Jump to content

Talk:J. K. Rowling

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bodney (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 13 September 2022 (→Discussion of proposed change to lead: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleJ. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008, and on June 26, 2022.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 8, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
April 15, 2022Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 31, 2017, July 31, 2021, and July 31, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Under views, transgender people, change feminists to people. Feminists does not accurately represent the full scope. 84.71.121.131 (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This content was workshopped heavily during the featured article review. Changes are possible, but they will definitely need discussion (which should start with sources). It's also unclear which use of "feminists" you are referring to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feminists is what the sources support and what was the consensus wording during the Featured article review. Other supporters are also mentioned. The issue for JKR is that she views the proposed legal changes as an affront to women's rights, as do the "some femininsts" who support her, hence the sources that focus on feminists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People is a rather large subset of ... um people. I hazard a guess that this was based on zero reliable sources. Its bad enough implying that the few vocal gender vexed/trans-exclusionary radical feminists individuals with platforms and a couple of small fringe groups (called "Some feminists" in this article) amounted to anything remotely close to equalling the majority of feminists and feminist organisations worldwide (See Feminist views on transgender topics ). As for people, even in the United Kingdom where the are relatively a few more of these anti transgender radical feminist type extremists, research collected in NatCen's British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey shows that most people's attitude towards transgender people is in fact broadly positive [1]. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I myself am confused why "individuals" are referenced in support of Rowling but not in opposition: "These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals." aside from the misspelling of "criticized" and "organizations". Why would it not be "These have been criticized as transphobic by LGBTQIA rights organizations, some feminists AND INDIVIDUALS, but have received support from other feminists and individuals."? Seems to infer that ONLY LGBT organizations and some feminists are in opposition when that is clearly far from the case.Kiwisoup (talk) Kiwisoup (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ENGVAR; the words are not misspelled (it's British English). Wikipedia content reflects secondary sources, and the sources behind this content has been considerably reviewed by a couple dozen editors. Have you read them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User Kiwisoup is correct in pointing out the inconsistency of individuals only being included on Rowling side in the lede. After all in the body of this article we write that her statements had fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture (suggesting individuals on both sides) and prompted support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors (more individuals). Plus the leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise, as well as Kerry Kennedy of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation, and additionally we mention non LGBTQI / non feminism organizations such as Human Rights Campaign and the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron. So i think it is correct to point out the inconsistency... Individuals and maybe other organizations (non-feminist/trans rights) should be included. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead was the subject of a long and contentious RFC, and the body of the article was worked considerably during the FAR and stayed within the bounds of the RFC. If we are to change something now, we need a concrete proposal for discussion. So far, I don't know what the proposed change is, and what sources support it. I suggest starting with the body, initiating a proposal in a new section, and doing it in the format that served us well during the FAR. See below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The change is incredibly simple and certainly more accurately reflects the body of the article, In fact the body directly refers to more trans supporting individuals than individuals supporting Rawling. However, I will follow your suggestion. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested format for draft proposals

I suggest starting a new suggestion for proposals, below, using this format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current (diff and word count) Proposed (word count)
Text that is currently in the article Text that is the proposed change[1]
Sources

References

  1. ^ dummy ref


This new draft proposal more accurately reflects the text currently in the body of the article

Note: Citations are not normally required in the lead, especially when they are clearly provided in the body of the article.

This proposal relates to the lede section covering section 9.3 Transgender people.

The current lede has an inconsistency, while it mentions individuals supporting Rawling, it fails to mention the various non-trans/non-feminist supporters of trans rights. After all, in the body of this article we write that her statements had fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture (suggesting individuals on both sides) and prompted support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors (more individuals) and are sourced in the body. Plus the leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise, as well as Kerry Kennedy of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation, and additionally we mention non LGBTQI / non feminism organisations such as Human Rights Campaign and the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron are all mentioned and sourced in the body. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current 47 Proposed 49
Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations, feminists, other organisations and individuals; but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

Discussion of proposed change to lead

The current wording was the subject of an extremely well attended RFC, Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11. I am unsure we can change it without another formal RFC; I've started this discussion section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I understand what the request is, my own views is that, if we are to launch a new RFC, we could do better than this on the wording (as we did in the body of the article, where we weren't constrained by the pre-existing RFC). Some feminists support Rowling, others don't. Some individuals support her, others don't. Some actors, artists, etc support her, most don't. We covered all these groups in the body of the article, but the way the sentence in the lead is constructed now forces us to be unnecessarily repetitive. Before launching an RFC, we might discuss how to improve the wording overall, rather than just patching it up, as the original RFC was about text that was not even supported by sources. If we have to run a new RFC, we should get the whole thing right. What we did in the article body, reflecting sources and lowering the repetition, was state that her views "divided feminists", which avoided the whole "some" but "other" business, and the need to repeat feminists twice in the sentence. But we did much more than that when we looked at sources and got the content in the body right; I think we could do more of that here if we're ready to really run a new RFC aiming at fixing the lead. Discussion and nailing down the text better before a new RFC would be a better route to success. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going straight to your advice on reducing repetition in the lede text, I have suggested a new version below. Apologies if it is in the wrong place. The newer version below also reduces the word count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs)
Just FYI: you mentioned non LGBTQI / non feminism organisations such as Human Rights Campaign. The Human Rights Campaign is an LGBT organisation. Cheers, gnu57 16:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (I am not based in the USA and should have checked) ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing repetition and reflecting the body accurately

Current 47 Proposed 37
Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and other associations, and has divided both feminists and other individuals.

~ BOD ~ TALK 09:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a very good start. I'd suggest giving it a week or so for other followers here to tweak, opine, etcetera, and then once/if we have some agreement here, you launch a new and separate section as a formal RFC. In a perfect world, we shouldn't have to do that, but the last RFC was so widely attended, and so contentious, that it seems the safest course, to avoid a repeat of that debacle (which was a premature and pretty much malformed RFC that we got stuck with). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, somewhere in the FAR, we had a ping list; if others feel it appropriate, we could ping the FAR group for feedback on this wording before we launch an RFC, as they are the group most familiar with the sources. For now, I'm hesitant to use that ping list unless others think it the right way to go pre-RFC. We did clearly discuss on the FAR that we would need to revisit this later in the (this) year, so from that angle, I can sorta/kinda justify reconvening the FAR group for a new look at this sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That ping list is here; we had also discussed re-examining the section heading, but I wonder if we should keep the two items separate, or attempt one RFC to address them together? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i think keep them separate, to keep discussions simple. This one is about the lede/lead. The other is about the section. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Galbraith name

I have reverted this edit as not cited to a high quality source, and WP:UNDUE. Please gain consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few reliable sources on the Robert Galbraith name issue; HuffingtonPost, Them.Us, op-ed in Time, however it is something she denies. At least one subject matter expert (Florence Ashley) has said it is unlikely that Rowling picked the name intentionally, as Robert Galbraith Heath's links to conversion therapy weren't as well publicised at the time Rowling would have been picking the pen name.
As problematic as some of the content she has published under that name is, even with higher quality sourcing I do not think this is due for inclusion.
Quick note, I've included Ashley's commentary here to help with the discussion only, and I'm not suggesting we include it in the article as it is obviously self-published commentary about another person. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That means the edit can go ahead with the above higher quality sources. It's a clarification of the pseudonym and the reader needs to be made aware i.e. with the correct context of the LGBT community's comments on the similarities and Rowling's spokesperson making a statement to clearly say it was not intentional The edit is about similarities; not whether it was intentional. NoMagicSpellstalk 22:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to putting in this edit. That pen name is also similar to Kenneth Galbraith and when asked early on about the similarities she explained how the name came about, which is in the article. She explained that it's "a name she took from Robert F. Kennedy, a personal hero, and Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood" >> see the "Adult fiction" section. Victoria (tk) 23:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Rowling's spokesperson made the statement about Robert Galbraith Heath NoMagicSpellstalk 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the Beatles claim that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds had no connection to LSD, either. The subject is not always the most reliable testimony for veracity of a claim. Zaathras (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with this reversion. Undue and seems like it's there for WP:AXE reasons. — Czello 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The information appears to be quite neutral. I think some editors are not giving a strong enough argument other than "I don't agree". Perhaps ownership issues, judging by the edit stats on this article? Why deny the reader clarification on the pseudonym? NoMagicSpellstalk 23:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion. Zaathras (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The information is too trivial to include in Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]
It's not trivia if Rowling's spokesperson makes a statement. Why would you block a clarification? NoMagicSpellstalk 01:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the sources supporting it are themselves strongly biased and poor quality. It's borderline conspiracy theory and Florence Ashley's comment - who is by no means sympathetic to Rowling's trans-related views - is the nail in the coffin. The whole argument makes no sense - why would the same author who declared Dumbledore is gay and whose controversial comments have solely to do with gender identity and not sexual orientation pick a name as a nod to a long dead psychiatrist who tried to "cure" homosexuality, and for books that have nothing to do with LGBT issues at all and that began to be written long before she ever said anything controversial about trans issues? Crossroads -talk- 02:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the argument. There is no conspiracy. This edit is clarifying the names for the reader. Giving the context as to why this subject was brought up. Followed by the response from Rowling's spokesperson. It's a neutrally worded edit giving facts; not opinions. Higher quality sources will be used. Why are you blocking a clarification? NoMagicSpellstalk 01:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources listed in this discussion rise a) to the level required for a Featured article, or b) to the level of WP:DUE. Sideswipe's post above did not pretend they were high quality sources; only higher than the original sourcing, but we don't write FAs around the Huffington Post or op-eds in Time magazine. The content in the article now about the name is sourced to scholarly literature, not tabloid rags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"... we don't write FAs around the Huffington Post" HuffPost is a listed WP:RSP. HuffPost Politics/contributors is considered unreliable. Also, here's a Time source that's not opinion. So we're covered for reliable sources. "... sourced to scholarly literature, not tabloid rags" Really? So why is this rag in the References...twice? If you're going to mislead editors; frustrate or obfuscate facts, then you're bringing Wikipedia, and this article in particular, into disrepute. I suggest you refrain from this behaviour and not block a clarification with these tactics. NoMagicSpellstalk 02:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NoMagicSpells, could you please invest some time in understanding what a featured article is? Nowhere in any post I have made in this section did I ever refer to the term reliable sources; you don't seem to understand the distinction. As to why "this rag" (as you call it) is in the sources, please spend some time understanding WP:DUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to say where, but I noticed a recent, out of nowhere, uptick of "JK Rowling is anti-gay, blah, blah, blah" in a couple of chatty circles. Now I know where they got it from. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name is just a coincidence and not worth noting in the article per WP:UNDUE. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE - leave it out. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any weighty sources taking this seriously enough to include. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE, though worth coming back to in a month or two if it becomes a significant part of her story and a lot more heavyweight sources pick it up. Right now it isn't, and they haven't. John (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is WP:UNDUE, at least for now. If coverage of the issue continues, revisit. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&oldid=1110110567"