Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

You know,

More I look into this article, more I think some WP:OWN issues mean it shouldn't be a featured article. There's things that should be capable of being dealt with simply - Wikipedia voice probably shouldn't be saying things like "She often tweets about her political opinions using wit and sarcasm," using citations from 4 years ago, but everything, every-fucking-thing, "IT'S FINE TAKE IT TO TALK NO CHANGES ALLOWED!!!!1!!!"

Is there nothing about this article that's changeable? Is no source so patently terrible that it's not worth a month of discussion, even if it literally only has three sentences about J.K. Rowling and patently doesn't cite the text, but has people shouting about how it's the platonic ideal of sources and how the FAC process means nithing should change, and nothing's up for re-evaluation.

Seriously, this is the most toxic editing environment I've ever seen in my 18 years editing Wikipedia.

It's also the article where I'd say the most sources fail verification when checked. So many sources that almost say what they're used for, but are actually talking about an adjacent topic, or are about a specific incident but being quoted as if they're general sources Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 09:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

many such cases on the project. An ever smaller group of enforcers guarding an ever larger stock of articles. It damages the recursive nature of the project which--in my experience--doesn't produce npov or good articles. To the point, I would support removing featured article status. SmolBrane (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the featured article status makes certain contributors way too cautious about changes. Sometimes it's reasonable to say a certain line in an article shouldn't be changed because it's the result of a hard-fought consensus, but the whole article should never be like that. Change is necessary to maintain featured article status, as a featured article that's out of date is not featured article quality any more. Loki (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with these concerns. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

AC, could you please have a look at WP:FAOWN. First, I don't see a problem with four-year-old citations for the fact that JKR is a prolific tweeter; that hasn't changed, and many sources back it. Second, that content was specifically prefacing all of the sub-sections below it to avoid saying that all of those views were expressed via tweets, repetitively. Several of the sources discussed how JKR was among the first to make extensive use of Twitter to build her fan base.

In general, whether something is changeable, or what consensus or discussion went into certain content, might be something you could inquire about in advance, without using profanity that raises the temperature on what has been a most collaborative talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggest attention at Pamela Paul

I would suggest the very thoughtful and careful attention appearing here, from this Talk section's participants, may be soon needed at this referenced article. There, contentions are being made by new editor @User:Standing and Staring, using terms to describe this NYT Opinion writer (and Rowling defender), contentions that are not based on others' stating terms, but rather based on on the new editor stating terms (conclusions), then providing what they believe to be primary source evidence of their assertion.

I believe this violates WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, AND WP:NPOV. The discourse is at the 1RR stage. (I am a retired faculty member, and retired Wikipedian, and was looking in at that article to do WP:VERIFY type edits, and seem to have just mis-timed my presence with this red-letter editor's appearance and POV editing.)

98.206.30.195 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Content discussion fork

Discussion of article content has been forked to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Citation errors and CITEVAR

Since the rewrite of the transgender section was installed, this article has been riddled with harvref errors, and changes to WP:CITEVAR; could regular editors here please be more aware of WP:WIAFA, and the established citation style? Installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js is one way to notice the harvref errors; ctrl-f on "cite journal" will point to others. I will begin working on repair now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

New book sources (Whited and Henderson) were never added to Source list, resulting in HarvRef errors and short notes going nowhere: done.
Sources that were removed from the article were not removed from sources list. Why was this source removed; for now, I've commented it out.
Now fixed by User:Some1,thx. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone added Taylor without adding it to journal sources (a WP:CITEVAR change), and with a change in date style, a URL that doesn't point to free full text, and missing the page number. Victoriaearle (or anyone else with journal access), could you please provide the page number or range?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry SandyGeorgia I'm only working through notifications now. I don't have that journal, nor do I know when it was added - I unwatched here weeks ago. It may have come from the Wikipedia Library but dunno. Regardless, yes, that page number should be added. Maybe LokiTheLiar knows? Or someone else? I completely lost track as to who was working on what. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope someone will get on it; the install was pushed through prematurely, without tying up the loose ends -- just when we were so close to consensus. Thx, Victoria. Some1 I believe you did the install (I could be wrong as I stopped following closely -- are you able to complete this cittation?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Another user did the install [1], but I guess I did accidentally removed some sources in this edit [2]. I've restored them now; did that fix (some of) the errors? Some1 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanx, Some1, sorry for the mixup. User:-sche, it seems you installed a draft with an incomplete citation. Are you able to cite that content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can dig through the revisions (of this talk page and the article itself) later to see when/if the page numbers were removed, but for now I've just removed the 3 words in question (as a normal edit), because I do recall noticing when comparing revisions of the article that the 3 words were not present in the article for a good part of its history (though they were present at some points), and though they were in the draft that it was decided to implement (with the explicit note that normal editing should continue), I see no problem with removing them if there are sourcing issues. Cheers! -sche (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thx! As you can see from the historical version of Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 21#Draft 8, we've lost the bulk of that sentence, as well as new sources I offered in the discussion. Why should we lose academic freedom, cancel culture, etc? I don't think the version was ready to be installed, people lost patience when we were almost over the finish line (so we don't have a strong consensus version), but I was too busy to say so then ... and the current transgender rights section has a lot of repetition (which looks like overdriving "transphobia" into the section). Slower and steadier was doing the job; I hope we can resume that mode of editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree with you on that last bit. Slower and steadier was very much not doing the job. Going "slow and steady" meant that we had an out-of-date section left in the article for months. Loki (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

We ended up with text that says very little that is different from where we started (so any datedness wasn't urgent), but what we ended up with is less well written and had (still) citation errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I very much disagree with all of that, except the citation errors. Loki (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, we will sometimes disagree; that's OK :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden could you please read this section and consider the possibility of installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to check for harvref errors introduced by your edits ? It's edits like these, to remove the HarvRef errors that take an FA out of compliance with WP:WIAFA, that give me the highest edit count on the article -- I'm not thrilled at being the one who has to do all the cleanup, and would appreciate some help from those experienced editors who make the edits and know how to keep an FA compliant with the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Political views on Israel

Is this Jerusalem Post source appropriate for updating JKR's views on Israel-Hamas? It references her exact words, which are included in the Political Views sub-article, but only using primary sources there. If not, what is a better source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am usually skeptical of the Jerusalem Post on Israel/Palestine because of its clear bias on this issue. It might be fine here because it's just quoting her, but I'm concerned about stating that something is her view on the issue based on two tweets from when this was a breaking news story and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza hadn't happened yet. Loki (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't find enough non-Jewish sources on this to convince myself it would be DUE to include it ... thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Without having read very much of the sourcing, my inclination is due doubt that it is due weight to include it. Rowling isn't a lawmaker, so most of her personal political positions other than the big ones that have garnered all of the media and scholarly attention aren't going to be due weight to mention in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Beira

LokiTheLiar you wrote here that

"There's a mention of Beira's Place in the philanthropy section that says it's for biological women cited to the Telegraph, which is both an WP:NPOV problem because it's clearly taking her side of the issue, and a sourcing issue because the Telegraph was recently agreed to be WP:MREL on trans issues."

As you know, it was only very recently that the Telegraph was found MREL on trans issues. I searched for a different source, including more recent ones, but hesitate to swap one in myself, as they all seem biased one way or another. What sources do you suggest we consider? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In an effort to avoid the issues I was complaining about in the linked comment, I have gone ahead and made an edit using sources from the Beira's Place page. Loki (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made a minor wording change to Loki's edit, to more neutral wording. I have also removed the Pink News source, as the content is already sourced to the BBC, the Guardian and the Edinburgh News, all of whom are more neutral in tone. Daff22 (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Labour

LokiTheLiar you wrote here that

"The main article says she supports Labour when the article on her political views clarifies that may no longer be true."

I am unable to find any place where this article says she "supports" Labour; it says she donated to Labour in 2008, not that she (then or now) supports it. Did I miss something? But I see also in the Bibliography section where she said she would struggle to vote for them in 2024; it doesn't seem it would be difficult to add that clause to the bit in Politics (after checking for any updated sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Now" I can't help you with, but "then" is pretty obvious if you include the rest of that sentence.

The full quote in the article is

In 2008, Rowling donated £1 million to the Labour Party, endorsed the Labour prime minister Gordon Brown over his Conservative challenger David Cameron, and commended Labour's policies on child poverty

If you endorse someone for Prime Minister, I would think it to be very obvious that you support their party. Loki (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Will this June 2024 BBC source suffice for updating? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, seems fine to me. Loki (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be out the rest of the afternoon, in case someone else wants to work on that update before I can get to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Installed, with apologies for piecemeal work. May need adjustment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

'cottage hospital' not 'Cottage Hospital'

The place of her birth should be given as

'the cottage hospital', etc,

not

'Cottage Hospital', etc.

A cottage hospital was a type of small, local hospital that was widely used in England for a period, not the name of a particular one (see, e.g. separate Wikipedia article, or search).

It should not be capitalized.

Thus the correct form of text is,

'Joanne Rowling was born on 31 July 1965 at the cottage hospital in Yate, Gloucestershire' 81.131.103.168 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Cottage Hospital was/is both a type of hospial and the proper name of many examples. You'd need to produce refs that it had some other name. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia link you gave to cottage hospital does not capitalise it. You made a valid point that some cottage hospitals have 'Cottage Hospital' as part of the name, and in that case it obviously should be capitalised. However, the uncapitalised, generic version is correct in both cases. Perhaps it would be better to use that neutral form unless there are specific refs that show it has the capitalised version as part of its offical name. 81.131.103.168 (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I took it out of them main body content, but have you read the footnote there? It's complicated, but we have two sources using capitalized Cottage Hospital as the name at the time, including on the birth certificate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Shortening the lead

MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends a maximum of four paragraphs for the lead. Even though this article is quite long, I think the fourth and fifth paragraph can be merged without taking out any major content. A suggested edit is below, and thoughts are welcome:

Rowling has won many accolades including an OBE and a Companion of Honour. Her charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named after her mother. In politics, she has donated to Britain's Labour Party and opposed Scottish independence and Brexit. Rowling has expressed opinions on transgender people and related civil rights since 2017. Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors.

It's not perfect, and I do not like the jump from the awards to charity, but I think its a start. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, merge fourth and fifth paragraphs (separating them was a unilateral edit made in the recent bunch, without consensus).

But there is a (new and) bigger problem; when the new transgender material was installed before the process of developing consensus was final and the tidying work completed, the lead went out of sync with the body; there is now content in the lead that was excised (unnecessarily IMO) in the body. I've raised this above but it hasn't yet been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: and others: Would opening a new thread on the transgender discussion be worthwhile? I don't want to start a time-sink but happy to give thoughts if there is a willingness to discuss (and I've read the discussion at FAR and some of the threads above, so I have an idea of what some editors are concerned about). Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest holding off on that for now, only because there is so much else going on that might be more easily resolved first, while the transgender content is more frought. Feel free to ignore me, but I don't think there's anything in that content left in the lead but removed from the body that is so horrible that we have to act prontisssimo, and rewriting the lead sentences on transgender might result in an unusually long discussion, as it did last time, so my recommendation would be to first deal with other things, knowing we need to return to this side matter. I'm in agreement with your other recommendations for now (merge four and five, etc), just pointing out we need to come back to this, as just keeping up with the bookkeeping that wasn't addressed when the transgender rewrite was installed has kept me busy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not simply reducing the lead to four paragraphs, though that should be done. Rather, eliminate anything from the lead that is not particularly significant. The lead does not have to cover everything. Note, from MOS:LEAD: 'the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.' and 'It gives the basics in a nutshell' and 'The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.' and 'summarize the most important points' As well as eliminating minor points, some parts could be written more directly and I would question the need for the third paragraph at all. Jontel (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Pottermore

As the paragraph on Portermore stands, it's completely off-topic. There's not even an assertion that Rowling wrote for it. If there's something relevant to a biography of Rowling to say about it, we should, otherwise, it should be cut. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 10:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If Rowling's only involvement in Pottermore was that she introduced it, then I do not think this paragraph is necessary. If she had other involvement, this should be more explicitly stated. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aye, that's my thought. The article on Pottermore says it contains/contained otherwise-unpublished writing by her... but that's completely uncited. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

AC, have you read the cited source in this article, added by AP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, AC, have you read all of Whited 2024, as it also cites JKR's Pottermore content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have this idea that if a paragraph completely fails to make an assertion of how it's notable to Rowling, that - before one raises the issue - one should research every source, including ones not available online, to see if there's anything in them, instead of asking if anyone already knows who has read the relevant sources. Little to nothing in the paragraph itself deserves to be in this article (and, worse, Pottermore itself doesn't exist anymore, which was one of the first things I noticed).The Brummitt article has nothing useful in the abstract. Given your normal insistence on scholarly sources, and given Whited is not referenced in the section, I'm not sure why you expect me to have known to check it.

The source from The Guardian might be useful to write a brief section about her writing on Pottermore (presuming it's notable, and that the site having been deleted isn't relevant. It's really hard to know how much and how significant the content on a dead site was, and how much of it was by Rowling.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Pottermore content was re- written by AleatoryPonderings, based on a scholarly source. Short of hearing from AP, it's hard to opine.

More generally, I am concerned about some of the changes being made to an FA without first checking back in archives for previous discussions that might illuminate all of us, considering that AP and O-D are no longer editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I really don't know what you expect everyone to get from old archives. I've just read the archival discussions that come up when you search "Themes". They really, really don't enlighten one in the least. It seems like, as with most articles, people didn't discuss every single change on the talk page generally. Just so we're clear, everything from archive 16 to 22 - seven archives, or nearly a third of the extant ones - are just the debate on the transgender section we just finished. So I've read about a third of the archives in full. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Outdenting to go back to the original question: The Guardian source mentions that Rowling wrote for Pottermore, so this should be added to the article. I also think some of the information in that paragraph is not needed. Here's my suggested rewrite:

Pottermore, a website with information and stories about characters in the Harry Potter universe, launched in 2011. The site described the history and backstory of various elements of the fictional universe using notes Rowling wrote when writing the novels; Rowling also wrote many of the entries on the site. Rowling filmed an introductory video for the site.

Thoughts? The same sources would be used as inline citations. This version takes out information about the 2016 revamp, as I'm not sure it is relevant anymore. It also excludes information about the site's conversion to Wizarding World, which I'm not sure if Rowling was involved with. Z1720 (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 you of all people should understand the need to consult sources, how to keep them current, (and franky, how to look at a page history for posts). Earlier today I got caught in an edit conflict trying to post the following & then just gave up, because it's really difficult to deal with the atomsphere on this page. Anyway, re Pottermore, this is what I wrote: "I'm okay for it to be deleted but a quick search in Whited 2024 shows the following J. K. Rowling plays wizard historian on her Wizarding World fan site (formerly Pottermore), revealing the context of everything from characters’ love lives to the arcane workings of magical plumbing in the fantasy realm she created through the Harry Potter novels. p. 49 and also this, A featured article titled “The Treatment of Intelligent Magical Creatures in Fantastic Beasts and Harry Potter,” originally pub- lished on the Pottermore website, suggests that American house-elves might differ culturally from those in Britain.. p. 125. FWIW." Victoria (tk) 00:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: I only consulted the sources used in the article, and didn't look for additional sources; frankly, I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of looking for sources throughout the article, and I don't think this article needs a serious search for additional sources so soon after the last FAR. Thanks for contributing the sources above, and I'll look for additional sources in various places to see how this paragraph can be rewritten later. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Z, rather than a news source, we should use the scholarly sources that we do have and that were posted to this talk page. Thanks for helping out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinions here other than to suggest that since Pottermore is independently notable, the parts of its history that JKR had no involvement with can safely be spun off. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival, as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Sections

Loki, you were concerned here about the section headings. I'm not completely following all of your concerns, but on some of them ... In terms of rectifying this, I would point out that both Kirk and Smith (the only usable bios, both of which are freely accessible at archive.org) lay out a chronology ... her Potter success --> led to fame (along with opposition from religions and legal problems) --> led to wealth --> which led to philanthropy as she realized how fortunate she had been to escape poverty considering her background (text removed from the article as "hagiography" but well conforming with both sources) --> which led to her willingness to use her wealth fame and philanthropy to further her political views, as an early and prolific user of Twitter. You can load up either of those books on archive.org and glance at the Tables of Contents to see how some of the sections evolved. In some instances, the article structure was determined by the few usable bios we have (Rowling has not authorized a bio, and many available are basically children's books). Other than that, how do you suggest rectifying your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

See, that general outline makes sense, but it's not what I see here. Almost all of that is the Life and career section, and then we jump through several apparently unrelated sections before picking that story back up in the Philanthropy section.

I mainly feel like the structure of the article is a bit disjointed. And what I mean by that is, given any two section headers in this article it would be pretty difficult to predict the next one. Compare to James Joyce, where every section header except the last two could not go in any other place but where it is.

One concrete thing I can suggest right now is that Legal disputes are events that are clearly part of her career and so should be integrated into the Life and career section. But maybe the Life and career section should be split out: the internals of that section are very well structured and it's possible the issue here is that the remaining sections are miscellaneous little bits that were difficult to fit in a timeline. Loki (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we're going to need some help from Vanamonde93 on this one; in the personal bits, I did have (at least in my head :) an outline that was chronological (as outlined above), and Smith makes a case for that's how it worked. And Kirk pretty much follows suit -- one thing led to the next. But then where to fit the Literary analysis -- I had just about no involvement on that, and am out of my element -- but maybe all of those bits need to go under one level 2 heading ? (As a not very important side note, I've heard bitter complaints that James Joyce was turned into a chronological travelogue rather than a bio, so I'm loathe to compare to it or follow it too closely. It seems to overlook his work too much ... at least that's the complaint I hear, along with it reads like a travelogue.) More ideas needed here -- I'm out all afternoon now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar have you looked at Victoriaearle's FA Ernest Hemingway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I also think it's very well structured. Loki (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival as we are still working here (apologies for my absence, I'll return here as soon as able). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Style, and a lack thereof in the current version.

1 Rowling is known primarily as an author of fantasy and children's literature.^[1] Her writing in other genres, including literary fiction and murder mystery, has received less critical attention.^[2] Rowling's most famous work, Harry Potter, has been defined as a fairy tale, a Bildungsroman and a boarding-school story.^[3]^[4] Her other writings have been described by Pugh as gritty contemporary fiction with historical influences (The Casual Vacancy) and hardboiled detective fiction (Cormoran Strike).^[5]

In my opinion, this is fine enough. It's an introduction to what she wrote.

2 In Harry Potter, Rowling juxtaposes the extraordinary against the ordinary.^[6] Her narrative features two worlds – the mundane and the fantastic – but it differs from typical portal fantasy in that its magical elements stay grounded in the everyday.^[7] Paintings move and talk; books bite readers; letters shout messages; and maps show live journeys,^[6]^[8] making the wizarding world "both exotic and cosily familiar" according to the scholar Catherine Butler.^[8] This blend of realistic and romantic elements extends to Rowling's characters. Their names often include morphemes that correspond to their characteristics: Malfoy is difficult, Filch unpleasant and Lupin a werewolf.^[9]^[10] Harry is ordinary and relatable, with down-to-earth features such as wearing broken glasses;^[11] Roni Natov terms him an "everychild".^[12] These elements serve to highlight Harry when he is heroic, making him both an everyman and a fairytale hero.^[11]^[13]

This is where we start getting into excessive detail. This paragraph is an exact quote from Harry Potter (series). We should be summarising briefly things better described elsewhere; four lengthy paragraphs is way too much. My inclination is to say touch on key things, the moment we start to get into excessive detail, it should cut. This whole paragraph should probably be the first two or three sentences, at most.

3 Arthurian, Christian and fairytale motifs are frequently found in Rowling's writing. Harry's ability to draw the Sword of Gryffindor from the Sorting Hat resembles the Arthurian sword in the stone legend.^[14] His life with the Dursleys has been compared to Cinderella.^[15] Like C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter contains Christian symbolism and allegory. The series has been viewed as a Christian moral fable in the psychomachia tradition, in which stand-ins for good and evil fight for supremacy over a person's soul.^[16] The critic of children's literature Joy Farmer sees parallels between Harry and Jesus Christ.^[17] Comparing Rowling with Lewis, she argues that "magic is both authors' way of talking about spiritual reality".^[18] According to Maria Nikolajeva, Christian imagery is particularly strong in the final scenes of the series: she writes that Harry dies in self-sacrifice and Voldemort delivers an ecce homo speech, after which Harry is resurrected and defeats his enemy.^[19]

This is largely okay, but a lot of it repeats bits from J. K. Rowling#Influences. Why not mention comparisons with Lewis when talking about Lewis in #Influences? Why is this its own paragraph? Why is this article so badly written? Why are related thoughts not next to each other? Why do things get introduced, only to be promptly dropped before being reintroduced later with more detail?

Themes

4 Death is Rowling's overarching theme in Harry Potter.^[20]^[21] In the first book, when Harry looks into the Mirror of Erised, he feels both joy and "a terrible sadness" at seeing his desire: his parents, alive and with him.^[22] Confronting their loss is central to Harry's character arc and manifests in different ways through the series, such as in his struggles with Dementors.^[22]^[23] Other characters in Harry's life die; he even faces his own death in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.^[24] The series has an existential perspective – Harry must grow mature enough to accept death.^[25] In Harry's world, death is not binary but mutable, a state that exists in degrees.^[26] Unlike Voldemort, who evades death by separating and hiding his soul in seven parts, Harry's soul is whole, nourished by friendship and love.^[25] Love distinguishes the two characters. Harry is a hero because he loves others, even willing to accept death to save them; Voldemort is a villain because he does not.^[27]

This has absolutely nothing to do with J. K. Rowling, which is weird because there's also a section J._K._Rowling#Inspiration and mother's death which fails to say anything of significance about how her mother's death affected her writing. Why is this article so bad? How was this ever accepted as a featured article?

5 While Harry Potter can be viewed as a story about good versus evil, its moral divisions are not absolute.^[28]^[29] First impressions of characters are often misleading. Harry assumes in the first book that Quirrell is good because he opposes Snape, who appears malicious; in reality, their positions are reversed. This pattern later recurs with Moody and Snape.^[28] In Rowling's world, good and evil are choices rather than inherent attributes: second chances and redemption are key themes of the series.^[30] This is reflected in Harry's self-doubts after learning his connections to Voldemort, such as the ability of both to communicate with snakes in their language of Parseltongue;^[31] and prominently in Snape's characterisation, which has been described as complex and multifaceted.^[32] In some scholars' view, while Rowling's narrative appears on the surface to be about Harry, her focus may actually be on Snape's morality and character arc.^[33]^[34]

Wildly off topic deep into the Harry Potter literary analysis weeds. A little of this might be appropriate, but there's way too many examples. Again, most of this should be a "See also"

This article is such a mess. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I have just reverted a removal of literary analysis from the lead. As with most of this article, content that was extensively workshopped at FAR needs active consensus to remove; and I oppose the removal of most of what I added back in, as the reception of an author's work is central to their biography. As I've said before, Harry Potter made Rowling a public figure. Without it we wouldn't have an article about her, and nobody would care about her views on transgender people.
That said I'm open to trimming some detail from the paragraphs highlighted above, if we're able to move past excoriating it and actually engaging with the substance. The premise that literary analyses are irrelevant to Rowling's biography is plain wrong, but details that cannot be understood by a reader without a detailed recollection of the novels may need trimming. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
It's more that it's not well-written. As I said, there's things where to understand it you need to combine two different sections no-where near each other. There's a failure to properly use subpages for more detail. It's a fundamental failure of structure.

Further, it's one of those things where it's very narrow - pretty much entirely Harry Potter - and excessively deep. Only the first paragraph even mentions anything that isn't Harry Potter, but it dives very deep, to the point of a lot of discussion of Snape's arc (mainly only revealed in the last two books) and naming conventions in it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Adam that this is way way too much detail on Harry Potter for an article on its author.

I also think that saying content that was extensively workshopped at FAR needs active consensus to remove is a classic example of what I objected to above as the featured article status makes certain contributors way too cautious about changes. Loki (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, wrt to this specific issue (styles/themes/etc), it was explicitly discussed at FAR. I was from the outset strongly opposed to including themes, styles, etc related to Harry Potter, saying that content belonged in sub articles, and consensus was firmly against my arguments in a discussion that involved well more than the usual number of participants. So, I accepted consensus and we moved forward, with Vanamonde93 and AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel doing the bulk of that work.

Given that the content was founded on a strong consensus against my view (and IIRC I was the only one with that view, but I could be misremembering), and workshopped in a FAR that included a couple dozen other editors, I suggest that Adam Cuerden should cease making sweeping unilateral changes to the article without discussion.

I also see mention that the theme/style content is included in sub-articles; I'm fairly certain it was all first written here as a concise stand-alone summary, and later copied over to sub-articles. As one example of how some of the undiscussed unilateral edits have damaged the article, the deletion of a description of Harry Potter from the lead makes the article less intelligible to readers (like me) who have never touched a Potter book.

Adam Cuerden could you please lower the level of hyperbole here, and work collaboratively with others ? Putting things like Why is this article so bad? in bold isn't advancing collaborative efforts, and you've been around Wikipedia long enough to have seen what BAD articles look like; I suspect you'll find that improvements will proceed more quickly without the unnecessary air of personalization.

I became convinced as the article evolved that styles and themes did fit here, so I do not support removal or tagging of this content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For a featured article, this article is bad. I'm judging it on the standards of other featured articles, not by that of random terrible articles, but I will say, the coherency of this article structurally genuinely is very bad.

Look at the actual context for "Why is this so bad?": The section on death in Harry Potter feels out of place as it has no connection with Rowling. The section on the death of Rowlings' mother feels like it has an awful lot of detail for something that goes nowhere. In most sources I've seen, a path is laid out from the death of Rowling's mother to death being used as a theme in Harry Potter, but this supposedly-Featured-class article doesn't do that, instead splitting the two halves of that thought with several other sections between them, with no connection being drawn. That's what I'm referring to as bad.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 02:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your tone could be adjusted, as in, more helpful and concrete suggestions, less battleground and hyperbole. Paragraphs of complaining about things you personally don't like don't advance article improvement (in fact, they're more likely to chase off those willing and able to work on those improvements). WP:CTOP applies doubly to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind cutting a sentence or two from each subsection, but I think the overall length and depth of detail is close to where it should be. Good articles about authors should include description of their major works and the themes they write about. I glanced at a few literature bio FAs, and this seems pretty common. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made these snips [3] to the Style and Themes sections. I am happy to discuss any of them; I am not wedded to any of those changes, but felt they were places were we could trim material that was either too specific for an overview, or so nuanced that a fuller discussion was out of scope. I am undecided about the last two sentences of "Style"; I think the first may be too general without expansion, the second, too detailed; but the christian parallels are a major topic in the sources, so I felt I'd ask first. Five paragraphs is far from excessive for an author whose works have received a lot of critical attention, and I would ask that the tags be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
No-one ever seems to pay attention to the substance of what I say. I mention the death-theme section feels awkwardly split from a section on Rowling's mother's death earlier that peters out without making a point, and I get complaints about me saying the article's bad, and some mild trimming. I mention that the discussion of Lewis is all split up, and no-one reacts. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps there's a reason for this reaction? Since I've already explained multiple times, I won't repeat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't react because I have nothing to add to that; I simply disagree, and I've made my points about article structure at great length here and at the FAR. Since you ask: I don't think material related to Lewis should be grouped ignoring how it fits with the broader structure. A lot of sources discuss death as a theme; very few make the connection to her mother's death. Ideas and influences inevitably crop up in multiple places in an author's biography. This isn't necessarily a flaw; sometimes coherent structure requires it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: The section is a summary of Harry_Potter#Themes. If you'll look at the third paragraph there, nestled between the two paragraphs of it used almost verbatim here, you'll see that the article this is summarising very strongly makes a connection to her mother's death. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
That content was written by Olivaw-Daneel, who hasn't edited since April; it was cut from here for a reason that would require some work to uncover, absent O-D. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably an attemptt at summary style. I meam, the rest seems taken directly from it, amd it cites a well-used source. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The opposite. It was created in my sandbox; then AP rewrote; then OD rewrote; the Vanamonde rewrote (I was ill & no longer involved) and as #8 on the authorship list have little to no sway. At some point in Feb. 22 it was moved to Harry Potter. Can this discussion please stay in one place? Victoria (tk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: in an ideal world, we would have a thoroughly researched subsidiary article for every subtopic of this one. We don't live in such a world. This page was at FAR, and in an effort to fix the complete lack of literary analysis in it, AP, OD, Victoria, Sandy, and myself (and perhaps others I'm neglecting to name) spent considerable effort studying scholarly commentary on Rowling, and then further effort condensing. Some of the uncondensed material was later copied over to subsidiary articles, because it was lacking there. As Victoria says, the similarity is because the material here was written first, not because we did a bad job of summarizing a different page. The subsidiary articles could easily contain three times more material; but nobody has the time or inclination to write it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
This agrees with my memory. Victoriaearle's contributions are sometimes overlooked because she was in and out of the discussions for health reasons. And the appearance of me as the leading editor here is misleading; it's only because I did most of the installs of text that was written collaboratively (and I was always careful to attribute in edit summary per WP:CWW when the writing was not mine), along with all of the MOS and CITEVAR cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Good very good 2001:8F8:1D5F:76FF:4930:6938:B376:EFA3 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder why? (Possibly insert "Am I so out of touch? No - it's the children who are wrong!" Principal Skinner.gif here) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources

References

^ Pugh 2020, pp. 11, 20.
^ Pugh 2020, p. 107.
^ Pharr 2016, p. 10.
^ Alton 2008, p. 211.
^ Pugh 2020, pp. 114–116.
^ ^a ^b Natov 2002, p. 129.
^ Butler 2012, pp. 233–234.
^ ^a ^b Butler 2012, p. 234.
^ Park 2003, p. 183.
^ Natov 2002, p. 130.
^ ^a ^b Nikolajeva 2008, p. 233.
^ Ostry 2003, p. 97.
^ Ostry 2003, pp. 90, 97–98.
^ Alton 2008, p. 216.
^ Gallardo & Smith 2003, p. 195.
^ Singer 2016, pp. 26–27.
^ Farmer 2001, p. 58.
^ Farmer 2001, p. 55.
^ Nikolajeva 2008, pp. 238–239.
^ Ciaccio 2008, pp. 39–40.
^ Groves 2017, pp. xxi–xxii, 135–136.
^ ^a ^b Natov 2002, pp. 134–136.
^ Taub & Servaty-Seib 2008, pp. 23–27.
^ Pharr 2016, pp. 20–21.
^ ^a ^b Los 2008, pp. 32–33.
^ Stojilkov 2015, p. 135.
^ Pharr 2016, pp. 14–15, 20–21.
^ ^a ^b Schanoes 2003, pp. 131–132.
^ McEvoy 2016, p. 207.
^ Doughty 2002, pp. 247–249; McEvoy 2016, pp. 207, 211–213; Berberich 2016, p. 153.
^ Doughty 2002, pp. 247–249.
^ Birch 2008, pp. 110–113.
^ Nikolajeva 2016, p. 204.
^ Applebaum 2008, pp. 84–85.

Dumbledore

Loki, you wrote here about the Legacy section that

"There's a sentence ... which seems to confuse the underlying issue when it says 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 readers: it makes it sound like fans object to Dumbledore being gay, when the actual fan objection is that Rowling only said that Dumbledore was gay after the fact and not in the books themselves."

I don't have access to those scholarly sources, so can't suggest repairs; can you access them? If not, who can access the sources and help rectify this passage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I found this in Pugh -- will update as I find time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Added, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Religious debates

Re these concerns, my impression from reading Kirk and Smith is that the religious debates largely ended. Eventually? Vanamonde93 I seem to recall you reviewed the sources on Religious debates; can you do anything to clarify the timing per the concerns raised by TompaDompa? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid it will be until next week before I can engage deeply with sources on this page. I suspect there will not exist a satisfactory resolution to that concern, however. Unless someone studied the religious debates retrospectively - and I don't believe they have - sources covered the phenomenon when it happened, and when the debates petered out they stopped receiving attention. As such I'm confident the debate lost steam as the later books appeared, the Christian themes got more prominent, and the lack of any promotion of witchcraft and paganism more obvious; but that's my personal opinion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a re-phrasing will suffice ... IIRC, the main objection was to the word were .. would "have been" work? Doesn't seem so urgent that we can't wait a week or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with the suggested tweak, but fundamentally I think this is a case of us needing to be okay with not tying everything off neatly; sometimes the source material doesn't allow for it, and that's okay. I just re-read some of the material we use to talk about Christian themes, and AFAICS all they do is to say that those claiming the books promoted Satanism were wrong; there isn't a history of the debates, as such. At some point I imagine a scholar will pick this up for a paper, and we can tie it off when that happens. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I've been re-reading Pugh (do you have the Introduction?) and suggest we might solve this complaint by something like this. From:

... Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series.

... to

... Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. Criticism of her writing from fundamental Christians also led to religious debates over the Harry Potter series.

That would make it not time-dependent, rather just another matter of literary analysis ... have a look at Pugh? I want to get this one off the To-Do list! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to Pugh at the moment, regrettably; TWL does not appear to include it in their collection. If you have the introduction, perhaps you'd be kind enough to email it to me? I believe you have my address. I did re-read some of the other cited sources, Gupta in particular. I'm generally fine with your change, but there is some mention of Islamic fundamentalists too; so perhaps "religious fundamentalists, particularly evangelical Christians"? I wonder a little about length, but if it would address complaints about vagueness I'm okay with it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 ... I have only that one chapter ... will send as soon as I'm home on real computer. Methinks it a good source to have, as a spate of the deletions in recent months were probably DUE content per Pugh, and I think we need to revisit a lot of what got tossed in non-consensual edits.

Your proposal seems fine, but need to make sure it's sourced in the body somewhere ... can I leave that all in your hands? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Leveson op-ed, stance and weight (should be easy to clarify)

The article says In 2012, she wrote an op-ed for The Guardian in response to Cameron's decision not to implement all the inquiry's recommendations. Wouldn't it be more informative to say that she criticized his decision or said she felt duped, rather than merely wrote about it, particularly as the next sentence begins She reaffirmed her stance... but it's unclear what stance that's calling back to? (Is "her stance" that she "has a difficult relationship with the press and has tried to influence the type of coverage she receives", is "too thin-skinned", "had taken more than 50 actions against the press", and/or "dislikes the British tabloid the Daily Mail"? Genuine question; those are the only conceivably stance-ish things I spot in the preceding parts of the section.) The end of the paragraph suggests that the stance we're saying she re-affirmed might be "[safeguard] the press from political interference while also giving vital protection to the vulnerable", but I find it confusing that this mention of her "re-affirming" it is the first mention of her having it at all: it makes the section awkward to parse. Can we improve this?
I also notice that the only source currently supporting that sentence seems to be the op-ed itself. Sure, the op-ed is reliable for the statement that the op-ed exists, and one sentence is not much, but don't we want secondary sources about the op-ed to establish that this, of all the things she has written, is one which is due inclusion in this FA which should adhere most highly to best practices about writing and sourcing? (Or am I mistaken?) I expect such secondary sources do exist: here is a CNN article covering the op-ed which could be added to the references for that sentence, and better/'weightier' sources may exist.
(Given the issues that various prior and ongoing discussions have identified with various sections of the article, I decided to spot-check whether other sections had issues or not, and this was the first section I scrolled to... which suggests it might indeed be prudent to check other sections for things that could be improved...) -sche (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I would go for something like "In 2012, she criticised Cameron's decision not to implement all the inquiry's recommendations and supported the Hacked Off campaign, pushing for further media reform." It would be good to cite both the op-ed and the CNN piece. If we want to add a bit more detail, I think it'd better to focus on the content of her criticism—mainly that Cameron didn't pursue more legislative regulation—rather than the venue of her op-ed and the exact timing of the criticism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's been ten days, and no one has else has opined here; Firefangledfeathers might you have the time and inclination to take on this portion? A scholar.google.com search on "Leveson Rowling" reveals numerous scholarly sources that may prove useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably soon. I inserted my proposal for now, and I'll look into better sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent archival, as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That whole bit pre-dates the FAR, and IIRC, there was no specific discussion of that portion during the FAR, although several editors fiddled with it on copyedit (and in retrospect, it appears there was an attempt to shorten it all). Here is how it looked pre-FAR, if that's any help in the rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Covering antitrans in the lead

Discrepancy in date she first got the idea for Harry Potter?

Under the section Inspiration and mother's death it says:

"In mid-1990, she was on a train delayed by four hours from Manchester to London, when the characters Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger came plainly into her mind."

But then shortly after it says:

"Her mother died of multiple sclerosis on 30 December 1990. At the time, she was writing Harry Potter and had never told her mother about it."

Which is it? Did she conceive Harry Potter in 1990 or in the mid-1990s? Could someone fix this discrepancy? Airgum (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized it meant mid-1990 like middle of the year 1990. I misinterpreted it as mid-1990s like 1994, 1995, or 1996. Airgum (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Dashes

JacktheBrown could you please explain why you are changing the established style on this article's WP:DASHes, from spaced endashes to unspaced emdashes, contrary to MOS:VAR? Both styles are allowed on Wikipedia. One problem is that, in the change, you missed some, and whichever is chosen, articles should be consistent. The style of spaced endashes was set years ago, so reverting your changes may be the fastest way to repair the misses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, why did you delete alt text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO it’s just a minor content dispute, let’s just AGF :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Re the "minor" part, I agree DFW; I was just going to JTB's talk page to inquire, and make sure they knew both styles were acceptable, when I found the topic ban, and realized I was in a can of worms. But ... actually, these little messes are much more exhausting on this article (and many articles) than the items of substance ... particularly when there are intervening edits that may have to be preserved. The minor distractions can be more disruptive than trying to sort out matters of substance, and take just as much time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: JacktheBrown's talk page indicates they are topic banned from GENSEX, so rather than wait for an answer here, I will revert (and recover the intervening edit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: one change was correct: the MOS:GEOLINK; could you restore it? I will abandon the page, although Rowling isn't a trans person. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't edit war, and you already have, so it's up to you or someone else to now repair the rest. You reverted all the rest of the unnecessary changes back in to the article for one GEOLINK rather than just fix the GEOLINK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverted and GEOLINK reinstated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

GEOLINK reinstated.

That’s why you always have my respect :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, both the old style and new style are permissible per GEOLINK. The Buffalo, New York, example approves of the old style. The only real way to fall afoul of the guideline is to separately link a larger geographical unit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (although I doubt it will stick ... not something I routinely encounter :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit by LokitheLiar

Forgive me, @LokiTheLiar, what is wrong, under the "transgender views" section, with the short but heavily - and I mean extremely heavily cited quotation, taken from the Political views of J. K. Rowling - "Some performers and feminists have supported Rowling and condemned comments against her."

Seriously, with all those citations, and being already mentioned in the relevant article, how is this not relevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, the pretty fundamental phrase. -i.e. a clearly relevant thing to mention - from the other article, "even as she has received support from other feminists", was formerly in this article but now it is strangely eschewed.

Do you think ALL notable reception of Rowling's views are negative? Seriously? Does even the slightest mention of the well-sourced defenses by SOME in the performing arts and feminism, strike you as irrelevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see what is wrong with "Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors" in the lede: it was changed only a few weeks ago with very little comment (if you see above); hardly the consensus you describe. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Every aspect of this situation is heavily cited. But not every aspect is WP:DUE. The point of this article isn't to recapitulate every detail of the political views article. That article exists exactly to avoid this article being swamped with every detail of the situation.

The performers who support her are not the main characters, for one, and we agreed to giving only a gist because if we got into specifics we'd be here all day. The feminists who support her are gender-critical feminists, so their support is unsurprising for one, and also firmly in the minority internationally for two.

Like it or not, most responses to JKR are critical, and increasingly so more recently. Loki (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is it in the other article but not this one? It certainly used to be in this article. And it's more than just GCFs coming to defence, e.g. Eddie Izard, Hirsi Ali, and noted feminists in general like Julie Bindel. Why on Earth would you not see that as due. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

" most responses to JKR are critical"; so not all, right? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW, "even as she has received support from other feminists" is said in the short LEDE of the other article describing all her political views, but there is purge of it mentioned here. That is wholly and entirely uncalled for. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The other article hasn't been updated in a long time, so it probably could also use some updating. The transgender views section of this article was just updated recently.

Also, politely, you don't need to reply to me three times every time. :P Loki (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

" most responses to JKR are critical"; so not all, right? Zilch-nada (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have restored at least the uncontroversial lede which actually effectively summarises the topic more:

"Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights since 2017. Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors."

The other ending to the lede describes little of the discourse surrounding Rowling (which is probably the currently most relevant thing), whereas this very much describes proclamations of support, reactions of LGBT rights orgs, and culture wars, etc. That is most certainly - at least - something to include. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to that revert as much since I admit that edit was WP:BOLD. But some edit like that has consensus over the status quo; see above discussions including the recent RFC for details. Loki (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:False balance. Acting as if her support is equal or as valid as her opposition is just promoting transphobia, but there's a strong effort in this article to "both-sides" the issue, largely by taking defense of her early, much less egregious comments, and acting as if they counteract the opposition to her much more transphobic later positions. It's a trap it's very easy to fall into, but one we must avoid. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 11:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"Acting as if her support is equal or as valid as her opposition" - no one is doing that whatsoever.

"much less egregious comments, and acting as if they counteract the opposition to her much more transphobic later positions" - clearly nothing here is even remotely suitable for Wikivoice. Zilch-nada (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing discussion with article content.

In the Politics article, "Some performers and feminists have supported Rowling and condemned comments against her" is sourced to exclusively to statements from 2020 and 2021, with the exception of a book from 2022 (The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media), which is also one of our sources for widespread criticism (I would like to see the exact wording there, so it's clear how much weight that book gives; that would probably help guide us). Given the lead time of book publishing, this would presumably effectively be a 2021 source. That still has the out-of-date problem, of course.

Of course, saying that some people who share her views support her kind of ventures into "sky is blue" territory. It's hard to know what counts as notable support when it's just a list of people who said nice things about her in 2020/1. Effectivly, that's primary sources being analysed by Wikipedia, and it's all - even if the exact language is carefully phrased to not state, just imply, is almost certainly a WP:SYNTH violation (which includes implied information) without a secondary source. One of the reasons I'd love to see the exact text of the Emerald Handbook, but not so much as to be willing to pay the over two hundred dollars the book ges for, or over 20 for just the 12 page chapter cited. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

is jk racist too?

(Redacted) In the making of the harry potter franchise, she said Hermoine was supposed to be black, all though she wrote in the first book that she was pale, as an African American this doesn't make sense to me. if anyone has any replies they are welcome and appreciated thank you. URGURLNELE (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That was probably a weird way of explaining race-blind casting badly. Now, there's things to criticise her for, including soe weird racial stuff in Harry Potter (See Harry_Potter#Thematic_critique third paragraph), but not sure how much Potter critique belongs here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 20:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If you’re going to write negative assertions about someone, at least bother to provide sources. 80.195.100.226 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hermione would've been Black British, not African American. That said, I think the "pale" bit in HP could describe relative paleness to describe her shock (she was shocked in that part of the story). So I don't buy that part and never did. There are critiques of her work that level the charge of unconscious bias or racism against her work, but I don't think that's the same thing as saying "X is racist". We'd need RSes for a statement like that. Lewisguile (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources to support your claims, I don't think this is the right place (WP:NOTFORUM). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

And talk pages are also subject to WP:BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but only insofar as it's "not related to making content choices". I don't think we should add anything to the article, but URGURLNELE was asking a question about content in the article, and we responded. WP:BITE also applies to talk pages, so let's be nice to the newbie trying to learn, rather than complaining they asked a question in an imperfect way. There's nothing they've said in the part you redacted that hasn't been discussed either in the article or in the sub articles and these talk pages. It may not be nuanced, but it's not accusations we don't report on. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

[FOOTNOTEPugh202011,_20-1] Pugh 2020, pp. 11, 20.

[FOOTNOTEPugh2020107-2] Pugh 2020, p. 107.

[FOOTNOTEPharr201610-3] Pharr 2016, p. 10.

[FOOTNOTEAlton2008211-4] Alton 2008, p. 211.

[FOOTNOTEPugh2020114–116-5] Pugh 2020, pp. 114–116.

[FOOTNOTENatov2002129-6] Natov 2002, p. 129.

[FOOTNOTEButler2012233–234-7] Butler 2012, pp. 233–234.

[FOOTNOTEButler2012234-8] Butler 2012, p. 234.

[FOOTNOTEPark2003183-9] Park 2003, p. 183.

[FOOTNOTENatov2002130-10] Natov 2002, p. 130.

[FOOTNOTENikolajeva2008233-11] Nikolajeva 2008, p. 233.

[FOOTNOTEOstry200397-12] Ostry 2003, p. 97.

[FOOTNOTEOstry200390,_97–98-13] Ostry 2003, pp. 90, 97–98.

[FOOTNOTEAlton2008216-14] Alton 2008, p. 216.

[FOOTNOTEGallardoSmith2003195-15] Gallardo & Smith 2003, p. 195.

[FOOTNOTESinger201626–27-16] Singer 2016, pp. 26–27.

[FOOTNOTEFarmer200158-17] Farmer 2001, p. 58.

[FOOTNOTEFarmer200155-18] Farmer 2001, p. 55.

[FOOTNOTENikolajeva2008238–239-19] Nikolajeva 2008, pp. 238–239.

[FOOTNOTECiaccio200839–40-20] Ciaccio 2008, pp. 39–40.

[FOOTNOTEGroves2017xxi–xxii,_135–136-21] Groves 2017, pp. xxi–xxii, 135–136.

[FOOTNOTENatov2002134–136-22] Natov 2002, pp. 134–136.

[FOOTNOTETaubServaty-Seib200823–27-23] Taub & Servaty-Seib 2008, pp. 23–27.

[FOOTNOTEPharr201620–21-24] Pharr 2016, pp. 20–21.

[FOOTNOTELos200832–33-25] Los 2008, pp. 32–33.

[FOOTNOTEStojilkov2015135-26] Stojilkov 2015, p. 135.

[FOOTNOTEPharr201614–15,_20–21-27] Pharr 2016, pp. 14–15, 20–21.

[FOOTNOTESchanoes2003131–132-28] Schanoes 2003, pp. 131–132.

[FOOTNOTEMcEvoy2016207-29] McEvoy 2016, p. 207.

[30] Doughty 2002, pp. 247–249; McEvoy 2016, pp. 207, 211–213; Berberich 2016, p. 153.

[FOOTNOTEDoughty2002247–249-31] Doughty 2002, pp. 247–249.

[FOOTNOTEBirch2008110–113-32] Birch 2008, pp. 110–113.

[FOOTNOTENikolajeva2016204-33] Nikolajeva 2016, p. 204.

[FOOTNOTEApplebaum200884–85-34] Applebaum 2008, pp. 84–85.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]