Talk:J. K. Rowling

FAR notice

An editor has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Status update at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Update 8 Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about converting the Awards and honours section to prose on the Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft of new section on comments re transgender people

As part of the ongoing featured article review, I have prepared an entirely new draft of the section on Rowling's comments regarding transgender people. The current version of the section is at Special:PermaLink/1065510593#Transgender people. The draft is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft. Feel free to make copyedits or other minor changes on that page, but more major discussion should happen at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft so that we can reach consensus on any content issues.

If this draft, or something close to it, is eventually added to J. K. Rowling, we will need to modify the lede accordingly. The recent RfC, currently at Special:PermaLink/1065356439#RFC_on_how_to_include_her_trans-related_views_(and_backlash)_in_the_lead, closed as no consensus at 15:42 on 1 January 2022. That meant there was no consensus to change to change the relevant text in the lede of Special:PermaLink/1063145723. If my draft is adopted, we will need to change the lede in some parts. In particular, we will need to remove the word transphobic—since, to my knowledge, none of the academic sources cited in Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft use that word to refer to Rowling's comments.

Pinging, in no particular order, @Firefangledfeathers, Newimpartial, Victoriaearle, Olivaw-Daneel, SandyGeorgia, Vanamonde93, Barkeep49, and A. C. Santacruz, as users interested in this article, the FAR, or both. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noting previous discussions at the FAR talk page (although new comments should now go to the talk page of the draft, as AP indicates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The focus on secondary sources in the rewrite of the section is good and this is a definite improvement on the current writing. My only comment is that I think the Comoran Strike sentences seem to be intentionally vague while still hoping I reach some sort of conclusion on them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Crossroads and I agree that the Cormoran Strike bit should come out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies to my fellow editors I am not sure where to write this, it is a repeat of my comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft#The Current Draft is appallingly One Sided ...but the process is being split over several pages so I do not know what is the best place to add this.

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 in favour of Rowling's fringe views, despite these being a minority view. Tthe current balance has been removed 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.

Sorry this is a copy paste of my comment on the draft page, but I am not sure how to challenge this white wash of a rewrite. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure if implemented it will be immediately challenged here and end up going straight to the BLP noticeboard with an another huge RfC. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not even remotely close to being implemented, and there is still much work to be done on the rest of the article—work which needs at least a couple more weeks—before full attention can be given to this one section. Patience, and keeping discussion in one place would be helpful in the meantime. It is unfortunate that the discussion is now forked to three places, when we had barely begun to discuss sources at the FAR talk page; the draft was premature. I hope it is OK if I merge your comments on the FAR page to the section where we can keep everything in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I am far less experienced or skilled in writing or knowledge of processes than some editors and I apologise I am not at my best atm. Thank you for being helpful. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize; concern that the FAR had progressed further than it has is understandable. I merged your section at the FAR talk page, so that it can be considered before drafting based on a consensus of sources can begin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Sorry could you give me a link to where correct FAR place is, I admit I am lost ? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is where we had begun gathering sources on the FAR. I moved your comment to there, after the first draft was launched in user space, and then moved to Wikipedia space before it had broad consensus. Most of the people working on the article are quite busy and hard at work on other sections, so brevity is a virtue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of possible sources for Transgender people section

On the talk page of the Featured article review, please discuss best sources per WP:WIAFA at the Discussion of source list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Interim lead proposal

The Featured article review has resulted in considerable improvements, with early life and literary analysis beefed up, WP:ELNEVER sourcing removed, and prose bloat addressed throughout. Work on the Transgender people section has been delayed, but should start next.

Meanwhile an interim lead is proposed on FAR talk. Please join the discussion. (Interim because this lead proposal leaves the Transgender section wording in the lead unchanged; the intent is to put a better lead in place for now, while work progresses on the Transgender people section.)

The work so far is mostly the fruit of the efforts of AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel, with literary analysis work from Vanamonde93 and early life bio work from me. (The tools show an unrepresentative amount of contributions from me, because I copied in most of the lengthy chapter sources at works cited when we split chapters out of books.) In examining the authorship stats, I noticed two FA stalwarts involved early on in this article: Rodw and Slp1, might you want to review the work so far, and participate in the FAR? Serendipodous I see some recent activity from you; might you be enticed to join the effort? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been deliberately staying out of this; as a former Potterhead with a trans brother in law, it's just too personal. I can't be objective. Serendi^podous 20:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear from you anyway; hope you're well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead installed, archived discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Starting on gender section

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Starting on gender section (at the talk page of the Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Workshopping the transgender section

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Workshopping the transgender section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Keir Starmer content moved

14Jenna7Caesura, I have moved this addition to Politics of J. K. Rowling and trimmed it to reflect what the source says (while also removing the citation template error in the date ... dates in citation templates should not contain the day of the week, which generates a citation error). Please be aware of the following:

1. The lead is a summary of content in the body of the article. Please refrain from adding content directly to the lead, and examine the body of the article for where content may be a better fit.
2. When examining the body, one finds there is a subarticle covering the transgender issues at Politics of J. K. Rowling. This (already long) article uses summary style; in the future, consider adding content first to a sub-article and then examining whether or how it might be merged into the main topic.
3. Please read WP:FAOWN. This article is a Featured article and its lead has been very recently rewritten with consensus of multiple editors. Please discuss suggested improvements on talk and gain consensus for changes.
4. This article uses British English (that is, criticised rather than criticized).
5. The source does not say she is "vocal on 'misgendering'"; it says she accused Starmer of misrepresenting the law. Please take greater care not to insert original research into a BLP under double discretionary sanctions.
6. You have previously received discretionary alerts for both sexuality issues and BLPs; this article is covered under both. When inserting content about a living person, please be absolutely certain that the source supports the wording you choose to insert into a very highly visible article that affects a living person. If you breach discretionary sanctions again, you are likely to be blocked.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Charitable giving before 2011

Rajan51 you have twice introduced the statement that Rowling's charitable giving in 2011 was $160 million.

• Your first addition used this source which says New information about Rowlings' estimated $160 million in charitable giving combined with Britain's high tax rates bumped the Harry Potter scribe from our list this year.
• Your second addition uses this source which has the same wording as the first.

Neither source states that the 160 was her giving in 2011; the implication (particularly based on her other comments when she denied that she was ever a billionaire) is that Forbes got a better estimate of her charitable giving, but without specifying to which year it applied. It is also incorrect to say she lost a billionaire status that she denies ever having because of charitable donations; it was also because of high UK taxes. At any rate, we don't know what time period is covered by the statement about the 160M.

I have adjusted your entry because you have now made it twice, [1] but don't believe this information belongs in the article because of this problem with its vagueness. Could you please have a look at WP:FAOWN and gain consensus on edits before re-adding something twice? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I had assumed that the reports meant the donations were made in 2011 because Forbes' lists are annual. Sorry about that. I think we should keep the information in the article because of the significant size of the donation. This report from Politifact references the donation as well. Not sure if it helps with the vagueness. From what I understand, it also seems to imply that the donation was made after her net worth reached $1 billion in 2011, but I may be wrong. -Rajan51 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that they first identified her as a billionaire in 2004, which she denied in 2005. (Reading this may help). Forbes is based on estimates, and they had, among other things, probably mis-estimated her charitable giving. So the 160 million could be going all the way back to 2004, or even earlier ... we really don't have sources that clarify. They seem to have caught up with the problems in their estimates in 2012, and never explicitly said their adjustment was because of 2011 donations; it could have been cumulative. The problem with keeping it in the article is whether what I have changed it to (before 2011) is accurate, since we don't have good sourcing on the exact timeframe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4, this featured article has recently undergone a rigorous review involving about a dozen editors. Please have a look at WP:FAOWN, and discuss proposed changes on talk to gain consensus. It is also under discretionary sanctions, so if you have been reverted once, you should not re-install changes without gaining consensus. It is important that additions are supported by the cited sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, and Vanamonde93: are these edits supported by the sources? (I see at least one grammatical error, but this has already been reverted once, so awaiting feedback.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking more closely now, I would say (based on what I know of the reception sources) that the content is not supported by sources, as there has been criticism of plot, themes and characters. So my recommendation would be to remove this series of edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

These edits are not supported by the sources and should be reverted. We do not edit this encyclopedia to add "balance" or portray people in a more positive light than that in which reliable sources portray them. We show what the sources say, which is what this article did before this series of edits. This also goes for the string of edits to the lede which I didn't notice until after posting this. The lede has been extensively edited recently to clearly and fairly represent the sources. This string of edits undoes all that work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the ongoing edits, I am likely to revert (unless someone else does first), as the edits have deteriorated the article in several ways. Hpdh4 could be proceeding in a more collaborative way, considering the consensus and months of work that has involved many editors so far. But I will first type up an explanation of the problems with the edits, and suggestions of a better way to proceed, including discussion (with sources) of the changes Hpdh4 suggests. Along with doublechecking to see if any of the changes can be kept. Need an hour or so, and to get to a real computer rather than iPad to type up list of problems with all new edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Following these comments, I have restored (what I take to be) the last good version. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I will type up a summary as soon as I get on a real computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

All that talk about sources is good and all . Then explain why majority of the article reads like an anti Rowling manifesto . Look Rowling's books are both bestsellers and each has been positively reviewed with some detractors. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. I'm not saying her books are perfection of biblical proportions but they do well and are recieved well irrespective of Rowling's politics and this should and will be reflected in this article, futher more individual articles for most of Rowling's books have more positive reviews than mixed ones. I will try to cite more sources . If you were to look at the Ickabog, Christmas pig - I put some citations regarding their sales/reception. Hpdh4 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Please confine your commentary on talk pages to discussion of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If you remove praise for the novels then remove critique has well . I didn't remove critique and try to make her look perfect but nor have I tried to make her books look like critical flops. Neutrality is in dispute here. Hpdh4 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? Do you have a comment on them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe: you have reinserted (part of) this content stating that it is supported by sources. Care to elaborate? That is not my impression. Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for following WP:BRD. Sources have been added by User:HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of revert

Regarding this revert of content added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4, I will list below some of the issues for discussion.

My first suggestion to Hpdh4 is to read WP:FAOWN, WP:WIAFA, Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, taking note of the talk page archives and the considerable consensus-building that has taken place over several months in the rewrite of all of this article (with work on the transgender issues pending). Many editors have worked collaboratively, in spite of differences that were all resolved amicably. Please avoid edit warring and discuss issues and proposed changes on talk.

The problems in the reverted edits are listed below, and numbered for reference in subsequent discussion.

1. Please see WP:SIZE. All sections in the article (except the section on her views on gender identity) have been trimmed considerably to reflect [[WP:SS|summary style}}, while overall article size was maintained even as the missing literary analysis, about a fifth of the article now, was added. Before Hpdh4's edits, the article was at 8,865 words of readable prose; those edits added 200 words to an already large article. When working on a featured article, it is important to gain consensus and to keep wording a trim, succinct, and concise reflection of the highest quality sources, and using summary style where called for. Two hundred words is a lot to add to this article without having developed consensus. Whether some of the additions are warranted could be discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
2. The edits also added several grammatical and spelling errors like received, has-->have and more. They also introduced a citation style that is not in accordance with the style established in the article; Featured articles must maintain a consistent citation style. These are not of major significance, as others can correct such issues. It is, though, something to be aware of going forward; if changes are first proposed on talk and gain consensus, they can be worked in with proper grammar and citation style, with less consternation and time misspent for all editors involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
3. See WP:LEAD; leads summarize what is in the article. The edits introduced a topic to the lead (theme parks) that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Whether they should be discussed in the article depends on what high quality sources cover. I personally find it interesting that they aren't included, but the person who wants to include them should make the argument based on due weight in high quality sources. The most recent broad scholarly overview of Rowling and her work is Pugh, 2020; he does not mention theme parks. He says:

   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.

   I find it odd that we haven't mentioned more about the merchandising, and if someone has an equivalent high quality source that covers theme parks, these two items could be added with a minimum impact on word count. When proposing additions or changes to the article, please base those on analysis of high quality sources.
   Do other editors believe we should work in theme parks or merchandise? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Prose redundancies. The edits introduced "best sellers" (both in the lead and in the body) when that content was already in the article, and indeed, in the same paragraphs where they were again added. If there is a concern that something is not adequately conveyed or covered in the article, please discuss how to better work that in. In the case of "best sellers", these additions only added to the readable prose size, and deteriorated the writing with redundancies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Looking at the text about Lint and King that was inserted mid-paragraph: However the series was well received by acclaimed writers such has Charles de Lint and Stephen King Thus, some critics argue, Harry Potter does not innovate on established literary forms; nor does it challenge readers' preconceived ideas. See overuse of however and User:John/however. Vanamonde93 might comment on this source; I am not familiar. The word acclaimed is WP:PUFFERY. The insertion was made with citevar, prose, flow and punctuation errors. And, inserting it mid-paragraph rendered the word thus out of place and the next sentence as poor flow.
   Do other editors agree that we should work in something about Lint and King? If so, it should be done in a way that is consistent with WP:WIAFA. Hpdh4, Harold Bloom, for example, is cited because secondary sources mention his review. Do secondary sources cover Lint and King and have we given them due weight in this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Reception section overall. This section was crafted with paragraph one about commercial success, paragraph 2 about critical reception, and paragraph 3 about her other (non-Harry book) works, moving then into two sub-sections on Gender and social division and Religious debates. If the coverage here amounts to an WP:UNDUE amount of criticism, sources that have been omitted or not covered should be provided, and corrections discussed. Also, it seems there is some confusion about the distinction between commercial success and critical review.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
7. Redundant: While Rowling has supported fan fiction, her statements about characters – for instance, that Harry and Hermione could have been a couple, and that Dumbledore was gay – have complicated her relationship with some readers. ... The addition of the word some here is redundant. Her relationship with her readers is not different from her relationship with some of her readers. The subject is her relationship. This is distinct from the comment made in the next section by Endwise, where the some is specific to individuals and is not used in parallel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
8. WP:CITATION OVERKILL, see second paragraph here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Overall, Hpdh4, it seems that your concern is that the article does not give due weight to Rowling's literary successes. If you review the entire FAR and its talk page, you can see that to date, editors have worked collaboratively, respected and talked through differences, and done so without edit warring and agida. Presenting your concerns, along with the sources to back them, would be a much faster, expedient, and more collaborative way to seek the changes you wish to see in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

This must be a joke . First editors asked about citations now you've got those citations and it's not enough

Here's my problem new impartial and sandy and the rest

This entire section of reception is not impartial and neutral.

Rowling's books don't have mixed reception and you lot trying to make it look like that.

Consensus will never be achieved as long as you lot have their way.

nyways I give up

Go on try and make her look like a critical flop entirely

Remember I never removed the critique of her work. I only want to add the fact that her work has a higher critical success ratio than mixed reception.

I never hid behind Weasley worded arguements.

Anyways....Continue ruining Wikipedia. Hpdh4 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

While I resent being distracted from my mission to continue ruining Wikipedia, I wanted to react to Rowling's books don't have mixed reception and you lot trying to make it look like that. As far as I can tell, that is what the highest-quality sources have concluded. Are these sources wrong? Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hpdh4, if you believe the section is not impartial, I have laid out for you above how to go about addressing that. As it happens, I could be convinced to agree with you on a few of these points, but it is up to the editor wanting to add material to make that case based on sources, which you haven't done (perhaps the NYT review you added of King could be added). If you believe the article "makes her look like a critical flop entirely", others would be more likely and more willing to make corrections if you worked towards improvements collaboratively, instead of making unilateral edits (after they were reverted once) and insulting your fellow editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources discussion

From this version, here is one entire paragraph inserted (and removed), along with other changes:

Critical response to Harry Potter has been generally positive with some aspects receiving mixed reactions from critics. Many Critics reviewed the early Harry Potter novels positively often comparing Rowling to renowned writers such has Homer ,Jane Austen, Roald Dahl, Enid Blyton, J.R.R Tolkien .Many Critics have praised the series for its depiction of contemporary ethical and social issues such has Facism, Racism and Bullying. Critics have both praised and critiqued the novels for its writing, tone, darkness, violence, themes, plotting and character work . The later novels in the series drew both acclaim and criticism for its maturing plotline and character work with many critics complimenting Rowling has a first rate writer and referring to her as a more adult writer while some other critics have reviewed Rowling's works less favorably and more harshly calling her unimaginative .

Sources
References

From the mess of HarvRef errors that was left in sources, the best I can reconstruct, these seem to be the sources Hpdh4 sought to add overall. Many of them are links that go nowhere, some of them are low quality, but a few are worthy of consideration (eg The New York Times):

1. https://www.the-tls.co.uk/  ????
2. https://www.salon.com/2000/01/13/potter/
3. https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-439-13959-5
4. https://web.archive.org/web/20120524201003/http://archive.hbook.com/magazine/reviews/group/harrypotter_revs.asp
5. https://web.archive.org/web/20060508170939/http://www.pluggedinonline.com/articles/a0001780.cfm
6. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/books/review/harry-potter-and-the-halfblood-prince-her-dark-materials.html
7. http://archive.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/07/18/prince_shines_amid_growing_darkness/
8. https://www.latimes.com/archives ????
9. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/discover-books/childrens ???
10. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/books/19potter.html
11. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/23/reviews/000723.23kinglt.html
12. http://www.sfsite.com/fsf/2000/cdl0001.htm
13. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-ickabog-review-it-s-escapism-we-all-need-l38c0xkfr
14. https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/review-jk-rowlings-new-novel-ickabog-leaves-tantalising-cliffhangers-2865447
15. https://www.thebookseller.com/news/news/rowling-returns-new-childrens-novel-christmas-pig-1252686
16. https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/books/the-christmas-pig-by-jk-rowling-review-b958811.html
17. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-christmas-pig-by-jk-rowling-review-0cg52wlgx

As well as reusing some already cited in the article for the Reception section (without creating named refs for duplicates). I may have missed some, as the diffs were hard to follow. We might discuss whether the New York Times or any others should be reflected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Whited/Pharr (which we use as sources) mention Stephen King along with Harold Bloom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the enormous number of reviews, we should rely on secondary sources – surveys of reviews – to determine the due weight to give to criticism/praise. I've listed 3 such surveys below, based on which I think "mixed" reception remains the correct summary. For weight, the surveys indicate a ratio of 50/50 criticism/praise. Survey 1 has a short summary that resembles our 2nd paragraph in Reception; based on it, I think a couple more lines on praise could be added at the end of para 2 (after Nel/Pharr). Perhaps the Observer review cited in survey 1, plus a review of a later book such as ref #10, Michiko Kakutani's NYT review, which is cited in survey 3.

Here are the surveys: (1) The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature (accessible via TWL) has a section "The Critical Response", whose 2nd para summarizes the reception and is about 50/50 criticism/praise. (2) Philip Nel, who we have cited, covers the first 4 books. In page 63, he says a 50/50 split "embodies the range of opinions" on books 1-3; he also says earlier that reception to book 4 was "decidedly mixed". (3) Lana Whited's "A survey of the critical reception of the Harry Potter series" (EBSCOhost 108515151 has a PDF, accessible via TWL) is the most detailed of the three, covering all 7 books. Seems to generally agree with surveys 1 and 2. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, O-D. Might you craft and propose two more lines as you mention? If the best sources are about 50/50, I'm not sure our Reception section is in line with that now, and one or two more sentences would not be remiss. But the Whited/Pharr review of Stephen King indicates that's perhaps not one that rises to the level of consideration. Also, are we missing anything on the "bestseller" issue? I think we have it covered, and the additions were just redundant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, will do. To clarify re. 50/50, I was only speaking about para 2 (not the gender/social division aspects, which are fine as they are). And I don't see anything missing about bestsellers. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've been offline for a couple of days. I'm not seeing much merit to HPd4's arguments; the edit-summaries sound a lot like original research to me. I ready several dozen sources about HP in considerable detail while working on the reception section, and I really cannot summarize them other than by saying reception was "mixed". Those sources which reviewed previous critique (and there's many such; see Gupta, for instance) echo this assessment. I see that HPd4 has been indeffed; is there anyone still pushing their line of argument? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  PS: to the question about this source; it's acceptable, as a standard book review in a sci-fi magazine; but it doensn't get more weight than any other book review, and less weight than scholarly material. Importantly, it's a review of the second book in the series, whereas our article needs to give more weight to broader sources where possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, HP has been indeffed in one of the broadest block explanations I have ever seen; perhaps I should have checked more carefully, but I was just approaching it as business as usual. So, as to whether O-D should proceed with plan to add two more sentences, it does seem that the way we have constructed the three paragraphs leaves the impression that her work was a commercial success from the first para, more weight to critical negativity in the second para, and then other stuff in the third para. The first and third seem fine, but in the second para, if reception was mixed, it does seem we have more weight on the negative, and could do more to achieve the "mixed". It's not just the three paras; it's that the overall can appear more negative than mixed, when we add in the entire sections on Gender and social division and Religious debates. Would we be unweighted if we added one or two sentences to para 2 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think perhaps I didn't explain myself in sufficient detail. The overall reception has been mixed; when there is positive commentary in the scholarly material, it is generally to do with the books' popularity, which we have already covered. As such I don't think two entire new sentences are needed. I would add one sentence about positive commentary from scholars, and in my view the most common opinion (besides noting the popularity with the general public) is that Rowling has synthesized elements from many genres and many influences in a way that draws readers. The chapter on genre in Heilman summarizes this well, IMHO. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable; trust you and O-D can get this one addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Here's the extra bit I propose adding (last sentence). It's sourced to Westman and Whited, who pair newspaper reviews such as Bloom/Byatt with similar critics on the other side. (I've also sourced the topic sentence, just in case anyone attempts to change it again). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm okay with adding that to the body; I though we were discussing a lead sentence, though? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, I wasn't proposing any change to the lead. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a great addition, O-D. Vanamonde93, I didn't think we were addressing the lead, but revisiting it per your comment, we have: Critical reception has been more mixed. Many reviewers see Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. That seems shaded a bit towards the negative ?? And perhaps it could be more illuminating. If we were to add another clause or sentence about success, it might be here: The series revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom. Maybe working in some of the sense of Pugh that I quoted above, or a synopsis of some of what O-D just expanded. But since we worked long and hard to gain consensus among many of us on the interim lead, it would be optimal to hear from more editors before adjusting. (I was out all day, so will start work on the transgender section tomorrow.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  The lead looks okay to me as is, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a half-sentence about impact or about mixing of genres. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Adding such a sentence sounds good to me. Arguably popular success is at least as big a part of the topic for any bit of mainstream culture as the rarefied academic analysis. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would suggest The series contributed to a revival of fantasy as a genre in the children's market.... While I would dispute there was a "revival" per se (fantasy never went away), other fantasy targeted at the YA market and accessible adult fantasy was arguably just as successful as Rowling and contributed just as much to the genre, at roughly the same time: Darren Shan, Terry Pratchett, Eoin Colfer, etc. Not to mention the contribution of Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien, releases beginning in 2001. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Olivaw-Daneel could you do the honors on inserting something here? There does not seem to be any opposition ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  @SG - I had a really busy week IRL, but will get to this and the FAR #Nitpicks section. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you; Need Your Prose Help, can't do it myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Bastun: A week-late reply to your suggestion, but that sentence summarizes the Legacy section, where the sources give much higher weight to Rowling than "contributed to". Perhaps it helps to restate what they say: children's fantasy went from a genre with declining interest from readers, writers and publishers (in the 1980s) to a commercial hit (in the wake of Rowling's success). Some sources even call the revival the "Potter boom", as publishers sought books that would be the next Potter. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)#

  Fair enough - I'm just going by the children of my own acquaintance around then and subsequently, who were already also reading - where they were reading books at all - the authors I mentioned, all of whom were successful contemporaneously with or in advance of Rowling. Obviously, my experience is not a WP:RS, though! 🙂 Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  I too like Pratchett and Colfer (haven't read Shan). But we're talking about impact on the rest of the market; not their own success. One source mentions Shan and Colfer as following in the wake of the Potter boom. An amusing bit I found was that Diana Wynne Jones, who well precedes Rowling (and influenced her), had her books republished with the tagline "Hotter than Potter". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

A minor suggestion

I imagine this has been debated at length and consensus is somewhat entrenched, but I would suggest changing criticised as transphobic [...] by some feminists, but have received support from other feminists to criticised as transphobic [...] by some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists. This is a minor nitpick, and I could see why some might think this is unimportant or irrelevant, but I think it would be good for balance to add the "some" qualifier to both of the mentions of feminists' opinions. It's not impossible to read what's currently there as something like "some feminists criticise her but others largely support her", even though that's not really what the sentence actually means and nor is it what it was intended to mean. Just to make it abundantly clear to readers that Wikipedia is not trying to take sides I think it would be better to add the word "some" to both instances. Endwise (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Endwise have you accessed the Featured article review (listed at the top of this page)? The entire article has been reworked over many months, involving many editors, but we have not yet tackled the section on Rowling's views on transgender issues. It is the only section that has not yet been brought to WP:WIAFA standards, and that is the next order of business on the FAR. What form that sentence or those sentences will take is to be determined. Here is the FAR discussion of the work remaining (which is ongoing at the talk page of the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, no, I hadn't seen that. My comment is probably not all that relevant then. Endwise (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Will keep in mind as we move forward; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

After the mammoth RfC last year on the lead, I don't envy that task. I look forward to what is proposed though, and I'm more than happy to receive a notification when those talks begin if you feel my input may be helpful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th please watchlist the FAR page, and read the latest section at the FAR; we don't anticipate considerable changes-- more like trimming. I will try to remember to add you to the ping list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I've had it on my watchlist since the process started, but haven't felt able to contribute thus far. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, all, that I was sidetracked on starting the discussion of the transgender section on FAR talk; I hope to get that rolling today. If anyone prefers to be pinged to those discussions, please add your name at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Ping list (or just watchlist the FAR page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude re this edit, are you reading the talk page and following the FAR? (I assumed you were since you initiated it.) Everyone is collaborating so far pretty well, and holding off on editing until consensus forms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

See further discussion of some at the FAR talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Reworking the transgender material at the FAR

The transgender section is being reworked at the Featured article review; see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Workshopping the transgender section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Strike tv wrong

"BBC One released Strike, a television adaptation of the Cormoran Strike novels starring Tom Burke, in 2017." - no, see the article. 3 different series over 2017-2020, & another to be released in 2022 it seems. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, that turned out to be surprisingly hard to cite (and even harder from an iPad). [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Harry dies?

"According to Maria Nikolajeva, Christian imagery is particularly strong in the final scenes of the series: Harry dies in self-sacrifice and Voldemort delivers an "ecce homo" speech, after which Harry is resurrected and defeats his enemy." - from memory, I don't think he actually dies, & we shouldn't say he does. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's debatable whether or not Harry died in Deathly Hallows. Whenever he goes to the forest during the battle, his intent is to die to Voldemort to destroy the final Horcrux piece that resided inside him, per the revelation from Snape's memories. The King's Cross chapter that follows is hinted to be some sort of magical limbo state, where Harry can chose to pass on or return. An additional hint that Harry died is that the sacrificial protection, that he received from his mother in the first book, was applied to all of the Hogwart's defenders, evidenced by Voldemort's body-bind and stunning spells not taking effect on Neville. However there is no confirmation that I'm aware of, either in the book or on Pottermore as to what exactly happened between the casting of the killing curse, and Harry returning to consciousness in the forest. Anything that I could say about the "ecce homo" speech would likely be OR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Olivaw-Daneel: ? (Also, on the query Johnbod left just above this one, that text was in the article when we started; are you able to correct it?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's Nikolajeva's interpretation (and she's not the only scholar with this view; I could cite more). I thought the "According to" at the beginning of the sentence was sufficient attribution, but if not, we could say something like "She writes that Harry dies...". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft 3 of transgender material at FAR

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Draft 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)