce, and single parenthood as she was struggling to write her first novel.

Also New Yorker scoffs at the myth.

Page 1 contains material we have not covered at all:

• Yet by whichever name one calls her, Rowling has skyrocketed into the popular consciousness as the author of the phenomenally successful Harry Potter series. In the process, she has sold hundreds of millions of copies of her novels, launched two blockbuster film series, inspired a seemingly endless array of merchandise, including games, toys, clothes, and school supplies, and sparked an online fan community both enthusiastically passionate as well as sharply critical in their responses to her creations and achievements. Rowling’s impact on contemporary popular culture is unparalleled, with her Harry Potter novels transcending the realm of children’s fiction—an oft-contested categorization—to reveal both her engagement with a wide range of literary traditions and her reformulation of these fields.

On pages 5 to 6, Pugh covers her philanthropy, beginning with:

• While pursuing her extraordinarily successful writing career, Rowling has energetically contributed to a range of philanthropic endeavors, primarily those dedicated to alleviating poverty and deprivation. (cite to Pugh|2020|p=5)

and containing some useful material we might add.

On pages 6 to 7, Pugh covers awards, honours and recognition. Some excerpts:

• In recognition both of her Harry Potter novels and of her charitable endeavors, Rowling has been honored with prestigious awards and commendations (from page 6, hence my concern that we list Premio Principe de Asturias, as her commendations are not strictly based on literature, rather also philanthropy).

We have left out (cite to Pugh|2020|p=6):

• ... and in 2008 she won the Life-time Achievement Award at the British Book Awards and the James Joyce Award of University College Dublin.
• also from page 6, honorary degree from Dartmouth College.

Pages 6 to 7 cover political views, beginning with:

• Rowling’s political views run strongly to the left. and including:
• Rowling frequently expresses her political views on her Twitter account, with sharp, sardonic, and sometimes snarky responses to political leaders and their pronouncements. Rowling strongly supports multiculturalism and, in a passionate defense of its benefits, she summarizes her lineage by describing herself as "the mongrel product of this European continent" and thus as an internationalist."

Half of page 7 is devoted to the gender issues and more:

• Notwithstanding these personal endorsements of multiculturalism, many readers have found Rowling’s treatment of race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and other related issues sharply limited. Characters of color are relegated to the margins of the Harry Potter story lines, and her depiction of European wizards colonizing the Americas in “Ilvermorny School of Witchcraft and Wizardry” deploys unsettling tropes of Indigenous peoples as uncivilized. Rowling announced Dumbledore’s homosexuality to her fans, but she does not noticeably depict this aspect of his identity in her novels, thus closeting this character for unexplained reasons. ...<snip>... In response to these events, Rowling tweeted, “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? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill.” Given Judge Tayler’s eloquent rebuttal against Forstater’s disregard for the reality of transgender experience, Rowling’s endorsement of her position evinces a narrow view of the dignity and rights of trans people.

Pages 7 to 8 continue with discussion of how her political views are seen in her literary themes, and on page 10, Pugh discusses how her biography enlightens aspects of her fiction and writers influenced her voice as an author. The Sean Smith bio does a lot of this as well; her early life is reflected in her writing.

Based on Pugh:

• Olivaw-Daneel would you want to incorporate the James Joyce Award, the Dartmouth honorary degree and do some rejigging to reflect that her awards and honours recognize humanitarian and charitable endeavors?
• I will make a post to Talk:J. K. Rowling suggesting that, given the amount we have already trimmed from awards, and the continued trimming as we work to convert the list to prose, would previous participants revisit their opinions as the usefulness of a separate "List of ... " ? I now support a separate list, as we are leaving out more content from this summary version.
• "Rags to riches" needs to go, but I am loathe to touch the lead until everything else is better settled.
• Pugh gives a good overview of the gender issues, and the book overall gives us a good measure of due weight.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings as the speedy-generator-of-excellent-prose, might you find a place to work in the stuff I excerpted above from page 1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that in Reception and/or Legacy? The only things it mentions that we don't are (1) merchandise, which (unless additional research shows otherwise) I would assume is a Warner Bros. thing; and (2) transcending the children's literature genre. That might fit in Legacy, with something like "Tison Pugh argues that, owing to its extreme popularity and incorporation of diverse influences, Harry Potter is not properly classed as children's literature." But since he doesn't say what it is, but rather what it isn't, I don't see how such a statement is that helpful beyond what we already have re genre and popularity. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes to merchandise, yes to legacy, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I've created List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling. It has the awards from Pugh; will also add above. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Olivaw-Daneel Beautiful. And now that it’s done, I can’t see any reason not to go ahead and make the change to her article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes from bio reading

I need a sub-section to start putting things as I continue reading bio sketches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Rita Skeeter

AP, Rita Skeeter and her relationship with press is on Pugh, page 9. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also in Salter, Anastasia; Stanfill, Mel (16 October 2020). A Portrait of the Auteur as Fanboy: The Construction of Authorship in Transmedia Franchises. Jackson, Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 978-1-4968-3051-7. OCLC 1178868864. at p 48: "Throughout her career, J. K. Rowling has had a particularly contentious relationship with the press, and has taken steps to control her own message and narrative dissemination where possible. Her frustration with the press even inspired a character in the Harry Potter universe, Rita Skeeter, whom J. K. Rowling acknowledged was shaped by the feeling of being continually hounded and misquoted by the press ..." AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Birthplace

Birthplace confusion sorted

In case anyone wonders why this is taking me so long, I keep hitting messy situations. Would someone else like to work on this one little piece ? If not, I will eventually get to it. A historical controversy over where she was born is glossed in the article, and should be clarified in footnotes, making use of better sources than we are now. The presence of an inline footnote on the matter indicates that we haven't provided the necessary clarity. The discrepancy between Yate General Hospital on her website, and Chipping Sodbury in sources needs explanation in a footnote. We say: Joanne Rowling was born on 31 July 1965[21] in Yate, Gloucestershire,[22][23] based on JK Rowling's own website which says Yate General Hospital (it does not say the town of Yate). Sources say Chipping Sodbury Scotsman JK Rowling story has her born at Cottage Hospital, Chipping Sodbury Pugh page 2 has her born at Chipping Sodbury General Hospital Smith p. 4 Chipping Sodbury "Yate's elegant neighbor", and has her born at Cottage Hospital, 240 Station Road, Yate, p. 5, with birth certificate reproduced on p. 6 The birth certificate says District Sodbury. The whole mess can be sorted via a footnote using this source, which explains the hospital history: https://books.google.com/books?id=LEnHs53G0j0C&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q&f=false I suggest we might switch was born at a hospital in Chipping Sodbury, bordering on the town of Yate, avoiding naming the actual hospital, and then spell out the whole mess in a footnote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC) This has been bothering me too. I will assemble something. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC) It is the gazillion little things like this that have me taking so long on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC) How is this version? I decided to put it in text as opposed to a long, confusing footnote. I think you have Smith open so feel free to add the details from there in my userspace. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC) I'd rather not make so much of it, since in the past, she was accused of conflating her birthplace to more chic neighborhood, when in fact, it's just a naming issue. I'd much rather build a footnote, based on the google book, explaining the issue/confusion. If we put all that in to text, we are turning it in a bigger deal than it should be. She was born at Cottage Hospital. Footnote: her website says x, but other sources say y. Z book explains the difference as a, b and c. Do we need three footnotes on her birthdate? One is enough-- not controversial, we can use higher quality than Kirk. We have both Pugh and Smith and her own website. Also, I think we know where she was born, it's just how to explain it, so would rather not say it is unclear where she was born. When I have Smith open, does that mean others can't borrow it? If so, should I sign out more often? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC) I don't exactly trust this so maybe there is something better that says Yate General Hospital = Cottage Hospital = Chipping Sodbury (General) Hospital. Non-PD internet archive books can only be borrowed by one person for one-hour stints, so others can't access it while you're using it for that hour. Don't waste time by signing in and out all the time—we can wait an hour :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC) I did not know this ... had never used google play before for books. OK, if you don't trust that book, we can dig more, or gloss that part in the footnotes ... or someting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC) PS Smith gives the address at 240 Station Road, Yate ... so I trusted the other google book ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Also, another reason to avoid a whole paragraph on where she was born is that it can be an early indication to raeders that, oh my gosh, this article is going to be a chore to read! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC) PS I wasted a lot of time on similar issue with her father as engineer. He started as production line worker, but did eventually rise. As we trace her clearly middle class background (not rags to riches) with non-college educated parents who wanted her to study something practical so she could get a job rather than become a writer ... all of the little stuff adds up, and I want to be able to tell it correctly. Hence, not typing til I finish reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC) And I have spent similar time getting to know her mother, who was a book-loving, vivacious, brilliant woman who was very close to her daughters, and instilled the love of literature, which explains a lot about how Jo became so undone with her mother's illness and death, and had to get away to Portugal, and ended up in bad marriage (desperately seeking love). We can use two or three more sentences on things like this, to provide what a bio is supposed to be ... but the devil is in not over doing it ... a clause here and there. We haven't given her childhood its due yet ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Names

Discussion of whether to include her married name

AleatoryPonderings why are we taking out that she also uses the name Joanne Murray ? [1] Isn’t that important biographical info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC) You can revert but since it's her married name I thought that was common enough that it didn't need to be said. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Not sure I agree on married name bit, since many of us have no such thing ... my one and only name is the same name I was born with :) Except that, when I lived in two different Latin American countries, they forced me to lodge a doble apellido on my national identity documents, so spelling out other names used can matter. I have added this to my notes in sandbox to try to work back in more briefly perhaps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC) I undid it. Off for most of today, won't be doing anything else with the body text for a while. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Degree, date, and "major"

Another mess for sorting. We say 1986 graduation from Exeter, and Smith says 1987 (which fits with other dates I find). In trying to find an accurate date, I encountered this fine mess. Smith does not say "BA" and it appears that Rowling does not say "French and classics". Need to get to the bottom of this. Every sentence in this article takes hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Rowling does not give a year, but says "French and classics syllabus"; what are "majors" and "degree" called at Exeter? https://www.jkrowling.com/about/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Here, she says Modern languages, but then classics (no year).

But then here, she says French (no year).

Sdkb are you able to tap us into an editor who might help sort this fine mess? Preferably from Exeter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ack, that is indeed a mess. Robminchin is one of the WP:HED editors who knows about the UK education system. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

There's one in the next room, not an editor, but a person. I'll ask. Probably a French degree but read classics. Depends too on her A levels, if she took them. If she had modern languages then it makes sense to continue those studies at university. I'll take a look at Smith too. Victoria (tk) 20:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A-levels are on Smith, p. 81. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so the degree is Bachelor of Arts, and because she was in Paris for a year would have had to come back to finish the fourth year at Exeter. Pugh says French and Classics (cited to Kirk). Pugh says she studied in Paris for her third year (that would be French). Kirk says on page 118 says she "took French with the Classics, Greek and Roman studies", that her parents thought a French degree would give her skills as a bilingual secretary, page 44, that she graduated in 1987 after a year studying French in Paris, on page 118. Not sure this helps. It does take a long time to sort all of these out. Victoria (tk) 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding: Smith tells us on page 95 that because of poor grades/attendence, etc. "it was decided that it would suit her better if she dropped Greek and Roman studies for her final two years." So, she received a degree in French, but she did take some Classics (Greek and Roman studies) courses early on. Victoria (tk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, so yes to it being a B.A. But other than that, I am still uncomfortable with the whole mess. On everything I check, almost all of the sources are the same, so it matters not if we use Kirk, Pugh, Smith or Joe Bloe. Yes, the third year in Paris is why I thought Smith was right that she graduated in 1987, and Kirk says 87, so why are we finding 86 all over the place? And now with over a week of my head into biographical pages, I trust Pugh less and less (the chapter I have does not tell me who he is citing, I don't have footnotes); everyone seems to be regurgitating the same sources. Unless we do better, we may need to gloss this. She enrolled at Exeter to study French and classics and graduated with a B.A. in French, and leave off the year?? Proposed wording anyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

In England a BA is a three-year degree. But, if you go abroad, then it's a four year degree. She took entrance exams in '82 (autumn), enrolled autumn '83, initially took classes in both departments (French and Classics), had to drop Classics in year two, went to Paris in year three, returned and graduated in year four - 1987. That makes sense to me. I will send you notes from Pugh - it's a separate pdf. Re regurgitating; yes, that's an issue. She's very private, there are limited interviews, and she's still young. We might want to mention that biographical material is difficult to find. I think I read that somewhere so might be able to find a source. Also I left a message in your sandbox talk re helping w/ the heavy lifting. I've just ordered an actual book from ILL; going old fashioned. Victoria (tk) 21:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Victoriaearle I'm starting to lose track of my messages everywhere (left a bit of new material for Olivaw-Daneel at the Lists of awards page), and am going out tonight with friends (COVID be damned). May not get caught up 'til tomorrow. Many references to her privacy in Smith. Not sure what to do about date discrepancies. Would you like to write her degree sentence while I am out tonight, and we won't get edit conflicts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Responding to Sdkb's ping. My reading would be that for the subjects she studied 'degree' means BA. As Y mentioned, this is normally a three-year degree but becomes four with a year abroad (which is common for modern languages). The date confusion could then come from writers assuming she did a standard three-year degree, giving a 1986 graduation, without verifying if she took a year abroad. The 1987 graduation dates are likely to be from people who have done their research better – but this is not entirely satisfactory from a Wikipedia point of view. Robminchin (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Hermione Granger Saves the World : Essays on the Feminist Heroine of Hogwarts" says that she "holds a degree in French and Classics from the University of Exeter", but that source is unlikely to be an authority on this matter. BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking for it. We sorted it out. She graduated in 1987 with a degree in French. Victoria (tk) 03:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Friend Sarah Brown

When others have a moment, could you read pp. 238–39 of Smith? It sounds like Rowling's first friendship was with Gordon Brown, which led to the friendship with Sarah Brown, but we imply the opposite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to find a place for this quote from Smith, p. 238--seems to sum up her passion for her causes, after being a single-mother, seeing her mother suffer with MS, affinity for the vulnerable, et al:

• Labour Party, Gordon Brown ... when she gave first speech as ambassador for National Council for One Parent Families ... "We should judge how civilized a society is not by what it prefers to call normal but by how it treats its most vulnerable members." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Platform 9 3/4

Image caption fixed

The image caption as I edited it at Early life and education is now misleading, and I don't know how to fix it or what source to use. Smith mentions Platform 9 3/4, but I don't believe that is what it was called when Rowling's parents embarked from there, rather based on the fictional aspects and the site of a tourist shop. Is someone able to fix that image caption to explain the why behind the Platform 9 3/4 in the image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks, Victoriaearle, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Clapham or Clapham Junction

We currently say (about the flat Rowling lived in after university with university friends):

• When she reached her Clapham Junction flat, she began to write.

cited to Nell p. 67

There is Clapham and Clapham Junction, which Wikipedia says is not part of Clapham.

• Nell p. 49 says Clapham in southwest London
• Nell p. 67 says Clapham Junction
• Smith p. 104 says Clapham in south-west London
• Smith never uses Clapham Junction
• Wikipedia says Clapham is in south London, and Clapham Junction "forms the commercial centre of Battersea".

I will go with Junction per this not so reliable source (and many others that repeat her tweet), unless someone tells me otherwise. Leaving a record of the discrepancy here at any rate. User:Johnbod ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, go Up the Junction. St John's Road runs right up to the station. But I'd better summon the oracle. Johnbod (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Smith done, Kirk pending

I just dropped in a chunk of bio; I expect you all will have a jolly time with my prose :) I want to lay the groundwork for how significant her mother's life and death was to her writing, and to sort the "rags to riches" myth, but I know the 700 words I added will require ruthless editing. I hope to do same to the next section tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Put in the next bit at J. K. Rowling#Inspiration and single parenthood. Will need work, but besides working on my yucky prose, it may be better to wait until Victoriaearle gets her copy of Kirk before deciding what to trim, etc, and figure out new section headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have now chunked in everything I intend to from the Smith bio. Victoriaearle is getting her hands on a copy of Kirk. I'm aware considerable trimming and copyediting will be needed, but maybe best done after Victoria works through Kirk. But at least my writing should be checked for gross prose issues and British spelling. We can chop, chop, chop later as we see what Victoria comes up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Spanish source - needs evaluation

This 2008 interview is in Spanish, diff. It's being used in two sections, "Politics" and "Religion", and has long quote embedded. I can't evaluate b/c I can't read it. Can someone else take a look? It looks interesting. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 00:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm Spanish, I can take a look at it in the morning. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I speak fluent Spanish, and I was the one who added them. The quotes are there per WP:NONENG, so a Spanish-speaker can easily see exactly what the original quote was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A. C. a much easier-to-read version is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll ignore it then. Wasn't sure. Btw - if I'd been watching each edit, I wouldn't be stepping on so many toes since I started editing in main space. Will try to keep up in the future. Victoria (tk) 00:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I knew that :) I haven't had time to read the entire article. It was in the article when I first started editing, so I just cleaned up what it was being used for and made sure it verified what it said (earlier on, it didn't, IIRC). It's possible there is more good stuff in there; I haven't had time to get through the rest of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:BLAME is a good tool for this purpose, Victoria. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz could you glance at my notes at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6#El Pais interview? Every source I read talks about how much of her is in Harry and her books, and I am not sure we have given this enough attention. Still putting together bits and pieces for biographical sketch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Added two comments there, the notes are nice. Quite lucky such a lengthy, personal interview is accessible. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User:A._C._Santacruz I agree that there is some impressive material in there; El Pais consistently gets meaty interviews. I'd like to make more use of some of that, if you agree. AleatoryPonderings have we worked in yet to Legal disputes the considerable issue with the privacy of her daughter ? I have that from Smith, and now El Pais as well, but you may find better sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in legal disputes re daughter's privacy but I remember this article in the portion I got rid of and then put back this morning EST. I rewrote Legal disputes thinking that it was exclusively about HP legal issues but there is nothing in principle saying that personal legal disputes couldn't be included as well. Altho (not having read the sources) if the privacy cases are mainly notable for what they say about her family life and not - as with the legal disputes about copyright in the series - notable for in part for their specifically legal aspects (her/Warner Bros aggressively protecting their copyright, going after fans, encouraging fans to do stuff and then suing them when they do things the brand managers don't like), the privacy stuff could fit in one of the bio/personal life sections instead. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Catching up … yes, once we get all the bits and piece written, a lot can be folded in to bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception

A small re-org and copyedit in this sandbox. Some reception had crept into Legacy, which this moves; I also took a stab at Victoriaearle's comment about following WP:Reception and WP:SS. I realize there's some work planned on religious debates, but how's this for a base? (Feel free to edit.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is really, really good. Beginning to look like a chapter in some Companion or other and not a crowdsourced smorgasbord. I added one inline comment and had (I think) added another while it was in mainspace; idk what to do about those. I think you can add this to mainspace whenever you feel ready. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes to adding it. Olivaw-Daneel, I have another next idea for you to work on, unless you are otherwise busy; still gathering my thoughts for the day and getting organized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Done! (AleatoryPonderings, "non-readers" was based on this quote from Levy: The Harry Potter books are also, in terms of both plot and vocabulary, highly accessible to people who rarely read fiction. I removed it for now; I can see how it might be confusing. And Eccleshare's quote already spells things out.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Olivaw-Daneel I have bits and pieces here and there about her writing process. As she recently described herself as having severe OCD as a child (original research alert), I find her extreme planning, organization, note taking, spreadsheets, cross-referencing etc most interesting. If you are interested in writing two to four sentences about her writing process, and if others think it worthy, I will gather those notes in one place for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, sure. I have a few other things to get to (the to-do-list comment on Harry Potter and race, and a couple of GA reviews), but I can work on this after. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

After again spending an entire day getting sidetracked on the little stuff (like her college degree), I haven't typed up anything yet, but will ping you when I do. Thanks; your prose is awesome (well, anyone's is next to mine, but still ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Olivaw-Daneel took a shortcut; there is much more in Smith about how insanely organized she is, and how she had it all in her head years before she wrote, crazy amounts of detail, spreadsheets, cross-referencing, etc. Think we can have a a para on her writing method/process? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thanks! I will try to get to this later today (unless someone's already done it); have been pre-occupied. Yes, I think a few sentences on her process would be a good idea. Re. planning: I remember hearing that she wrote the final chapter of the series before starting it; will see if I can find it in Smith/other places. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Politics 2

Not familiar with UK politics, need terminology check.

• Pugh, page 6, says: "Rowling’s political views run strongly to the left."
• We have, sourced to Vox, centre-left, which links to an article that says that is moderate.

How do we reconcile these? (Me not political person.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at that. Suggest removing Vox. Generally my view is that many of the web sources should be treated as primary sources, and we go with the secondary sources - who take from the primary. Looking at Labour Party (UK), the second sentence defines it as centre-left. That's probably right; what Americans consider strong left would be center-left in the UK. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If "strongly to the left" is "moderate" in the UK, what do I wikilink to ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I trimmed it down. Vox didn't say "centre-left" (I think it had progressive), but the definitions differ country by country and it gets tricky. There are a lot of little factoids in that section, in all of those sections, and because they're presented chronologically I think we can fold into bio. Victoria (tk) 02:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Victoria … sorry for dashing out with so many loose ends, thanks for fixing. Once I get caught up (may be too old to stay out with friends til 2 am), I will continue on bio today: I want to focus first on straightening out the chronology of her mother, father, “middle class” “rags to riches” business first, as it pains me that Wikipedia was part of furthering that myth since 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Pugh American? His "run strongly to the left" is rather vague. Note that the Vox piece covers her attacking Labour's then leader, Jeremy Corbyn, from the right. So she is certainly not on the left of the Labour Party. In British (and European) terms "centre-left" seems right, but what that conveys to Americans heaven knows. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod Yes, I believe Pugh is in the US … is the section OK now? Victoria eliminated labeling. Victoriaearle is waiting to get a copy of the Kirk book, to work through what I dropped in to Early life yesterday, so not to do too much work on improving it before she gets that book, but are you interested in checking through my writing for BrEng? I am going to work on the second section (Inpiration and single parenthood) today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Philanthropy

AleatoryPonderings raised a question about secondary sourcing for Philanthropy. Pugh (pp 5 to 6) has basically all of it, except the recent COVID-related, and the overall numbers summary (eg, second-highest UK donor after Elton John-- but both Pugh and Smith single her out in a similar vein).

• Pugh (pp. 5–6): "While pursuing her extraordinarily successful writing career, Rowling has energetically contributed to a range of philanthropic endeavors, primarily those dedicated to alleviating poverty and deprivation. ... In recognition both of her Harry Potter novels and of her charitable endeavors, Rowling has been honored with prestigious awards and commendations."
• Smith (p. 234): now "rich and famous" she now had "confidence … that emboldened her to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her" … although she "sought to avoid publicity".

Smith (2002) devotes all of Chapter 14 (out of 17) to her philanthropy, contains considerable detail, but (of course) doesn't include anything after 2002. Smith does include one we've left out (Maggie's Centres, cancer related), naming it as one of her three earliest causes. Unclear why Pugh has left that out, but it seems OK that we have, too ?? I've added secondary sources on all but COVID, but left the news reports that provide more detail. I think the section is a good and due summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also a section in Kirk, beginning at p 92. Haven't read it yet. My concern is now not so much sourcing but content: Philanthropy reads as a list of things she did as opposed to a summary of her philanthropic work. Does Pugh or Smith describe the philanthropy in general terms? My sense is that the vast majority of it is either for medical issues or children's welfare, but I don't have citations to back that up. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The best overview is Pugh (above) because Smith summarizes them to three main causes, but that summary is dated. He lists the second of the three as Maggie's Centre, which Pugh leaves out, so that leaves me kind of stuck on an overview. The short answer is yes to mostly medical and those dedicated to alleviating poverty and deprivation, but I can't really do that without synth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

To do list

Please add new items here. If you have added an item, please revisit to strike once your concern has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  If we can leave that 'til the rest of the article is up to standards, it may be more understandable why that entire section needs work. (I had not realized earlier on the extent of the Accio.com problem; glad to see AP making progress on that, but it was an unanticipated setback.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  AleatoryPonderings has a draft up on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• *We will need, once prose re-writing is complete, to check chapter citations again. I'm possibly the worst offender with respect to not formatting these correctly, but I've little time for this to begin with, so I'm going to hold off of tinkering for now. Anyone else is welcome to do so, obviously. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have gone through, and am happy to do this kind of tinkering. I’ll do dupe links later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• When we get to it, Amnesty International is overplayed in the lead: she was a temp secretary, and didn't even like her work at AI, according to Smith. We are namedropping :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• The lead will obviously need a rewrite once we're done with the body, but flagging my concern now that it's weighted wrong; I would expect not more than a paragraph on philanthropy and earnings, with the rest devoted to biographical detail, and coverage of her books. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agree the weight in the lead is all wrong now, and once we finish writing, pruning, trimming the body, that will be even more apparent. From well-written articles, more naturally flow compliant leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Are Farah Mendlesohn's views overweighted in Literary analysis? I don't recall seeing the "lost prince" idea elsewhere in the scholarship. Also, I don't really know what the literary tradition of the lost prince amounts to and a search for lost prince motif isn't that illuminating. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm glad you raised it AleatoryPonderings. I meant to put back this version but haven't been feeling well and wanted to wait until I feel better. Since it's being raised before I feel better I'll post my thoughts now and then bail out: in my view it's difficult to meld two versions of text; sometimes it works sometimes it's best to start fresh. In this case I think it's best to start fresh with the version you wrote. Currently there's a quite a bit of criticism in the reception section, which technically shouldn't be a critical analysis section, that I think should be moved to themes or whatever it gets called, i.e the section to do with women and race. Usually the lit crit sections also addresses an author's style; I'd added a teensy bit re Rowling's descriptive characterizations that was taken out, but probably Bloom's analysis could go to literary analysis, whatever we call it, and there are other sources who mention pedestrian writing and so on. On the small point of "lost prince" that goes to the Arthurian legends; it's a fantasy motif that's not uncommon, but I honestly don't care either way. Since the section has been edited since I last dropped in a version and then thought I'd revert, I don't really know what to do now. I think I'll go ahead and revert to the original. Going forward, I have to bail out of this project. I'll keep it on watch and might chime in with opinions, but it's more work than I'm able to take on. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)