|
|||||
Please set up separate sections for each nomination.
For their contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate AleatoryPonderings for a Featured Article Save Award. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
For their contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate Olivaw-Daneel for a Featured Article Save Award. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
For their contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate Vanamonde93 for a Featured Article Save Award. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
For her contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate SandyGeorgia for a Featured Article Save Award. Victoria ( tk) 23:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Pre-FAR version 8,487 words
FAC Nominator User:Serendipodous
Stats extracted on 2022-01-05, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Stats as of 15 April 2022, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@ A. C. Santacruz, Barkeep49, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, LokiTheLiar, Newimpartial, Olivaw-Daneel, Sdkb, Vanamonde93, and Victoriaearle: I believe this is everyone who has weighed in on the two talk pages regarding drafting the Transgender people section (pls ping if I have missed anyone). I have started a section #Discussion of source list above, but here, you might indicate for future reference whether you prefer or not to be pinged on this page. Since restructuring and reworking of the literary analysis portions of the article is underway, we might take advantage of the delay to register views above on best sources. I will also notify Talk:J. K. Rowling of the source discussion. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm preparing an update, which brings to mind that we might have a list of who has the page watchlisted and prefers never to be pinged, who always wants a ping, and anything in between. Please sign on! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Section | Sub-section | Word count | Percent |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | 454 | 5.1 | |
1.0 Name | 104 | 1.2 | |
2.0 Life and career | 3,684 | 41.6 | |
2.1 Early life | 388 | ||
2.2 Secondary school and university | 550 | ||
2.3 Inspiration and mother’s death | 317 | ||
2.4 Marriage, divorce and single parenthood | 714 | ||
2.5 Publishing Harry Potter | 502 | ||
2.6 Films | 210 | ||
2.7 Religion, wealth and remarriage | 400 | ||
2.8 Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith | 274 | ||
2.9 Later Harry Potter works | 170 | ||
2.10 Children's stories | 159 | ||
3 Influences | 323 | 3.6 | |
Works | 1,944 | 22.0 | |
4 Style and themes | 667 | ||
5 Reception | 1,277 | ||
6 Legacy | 452 | 5.1 | |
7 Legal disputes | 211 | 2.4 | |
8 Philanthropy | 478 | 5.4 | |
9.0 Views | 43 | 787 | 8.9 |
9.1 Politics | 215 | ||
9.2 Press | 159 | ||
9.3 Transgender | 370 | ||
10 Awards and honors | 412 | 4.7 | |
Total | 8,849 | 100.0 |
As we wait to see how the interim lead does, before we proceed to the TG section, looking at straggling nitpicks ... please add if you have any! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Rowling has a difficult relationship with the press and has tried to influence the type of coverage she receives.. What "celebrity" doesn't have a difficult relationship with the (nasty) UK press, or hasn't tried to influence coverage? I am wondering if we can improve on this. This is sourced to Sattler and Stanfill, which I can't view. What do they say? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"when she conceived the idea for the Harry Potter series while on a delayed train from Manchester to London"is in the lead is that (as she has said according to many sources) she had fully developed in her mind the seven-series plots before she started writing? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
From earlier To do list, now archived:
Pinging only those who have asked for pings at #Ping list (please add yourself to that list if you have a preference). @ Johnbod, Olivaw-Daneel, LokiTheLiar, Bodney, Sideswipe9th, and Crossroads: Per their preferences, I have left off AleatoryPonderings, A. C. Santacruz, Vanamonde93, Sdkb, and Barkeep49; I would ping them, along with others who have participated in this FAR, if/as we approach consensus (or if/as we are unable to gain consensus and need more feedback). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Housekeeping items as we get going:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
If anyone else needs the rest of the snipped content from page 7 from Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2#Pugh: general biographical info, Philanthropy, Honours and awards, Political views, and Transgender people, please send me an email. For copyright, I can't (or shouldn't) excerpt the whole page here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to keep everyone updated, I've been plugging away at an initial draft to trim the transgender section, but have taken my time to revisit all past commentary, so slow going. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I was frustrated while attempting to respect all of the commentary, requests and past discussion and balance the use of the sources, as sources sometimes disappear once you access them too many times. If I missed some important sources, I apologize, but in frustration, I am just going to put up what I've got. I could not find some of the supporters/opposers mentioned in mainstream sources, but I think/hope I covered the gist of it. I hope I have dealt with:
Will start a new section on drafts. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
For background, please see notes at #Starting on gender section, #First draft ready and status of the lead. I don't know if I got it all, but tired, and posting what I've done so we can get moving. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3#Draft 1
Archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5#Draft 2
Archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5#Draft 3
Current ( 497 words) | PROPOSED Draft 4 (376 words) |
---|---|
Transgender people In December 2019, Rowling tweeted her support for Maya Forstater, a British woman who initially lost her employment tribunal case ( Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development) but won on appeal against her former employer, the Center for Global Development, after her contract was not renewed due to her comments about transgender people. [1] [2] [3] Rowling wrote on Twitter, "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?" [4] On 6 June 2020, Rowling tweeted criticism of the phrase " people who menstruate", [5] and stated "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives." [6] Rowling's tweets were criticised by GLAAD, who called them "cruel" and "anti-trans". [7] [8] Some members of the cast of the Harry Potter film series criticised Rowling's views or spoke out in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leung, as did Fantastic Beasts lead actor Eddie Redmayne and the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron. [9] [10] [11] The actress Noma Dumezweni (who played Hermione Granger in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child) initially expressed support for Rowling but backtracked following criticism. [12] On 10 June 2020, Rowling published a 3,600-word essay on her website in response to the criticism. [13] [14] She again wrote that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning. She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. [15] Rowling's essay was criticised by, among others, the children's charity Mermaids (which supports transgender and gender non-conforming children and their parents), Stonewall, GLAAD and the feminist gender theorist Judith Butler. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Rowling has been referred to as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist ( TERF) on multiple occasions, though she rejects the label. [22] Rowling has received support from actors Robbie Coltrane [23] and Eddie Izzard, [24] and some feminists [25] such as activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali [26] and the radical feminist Julie Bindel. [25] The BBC nominated her essay for its annual Russell Prize for best writing. [27] [28] In August 2020, Rowling returned her Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award after Kerry Kennedy released a statement expressing her "profound disappointment" in Rowling's "attacks upon the transgender community", which Kennedy called "inconsistent with the fundamental beliefs and values of RFK Human Rights and ... a repudiation of my father's vision". [29] [30] [31] Rowling stated that she was "deeply saddened" by Kennedy's statement, but maintained that no award would encourage her to "forfeit the right to follow the dictates" of her conscience. [29] |
To be determined Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws, [32] [33] [a] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. [36] Her statements have divided feminists; [37] [38] [39] fuelled freedom of speech [40] [41] and academic freedom debates; [35] and prompted support for transgender people from individuals across America and Europe, [42] and from companies connected to her work. [43] When Maya Forstater's employment contract with London's Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, [44] [45] Rowling responded with a December 2019 tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". [45] [b] In another controversial tweet in June 2020, [49] Rowling mocked an article [50] for using the phrase " people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". [51] [52] LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; [53] [54] [c] GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". [58] Rowling responded with an essay on her website [13] in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault. [59] While affirming that most trans people were "vulnerable" and "deserved protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. [59] Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny, [60] she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class". [61] Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics [62] and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). [49] She rejects these characterisations. [13] [63] Criticism of Rowling's views came from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron; [64] and the charities Mermaids, [49] Stonewall, [65] and Human Rights Campaign. [66] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. [29] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under fire, [35] some performers and feminists have supported her. [67] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her". [63] |
Thankfully, AP is on the mend and is back for wordsmithing. With AP having edited my sandbox, we have to take care now to attribute all copied text per WP:CWW.
I believe (??) we have now addressed everything except the section name, which is a separate discussion, and can focus in this draft on whether any additional wordsmithing is needed.
I also suggest we should talk about whether we are ready to install, for multiple reasons.
I am off soon for a day in clinic waiting room, but will have iPad for limited editing; I can keep up, but can't do complex edits. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
By and large I'm happy with draft 4. The only change that I'd still like to see discussed is inserting "literary" into the first paragraph, such that the final sentence of it reads Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from literary individuals across America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work.
as I think that got missed when we were doing a back and forth on how to reword entities. Happy to move this off into a subsection if necessary.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 16:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC) edited
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 18:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition aws, and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from literary individuals across America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
literary individualsis not idiomatic English. Nor is it accurate, given that we also cite actors and advocacy organizations. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
literary communityas that is how The Guardian source used for that part of the sentence refers to the cohort of the US and Canada open letter? For the UK and Ireland letter The Guardian only refers to
authors. The support from actors and advocacy organisations is in a separate paragraph, and cited to a different source. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
companies connected to her work, since that is subsumed in "culture industries". An alternative phrase would be "from the literary, arts and culture sector" or "literary, arts and culture communities". Either way, we could also add RS mentions of the many musicians who have weighed in, as well. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
from the literary, arts and culture sectorto replace
from literary individuals across America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work. You and Sideswipe are closer to the sources than I am but I assume this phrase is equally well supported and is much clearer/tighter writing-wise. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws, and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
literaryinto this sentence was that actors, artists, and LGBT organisations are separately and more extensively mentioned in the third paragraph. The first paragraph only makes reference to authors, publishers, and book retailers (cite 42), and Warner, Warner Interactive, and Universal Parks and Resorts (cite 43). I didn't want to rock the boat too much at this late stage. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
rock the boateither, just to arrive at felicitous and accurate prose. Billboard gives the reactions in support of the trans community from "artists" (mostly musical artists), which I think could go a good way to cover any gap in sourcing. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it was me, and to be clear, I don't think any relevant clarity/specificity is lost by using "from the literary, arts and culture sectors" rather than "from literary individuals in North America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work". I don't think the companies connected to her work are "lost", because they are part of the "culture sector", and I actually prefer not to say "...individuals and companies..." because not all of the support lines up nicely into "individuals" and "companies". And I think the ability to add musicians to the reference - which brings in quite a few feminists, and which I have always wanted to do - makes up for anything lost by people not thinking of Scholastic or Warner until they read the note. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Having reviewed the whole of the new text in context, it certainly reads better (and less breathlessly) than the former one. I would feel remiss, though, if I didn't register that it feels a bit WHITEWASH-y and BOTHSIDESist compared to the sources used (and those discussed on Talk). I expect that this will be even more evident once an additional wave of peer-reviewed sources become available; I suppose the newly-minted version will serve its purpose until something major happens, or until it is time to replace it with more authoritative sourcing (which I suspect will be less deferential to Rowling than our current text). Newimpartial ( talk) 02:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Without getting in to discussion yet (to avoid sprawl), could we get a list of possibilities for eventual discussion? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Here's how I envision proceeding; speak up if this won't work.
The ideal outcome is that the most active participants on this page come to consensus (if not, we can ask the broader group participating on the FAR, some of whom asked not to be pinged until/unless we are at a stage where we need feedback). It's possible that among ourselves, we can winnow the list down based on a mini-survey here.
Before discussion sprawls (page size here is a constant problem), and before we survey amongst ourselves, I'd like to add a one-sentence summary to each possibility ... one that would provide a brief guide should it be necessary to move to the broader FAR group after we narrow down the possibilities amongst ourselves. Something like the following:
So, if we can fill this in without yet getting in to protracted discussion, I can archive this section to help with page size, and launch a new section here for a survey among ourselves. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
others, but one of the reasons I made this suggestion is that I didn't necessarily post the best source for "communities" in the previous discussion, and I didn't post any for "rights" (I suspect someone else may have done, but I doubt that they were thinking primarily about source quality of they did). I'm hoping to pre-empt digressions about such matters. :) Newimpartial ( talk) 17:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
sources are dividedabout "transgender people", when the evidence for this is that some sources use the phrase and others do not. This situation is equally characteristic of each of the options - the COMMONNAME here probably being
anti-transgender tweets, if anything, though no I'm not proposing this as a section title.
gender recognition- the implicit assumption seems to be that Rowling is "really" addressing the legal framework in the UK that goes by that name, but is she really? Do the sources support that? I think this is the rabbit hole to which we would be directed by your special pleading. :p Newimpartial ( talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
just want others to show me an alternatecomment. Sorry! Newimpartial ( talk) 18:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Note to Bodney - I looked for a straightforward reference supporting your section title proposal, and didn't see one. My suggestion would be that either you find such a reference, or that you tweak your proposal so that it is supported at least one clear example from the RS, without any additional interpretation required.
What I'm saying is, I haven't seen any sources for "transgender people and civil rights" as a combined heading. In fact, I haven't seen any sources that support "civil rights" at all, except as an attributed comment by people and organizations within the dispute. So I don't think "civil rights" is usable, but I think "transgender rights" is.
Anyway, my basic point here is that you need sources that support your proposal without original research and interpretation, and also without relying on protagonists within the debate.
The best way I can imagine you putting forward an acceptable proposal that would get close to what you want is by proposing "multiple descriptors". But do what you want - I am just trying to help. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, the Forbes contributor piece was the best I could find for "transgender topics", but perhaps you could do better.
Newimpartial (
talk) 18:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Initial proposal list
|
---|
I lost my proposed reboot in four edit conflicts; this is where I was headed. I don't want just one source, because should we have to go to the broader audience, I was hoping for a summary of rationale. My idea was more like this (to account for newcomers not having participated in our older discussions). I don't mind giving more than one source, so they don't have to revisit old discussions-- I'm after a brief why:
References
|
If we go with Newimpartial's (simplified) version, then I suggest more than one source (and I suggest we cap it at five). If we go with my version, then each proponent puts forward their best argument and signs. Newimpartial's version is filled in; my version needs people to fill in now. If we go Newimpartial's proposal, then we have to trust that newcomers will read through a long discussion that follows; they usually don't. If we go with mine, each proposer gets to put forward their best rationale from the get-go. We can pick one of these two, or anything in between, or something new ... these are just ideas for how to format a survey. I'm hoping we will quickly find the list winnowed down to about three. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
get to a compromise in this issue by relying only on sources- my one steelperson source per proposal idea is intended to move the discussion onto the terrain of the other policy-relevant factors by showing that WP:V is met.
example
|
---|
|
SandyGeorgia, maybe we could see how things look when others have provided sources and rationales for the other proposals, and possibly trim sources to a more standard look then? For the sake of completeness, I added sources to "transgender people" so that one seems ready to go. I am willing to do the support rationales for "transgender rights" and "transgender community" tomorrow, if noone else steps up. I don't really have an investment in developing any of the other options...
And yes, the gender recognition sources seem more reasonable to me now. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Bodney, I will take a look. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Newimpartial do you want to link to Bodney's description of the "issues" issue in the Issues choice? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Process question - should we ask whether editors prefer a double-barelled heading ("X and Y") and if so, how could we ask this? When I imagine a heading that would register as neutral to the largest number of editors, most of the examples I come up with are "X and Y" (like "Transgender people and gender recognition", or "Transgender issues and the transgender community") - I'm not saying these are elegant, but they might come across as neutral. Is this a question worth asking? Newimpartial ( talk) 18:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
women's rightsto the heading would be adopting a framing that, when presented by RS at all, is typically attributed to Rowling, and that multiple relevant experts have argued is not an actual issue in the controversy. (And the idea that the category of
feministsis better represented by Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock than by Margaret Atwood and Judith Butler seems absurd to me. But I digress.)
For practical purposes, it would probably be fine to complete FAR without doing anything about the heading, and then for an RfC to run on the heading after FAR is closed. I can't see anyone on the Article Talk page arguing that the FAR binds the heading (in fact I don't really see Talk editors feeling bound to the FAR text in general). Whenever an RfC is run on the heading, it can start with a too-long but well-docunented list of options with sources (possibly placed into groups) and Talk page participants - having presumably learned something from the lead RfC - can run it from there. I don't see much of a downside to closing FAR without changing the heading. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Just in terms of whether we can winnow the list ...
Is anyone on board with the "Transgender issues" heading?
Among the two "Gender" choices (Gender identity or Gender recognition), who is on board with each?
I suspect we will have a hard time getting editors to read through eight proposals; winnowing would be good. Please look at the transclusion below. Otherwise, when we ping the FAR in a few days, perhaps they will help winnow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Do we want to use it? Usage is slightly inconsistent at the moment, at least partly because the text I wrote will use the serial comma while others' prose apparently does not. This probably comes down to a raw vote since there is no good argument I know of for why one is better than the other. MOS:SERIAL has some additional guidance and flags the few cases where the serial comma is preferred. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 01:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
there is no good argument I know of for why one is better than the other.Really? Without it, we get confusion, such as " Highlights of his global tour include Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector." ;-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
there are cases in which either omitting or including the serial comma results in ambiguity- using Oxford for all lists by no means prevents confusion and silliness, and confusion and silliness can be avoided while never using a serial comma. Mostly, I read consistent Oxford use as a powerful indicator of a US undergraduate degree - advocating for it on internet platforms, doubly so. :) Newimpartial ( talk) 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Based on a ctrl-f search, as Vanamonde93 indicated earlier, standardization is needed. Anyone/someone who has a strong view might do a thorough review; I don't :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Transcluded from Talk:J. K. Rowling/Section heading proposal SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
What should the heading for
this sub-section of
J. K. Rowling#Views be?
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Discussion of section heading proposals
I've started the subpage, so we can complete the proposals there, and use it as a basis for survey or potential eventual RFC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
|
|||||
Please set up separate sections for each nomination.
For their contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate AleatoryPonderings for a Featured Article Save Award. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
For their contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate Olivaw-Daneel for a Featured Article Save Award. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
For their contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate Vanamonde93 for a Featured Article Save Award. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
For her contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate SandyGeorgia for a Featured Article Save Award. Victoria ( tk) 23:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Pre-FAR version 8,487 words
FAC Nominator User:Serendipodous
Stats extracted on 2022-01-05, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Stats as of 15 April 2022, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@ A. C. Santacruz, Barkeep49, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, LokiTheLiar, Newimpartial, Olivaw-Daneel, Sdkb, Vanamonde93, and Victoriaearle: I believe this is everyone who has weighed in on the two talk pages regarding drafting the Transgender people section (pls ping if I have missed anyone). I have started a section #Discussion of source list above, but here, you might indicate for future reference whether you prefer or not to be pinged on this page. Since restructuring and reworking of the literary analysis portions of the article is underway, we might take advantage of the delay to register views above on best sources. I will also notify Talk:J. K. Rowling of the source discussion. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm preparing an update, which brings to mind that we might have a list of who has the page watchlisted and prefers never to be pinged, who always wants a ping, and anything in between. Please sign on! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Section | Sub-section | Word count | Percent |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | 454 | 5.1 | |
1.0 Name | 104 | 1.2 | |
2.0 Life and career | 3,684 | 41.6 | |
2.1 Early life | 388 | ||
2.2 Secondary school and university | 550 | ||
2.3 Inspiration and mother’s death | 317 | ||
2.4 Marriage, divorce and single parenthood | 714 | ||
2.5 Publishing Harry Potter | 502 | ||
2.6 Films | 210 | ||
2.7 Religion, wealth and remarriage | 400 | ||
2.8 Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith | 274 | ||
2.9 Later Harry Potter works | 170 | ||
2.10 Children's stories | 159 | ||
3 Influences | 323 | 3.6 | |
Works | 1,944 | 22.0 | |
4 Style and themes | 667 | ||
5 Reception | 1,277 | ||
6 Legacy | 452 | 5.1 | |
7 Legal disputes | 211 | 2.4 | |
8 Philanthropy | 478 | 5.4 | |
9.0 Views | 43 | 787 | 8.9 |
9.1 Politics | 215 | ||
9.2 Press | 159 | ||
9.3 Transgender | 370 | ||
10 Awards and honors | 412 | 4.7 | |
Total | 8,849 | 100.0 |
As we wait to see how the interim lead does, before we proceed to the TG section, looking at straggling nitpicks ... please add if you have any! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Rowling has a difficult relationship with the press and has tried to influence the type of coverage she receives.. What "celebrity" doesn't have a difficult relationship with the (nasty) UK press, or hasn't tried to influence coverage? I am wondering if we can improve on this. This is sourced to Sattler and Stanfill, which I can't view. What do they say? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"when she conceived the idea for the Harry Potter series while on a delayed train from Manchester to London"is in the lead is that (as she has said according to many sources) she had fully developed in her mind the seven-series plots before she started writing? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
From earlier To do list, now archived:
Pinging only those who have asked for pings at #Ping list (please add yourself to that list if you have a preference). @ Johnbod, Olivaw-Daneel, LokiTheLiar, Bodney, Sideswipe9th, and Crossroads: Per their preferences, I have left off AleatoryPonderings, A. C. Santacruz, Vanamonde93, Sdkb, and Barkeep49; I would ping them, along with others who have participated in this FAR, if/as we approach consensus (or if/as we are unable to gain consensus and need more feedback). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Housekeeping items as we get going:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
If anyone else needs the rest of the snipped content from page 7 from Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2#Pugh: general biographical info, Philanthropy, Honours and awards, Political views, and Transgender people, please send me an email. For copyright, I can't (or shouldn't) excerpt the whole page here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to keep everyone updated, I've been plugging away at an initial draft to trim the transgender section, but have taken my time to revisit all past commentary, so slow going. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I was frustrated while attempting to respect all of the commentary, requests and past discussion and balance the use of the sources, as sources sometimes disappear once you access them too many times. If I missed some important sources, I apologize, but in frustration, I am just going to put up what I've got. I could not find some of the supporters/opposers mentioned in mainstream sources, but I think/hope I covered the gist of it. I hope I have dealt with:
Will start a new section on drafts. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
For background, please see notes at #Starting on gender section, #First draft ready and status of the lead. I don't know if I got it all, but tired, and posting what I've done so we can get moving. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3#Draft 1
Archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5#Draft 2
Archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5#Draft 3
Current ( 497 words) | PROPOSED Draft 4 (376 words) |
---|---|
Transgender people In December 2019, Rowling tweeted her support for Maya Forstater, a British woman who initially lost her employment tribunal case ( Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development) but won on appeal against her former employer, the Center for Global Development, after her contract was not renewed due to her comments about transgender people. [1] [2] [3] Rowling wrote on Twitter, "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?" [4] On 6 June 2020, Rowling tweeted criticism of the phrase " people who menstruate", [5] and stated "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives." [6] Rowling's tweets were criticised by GLAAD, who called them "cruel" and "anti-trans". [7] [8] Some members of the cast of the Harry Potter film series criticised Rowling's views or spoke out in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leung, as did Fantastic Beasts lead actor Eddie Redmayne and the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron. [9] [10] [11] The actress Noma Dumezweni (who played Hermione Granger in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child) initially expressed support for Rowling but backtracked following criticism. [12] On 10 June 2020, Rowling published a 3,600-word essay on her website in response to the criticism. [13] [14] She again wrote that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning. She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. [15] Rowling's essay was criticised by, among others, the children's charity Mermaids (which supports transgender and gender non-conforming children and their parents), Stonewall, GLAAD and the feminist gender theorist Judith Butler. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Rowling has been referred to as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist ( TERF) on multiple occasions, though she rejects the label. [22] Rowling has received support from actors Robbie Coltrane [23] and Eddie Izzard, [24] and some feminists [25] such as activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali [26] and the radical feminist Julie Bindel. [25] The BBC nominated her essay for its annual Russell Prize for best writing. [27] [28] In August 2020, Rowling returned her Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award after Kerry Kennedy released a statement expressing her "profound disappointment" in Rowling's "attacks upon the transgender community", which Kennedy called "inconsistent with the fundamental beliefs and values of RFK Human Rights and ... a repudiation of my father's vision". [29] [30] [31] Rowling stated that she was "deeply saddened" by Kennedy's statement, but maintained that no award would encourage her to "forfeit the right to follow the dictates" of her conscience. [29] |
To be determined Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws, [32] [33] [a] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. [36] Her statements have divided feminists; [37] [38] [39] fuelled freedom of speech [40] [41] and academic freedom debates; [35] and prompted support for transgender people from individuals across America and Europe, [42] and from companies connected to her work. [43] When Maya Forstater's employment contract with London's Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, [44] [45] Rowling responded with a December 2019 tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". [45] [b] In another controversial tweet in June 2020, [49] Rowling mocked an article [50] for using the phrase " people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". [51] [52] LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; [53] [54] [c] GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". [58] Rowling responded with an essay on her website [13] in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault. [59] While affirming that most trans people were "vulnerable" and "deserved protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. [59] Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny, [60] she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class". [61] Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics [62] and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). [49] She rejects these characterisations. [13] [63] Criticism of Rowling's views came from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron; [64] and the charities Mermaids, [49] Stonewall, [65] and Human Rights Campaign. [66] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. [29] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under fire, [35] some performers and feminists have supported her. [67] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her". [63] |
Thankfully, AP is on the mend and is back for wordsmithing. With AP having edited my sandbox, we have to take care now to attribute all copied text per WP:CWW.
I believe (??) we have now addressed everything except the section name, which is a separate discussion, and can focus in this draft on whether any additional wordsmithing is needed.
I also suggest we should talk about whether we are ready to install, for multiple reasons.
I am off soon for a day in clinic waiting room, but will have iPad for limited editing; I can keep up, but can't do complex edits. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
By and large I'm happy with draft 4. The only change that I'd still like to see discussed is inserting "literary" into the first paragraph, such that the final sentence of it reads Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from literary individuals across America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work.
as I think that got missed when we were doing a back and forth on how to reword entities. Happy to move this off into a subsection if necessary.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 16:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC) edited
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 18:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition aws, and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from literary individuals across America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 16:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
literary individualsis not idiomatic English. Nor is it accurate, given that we also cite actors and advocacy organizations. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
literary communityas that is how The Guardian source used for that part of the sentence refers to the cohort of the US and Canada open letter? For the UK and Ireland letter The Guardian only refers to
authors. The support from actors and advocacy organisations is in a separate paragraph, and cited to a different source. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
companies connected to her work, since that is subsumed in "culture industries". An alternative phrase would be "from the literary, arts and culture sector" or "literary, arts and culture communities". Either way, we could also add RS mentions of the many musicians who have weighed in, as well. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
from the literary, arts and culture sectorto replace
from literary individuals across America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work. You and Sideswipe are closer to the sources than I am but I assume this phrase is equally well supported and is much clearer/tighter writing-wise. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws, and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
literaryinto this sentence was that actors, artists, and LGBT organisations are separately and more extensively mentioned in the third paragraph. The first paragraph only makes reference to authors, publishers, and book retailers (cite 42), and Warner, Warner Interactive, and Universal Parks and Resorts (cite 43). I didn't want to rock the boat too much at this late stage. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
rock the boateither, just to arrive at felicitous and accurate prose. Billboard gives the reactions in support of the trans community from "artists" (mostly musical artists), which I think could go a good way to cover any gap in sourcing. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it was me, and to be clear, I don't think any relevant clarity/specificity is lost by using "from the literary, arts and culture sectors" rather than "from literary individuals in North America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work". I don't think the companies connected to her work are "lost", because they are part of the "culture sector", and I actually prefer not to say "...individuals and companies..." because not all of the support lines up nicely into "individuals" and "companies". And I think the ability to add musicians to the reference - which brings in quite a few feminists, and which I have always wanted to do - makes up for anything lost by people not thinking of Scholastic or Warner until they read the note. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Having reviewed the whole of the new text in context, it certainly reads better (and less breathlessly) than the former one. I would feel remiss, though, if I didn't register that it feels a bit WHITEWASH-y and BOTHSIDESist compared to the sources used (and those discussed on Talk). I expect that this will be even more evident once an additional wave of peer-reviewed sources become available; I suppose the newly-minted version will serve its purpose until something major happens, or until it is time to replace it with more authoritative sourcing (which I suspect will be less deferential to Rowling than our current text). Newimpartial ( talk) 02:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Without getting in to discussion yet (to avoid sprawl), could we get a list of possibilities for eventual discussion? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Here's how I envision proceeding; speak up if this won't work.
The ideal outcome is that the most active participants on this page come to consensus (if not, we can ask the broader group participating on the FAR, some of whom asked not to be pinged until/unless we are at a stage where we need feedback). It's possible that among ourselves, we can winnow the list down based on a mini-survey here.
Before discussion sprawls (page size here is a constant problem), and before we survey amongst ourselves, I'd like to add a one-sentence summary to each possibility ... one that would provide a brief guide should it be necessary to move to the broader FAR group after we narrow down the possibilities amongst ourselves. Something like the following:
So, if we can fill this in without yet getting in to protracted discussion, I can archive this section to help with page size, and launch a new section here for a survey among ourselves. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
others, but one of the reasons I made this suggestion is that I didn't necessarily post the best source for "communities" in the previous discussion, and I didn't post any for "rights" (I suspect someone else may have done, but I doubt that they were thinking primarily about source quality of they did). I'm hoping to pre-empt digressions about such matters. :) Newimpartial ( talk) 17:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
sources are dividedabout "transgender people", when the evidence for this is that some sources use the phrase and others do not. This situation is equally characteristic of each of the options - the COMMONNAME here probably being
anti-transgender tweets, if anything, though no I'm not proposing this as a section title.
gender recognition- the implicit assumption seems to be that Rowling is "really" addressing the legal framework in the UK that goes by that name, but is she really? Do the sources support that? I think this is the rabbit hole to which we would be directed by your special pleading. :p Newimpartial ( talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
just want others to show me an alternatecomment. Sorry! Newimpartial ( talk) 18:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Note to Bodney - I looked for a straightforward reference supporting your section title proposal, and didn't see one. My suggestion would be that either you find such a reference, or that you tweak your proposal so that it is supported at least one clear example from the RS, without any additional interpretation required.
What I'm saying is, I haven't seen any sources for "transgender people and civil rights" as a combined heading. In fact, I haven't seen any sources that support "civil rights" at all, except as an attributed comment by people and organizations within the dispute. So I don't think "civil rights" is usable, but I think "transgender rights" is.
Anyway, my basic point here is that you need sources that support your proposal without original research and interpretation, and also without relying on protagonists within the debate.
The best way I can imagine you putting forward an acceptable proposal that would get close to what you want is by proposing "multiple descriptors". But do what you want - I am just trying to help. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, the Forbes contributor piece was the best I could find for "transgender topics", but perhaps you could do better.
Newimpartial (
talk) 18:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Initial proposal list
|
---|
I lost my proposed reboot in four edit conflicts; this is where I was headed. I don't want just one source, because should we have to go to the broader audience, I was hoping for a summary of rationale. My idea was more like this (to account for newcomers not having participated in our older discussions). I don't mind giving more than one source, so they don't have to revisit old discussions-- I'm after a brief why:
References
|
If we go with Newimpartial's (simplified) version, then I suggest more than one source (and I suggest we cap it at five). If we go with my version, then each proponent puts forward their best argument and signs. Newimpartial's version is filled in; my version needs people to fill in now. If we go Newimpartial's proposal, then we have to trust that newcomers will read through a long discussion that follows; they usually don't. If we go with mine, each proposer gets to put forward their best rationale from the get-go. We can pick one of these two, or anything in between, or something new ... these are just ideas for how to format a survey. I'm hoping we will quickly find the list winnowed down to about three. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
get to a compromise in this issue by relying only on sources- my one steelperson source per proposal idea is intended to move the discussion onto the terrain of the other policy-relevant factors by showing that WP:V is met.
example
|
---|
|
SandyGeorgia, maybe we could see how things look when others have provided sources and rationales for the other proposals, and possibly trim sources to a more standard look then? For the sake of completeness, I added sources to "transgender people" so that one seems ready to go. I am willing to do the support rationales for "transgender rights" and "transgender community" tomorrow, if noone else steps up. I don't really have an investment in developing any of the other options...
And yes, the gender recognition sources seem more reasonable to me now. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Bodney, I will take a look. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Newimpartial do you want to link to Bodney's description of the "issues" issue in the Issues choice? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Process question - should we ask whether editors prefer a double-barelled heading ("X and Y") and if so, how could we ask this? When I imagine a heading that would register as neutral to the largest number of editors, most of the examples I come up with are "X and Y" (like "Transgender people and gender recognition", or "Transgender issues and the transgender community") - I'm not saying these are elegant, but they might come across as neutral. Is this a question worth asking? Newimpartial ( talk) 18:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
women's rightsto the heading would be adopting a framing that, when presented by RS at all, is typically attributed to Rowling, and that multiple relevant experts have argued is not an actual issue in the controversy. (And the idea that the category of
feministsis better represented by Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock than by Margaret Atwood and Judith Butler seems absurd to me. But I digress.)
For practical purposes, it would probably be fine to complete FAR without doing anything about the heading, and then for an RfC to run on the heading after FAR is closed. I can't see anyone on the Article Talk page arguing that the FAR binds the heading (in fact I don't really see Talk editors feeling bound to the FAR text in general). Whenever an RfC is run on the heading, it can start with a too-long but well-docunented list of options with sources (possibly placed into groups) and Talk page participants - having presumably learned something from the lead RfC - can run it from there. I don't see much of a downside to closing FAR without changing the heading. Newimpartial ( talk) 11:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Just in terms of whether we can winnow the list ...
Is anyone on board with the "Transgender issues" heading?
Among the two "Gender" choices (Gender identity or Gender recognition), who is on board with each?
I suspect we will have a hard time getting editors to read through eight proposals; winnowing would be good. Please look at the transclusion below. Otherwise, when we ping the FAR in a few days, perhaps they will help winnow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Do we want to use it? Usage is slightly inconsistent at the moment, at least partly because the text I wrote will use the serial comma while others' prose apparently does not. This probably comes down to a raw vote since there is no good argument I know of for why one is better than the other. MOS:SERIAL has some additional guidance and flags the few cases where the serial comma is preferred. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 01:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
there is no good argument I know of for why one is better than the other.Really? Without it, we get confusion, such as " Highlights of his global tour include Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector." ;-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
there are cases in which either omitting or including the serial comma results in ambiguity- using Oxford for all lists by no means prevents confusion and silliness, and confusion and silliness can be avoided while never using a serial comma. Mostly, I read consistent Oxford use as a powerful indicator of a US undergraduate degree - advocating for it on internet platforms, doubly so. :) Newimpartial ( talk) 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Based on a ctrl-f search, as Vanamonde93 indicated earlier, standardization is needed. Anyone/someone who has a strong view might do a thorough review; I don't :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Transcluded from Talk:J. K. Rowling/Section heading proposal SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
What should the heading for
this sub-section of
J. K. Rowling#Views be?
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Discussion of section heading proposals
I've started the subpage, so we can complete the proposals there, and use it as a basis for survey or potential eventual RFC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)