Talk:J. K. Rowling

Draft 10

 * Earlier drafts at Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 20 and Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 19.

Several editors have expressed concerns about Draft 9 above, so here's my crack at a Draft 10. Loki (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Changelog (relative to Draft 9)

 * First paragraph is now a true summary, including a mention of the criticism. Most of what was the content of the first paragraph has been split out into what's now the third paragraph.
 * Swapped the order of the history paragraph and the paragraph about Rowling's views, because I feel the context of the history is important to understand both the views and the criticism of them.
 * Linked "gender-critical" to gender-critical feminism instead of feminist views on transgender topics
 * Re-added line about "men, every last one of them".
 * Described Maya Forstater's views as "anti-trans" to match the source.
 * Moderated the description of sales to "unaffected" rather than "grew": both statements are supported by the source, and "unaffected" seems more reliable in view of the fact that sales in general grew a lot over the same time period.

Draft 10.2 | 01:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Changed "because of these views" to "and therefore" in first paragraph.
 * Replaced Suissa & Sullivan with Taylor 2024.
 * Replaced "Rowling thinks" with "Rowling believes".

Draft 10.3 | 04:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Changed "making it simpler to gender transition" to "making it simpler for transgender people to transition" to line up better with standard terminology for this subject.
 * Changed the tense of the Forstater quote and also prefixed it in a way that made it seem less like we were endorsing her claim.
 * Replaced attribution to Jennifer Duggan with the qualifier "on social media" for the claim that Rowling thinks that cis women are threatened by trans women claim. I'd like a second source but this also feels clear enough from Rowling's public statements that I'm not sure we need one.
 * Replaced "Rowling" with "she" in one of the sentences of that paragraph to make it sound less repetitive.
 * Split criticism sentence from threats sentence. (Please do tell me if it sounds repetitive now; I tried to avoid it but I'm worried it still might be.)

Draft 10.4 | 20:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Added stronger citation for "gender-critical views".
 * Expanded first paragraph with a bit about Rowling being called transphobic.

Discussion of Draft 10
Could probably delete and because of these views opposes and just say "and opposes". &#45;sche (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do that because it's important to be clear to the reader that she holds those views because of the more general views. These aren't just a bunch of unrelated opinions: she opposes all that legislation because of her trans-exclusionary/gender-critical/whatever views. Loki (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's a repetitive construct (views mentioned three times in a few words). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe "and therefore opposes"? &#45;sche (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I could get behind that. Loki (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like that you dropped the mention of the "COVID-19 lockdown" since that refers to widely varying time periods depending on where the reader is from, and ended a long time ago in most places, leaving people to wonder if something changed afterward. I do think "asserted" in the last sentence should be replaced per WP:SAID, as that word can be easily read as casting doubt on the validity of the claim. Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

As stated above I remain opposed to the usage of gender critical alone, even with the changed link. It should be worded to include more direct terminology in addition to gender critical or to use neither. The rest of the lead paragraph is good, simple and objective. As before, I don't like the way opposition to her views incorporated into the fourth paragraph. Ostensibly, this is the paragraphed dedicated to the pushback against her views, yet it begins by noting discussions sparked about "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom". You have to dig into the middle three sentences to get anything about pushback against her views, and even then it's exceptionally vague. This does not seem to be adequate representation of the fact she has been considered transphobic by many people, something I cannot imagine is in dispute (and is mentioned in the lead paragraph anyways), and even besides that I would dare anyone to suggest "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom" are the most notable aspects of the reception to her views. Why are they frontloaded in this way? This is what I like more about the live version and combined suggestion above.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 07:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Without commentary on which draft is preferable, we should change Rowling thinks to Rowling believes. It's a bit more encylopedic and avoids a somewhat accusatory tone. — Czello (music) 10:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Loki. It may work better not to put up "yes/no" until discussion has evolved-- my pinging after Draft 9 was premature as I failed to notice the draft had moved away from previous consensus. In summary, we went backwards on months of progress with Draft 9, so appreciate starting over here with Draft 10. Although it's a good-faith effort, I can't digest what's going on in the section just above this one, as looking at three tiny columns explodes my brain. Thanks for doing the work. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The opening sentences have repetitive use of the word views (three times in the span of a few words), which can be solved by removing "because of these views".
 * 2) Move the footnote about the laws to the first sentence.
 * 3) Several things were deleted from the sentence about "fuelled debates" -- see this rewrite which changed that wording and listed sources for updating to newer wording (that got completely ignored in Draft 9).
 * 4) I dislike the despite word -- that construction feels too POV-ish.  Her work remains successful is the idea to be conveyed somehow ... I suggest picking up the Czello/Some1 wording discussed in the section above this one.
 * 5) I disagree with the idea that we need to work back in a term other than gender critical after we have spent months coming to consensus on that ... moving forward, not backwards.
 * 6) I particularly like the re-arrangement of flow wrt the first para.
 * I would perhaps be more sympathetic to the idea we're going "backwards" were I merely dredging up an old issue. But, and do point me to the right place if I'm incorrect, a thorough sweep of discussion surrounding the past several drafts and the rest of the Archives of this talk page for good measure do not appear to reveal the point of whether gender critical is neutral/problematic being discussion; previous discussion seemed to surround its sourceability and nature as a self-descriptor. I do not believe an appeal to the fact you have already been using the term for some time is justification to sweep a novel criticism of the term under the rug. Trans activists refer to people like Rowling as TERFs or transphobes and they brand themselves as merely "gender critical" to avoid the characterization of being discriminatory, but instead merely "critical of gender theory" and "concerned" (one user compared it to the term "race realist" an old talk page archive, which I believe is a helpful comparison). As previous highlighted, perception of the term as problematic and a potential dog whistle is highlighted at the main article on the topic and the interplay between both terms is reflected therein. Thus it is both a violation of WP:NPOV and a platforming of anti-trans agendas to utilize the term in such a prominent place here. If there is further insistence on the usage of this term I don't think a Request for Comment on whether it is appropriate for usage would be inappropriate.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the reason why gender-critical feminism is the title for our article is that many neutral sources also call them that. I personally don't think this is necessarily dispositive (I argued for calling it trans-exclusionary radical feminism) but it's enough that I wouldn't want to start a fight over it at this point. I definitely don't think there's a consensus in the sources for "TERF". Loki (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also dislike how the term "gender-critical" is being used in wikivoice to refer to Rowling (e.g. Rowling has gender-critical views and Rowling's gender-critical writings). The 3 sources used don't support that:
 * Source 1 says: led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'
 * Source 2 says: Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs.
 * Source 3 says: This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)
 * None of these sources explicitly say that Rowling holds gender-critical views; they say her views have been labelled by some as such. This is one of the reasons why I prefer the current version and Draft 11 over Draft 9/10 and its variations. Some1 (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I hate citing the Telegraph on this, but here's a source that unambiguously refers to Rowling's gender-critical views. Loki (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because you can doesn't mean you should. What does it say about the usage of the term gender critical if we need to resort to a source as anti-trans biased as The Telegraph to support its inclusion?  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

As Victoria pointed out in a section above, drafts 8 and 9 and this draft 10 are still using Suissa&Sullivan, though I thought the conclusion at RSN was to not use them, and they're not in the current text of the article so this would be (re?)introducing them; it seems possible they failed to be removed from the drafts by mere oversight, though perhaps someone else reads the prior discussion differently than I do. They're being cited for the variety of laws (which is already sourced to two other sources), and for "academic freedom" (if this is relevant/due surely at least one reliable source has covered it which could be used instead?). &#45;sche (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just failed to catch that. I'll remove it when I get a chance to do copyedits. Loki (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And again, in the rewrite that was completely overlooked (in Draft 9), I provided a new source for academic freedom: . See rewrite above that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I like this draft overall. Re first sentence, is everyone happy with "to gender transition" as a verb? I won't argue if people think it's fine, but it seems slightly awkward to me; bare "transition" as a verb is fine, but when I google e.g. "gender transitioned" (using inflected forms to weed out the noun), the results are SEGM, the Arkansas legislature, "gender, transitioned" where the words just happen to be adjacent, and (admittedly) a grab bag of even longer, more awkward verbs in papers hosted by the NIH like "social gender transitioned". (On Wikipedia, the 56 uses of seem to be nouns, not verbs, and most are from one widely copy-pasted sentence about Jenner.) Perhaps "would make gender transition simpler" (using it as a noun) or does this change the meaning? Re questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real", would said women were being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real" be better? The "questioned" wording reads to me as accepting that women really are forced out just for stating sex is real, whereas in the MF case and others I know of, there was more going on; I think this is why WP:SAID has us use said so much. That said/questioned, I won't argue if people are wedded to "questioned". (In para 3 there's another use of "gender transition" as a verb.) I wonder if there's anything we could do to clarify for readers who "English professor Jennifer Duggan" is and why we're saying she said such-and-such in a sentence where the source is...her. You and I know why we're citing her and the discussions that led to attributing that sentence (instead of using her as a RS to source an unattributed statement of fact), but is a reader going to know or will they think they can add Joe Schmoe's view sourced to Joe? (Maybe there's nothing we can do. I don't object to it.) Could we avoid mashing "criticism" and "death threats" into one sentence; the fact that "criticism" and "death threats" are not put onto one level/sentence is one thing I think the current article text does better; cf Vanamonde93's comment of 01:23, 26 June in the discussion of draft 9. Overall I like this draft and am fine even with putting it in as-is and discussing any further tweaks in a more normal-editing-like way, as Adam said in the discussion of draft 9. &#45;sche (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with all these changes. Lemme see what I can do about a 10.3. Loki (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions:
 * Remove Rowling herself is often described as transphobic or a TERF by her critics from the first paragraph and instead, include the word 'transphobic' in the second sentence ("These views have attracted widespread criticism[5][6][7] and are often described as transphobic and anti-trans,[8] though Rowling disputes this.") It seems a bit repetitive seeing the words 'gender-critical', 'transphobic', 'TERF', 'anti-trans' all crammed into a short, three-sentence first paragraph.
 * Remove and therefore opposes many proposed laws that would make it simpler for transgender people to transition from the first sentence and incorporate it into paragraph 3 if needed.
 * Avoid using gender-critical in wikivoice if the RSN thread on the Telegraph ends in Option 3 or 4. Some1 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes

 * This is generally fine, and we need to actually move forward with something. I see in the Draft 11 discussion below that several respondents there say they prefer 10, but for whatever reason they have not said so in the Draft 10 section. I don't object to the edit suggested below to add "trans-exclusionary" to this draft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't obvious, yes, I do support this draft. Loki (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is a good text to put into the article (I prefer it to the other drafts, including 9 / 11). (Re the comment above: I was waiting until the text was finalized before !voting yes or no, and I infer from SandyGeorgia's comment of 14:27, 26 June 2024 that that's also what others are doing.) &#45;sche (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, given the support above and the absence of opposition or further comments, I have put this text into the article. As most users have explicitly stated, further edits should continue in the normal way, e.g. if any particular sentence needs tweaking or as the article subject does new things that RS attach weight to, this does not set anything in stone. &#45;sche (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm alright with that. Let's stop with all of this Draft X+1 stuff, and just start editing J. K. Rowling through regular editing and find consensus that way. There's also the issue of the Telegraph being used to source 'gender-critical views' in wikivoice, but the RSN thread will most likely end in Option 2 anyway, so that might no longer be a concern. Some1 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:08, 13 July 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. Her writing in other genres, including literary fiction and murder mystery, has received less critical attention. Rowling's most famous work, Harry Potter, has been defined as a fairy tale, a Bildungsroman and a boarding-school story. Her other writings have been described by Pugh as gritty contemporary fiction with historical influences (The Casual Vacancy) and hardboiled detective fiction (Cormoran Strike).


 * 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. 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. Paintings move and talk; books bite readers; letters shout messages; and maps show live journeys, making the wizarding world "both exotic and cosily familiar" according to the scholar Catherine Butler. 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. Harry is ordinary and relatable, with down-to-earth features such as wearing broken glasses; Roni Natov terms him an "everychild". These elements serve to highlight Harry when he is heroic, making him both an everyman and a fairytale hero.


 * 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. His life with the Dursleys has been compared to Cinderella. 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. The critic of children's literature Joy Farmer sees parallels between Harry and Jesus Christ. Comparing Rowling with Lewis, she argues that "magic is both authors' way of talking about spiritual reality". 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.


 * This is largely okay, but a lot of it repeats bits from J. K. Rowling. 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. 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. 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. Other characters in Harry's life die; he even faces his own death in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The series has an existential perspective – Harry must grow mature enough to accept death. In Harry's world, death is not binary but mutable, a state that exists in degrees. Unlike Voldemort, who evades death by separating and hiding his soul in seven parts, Harry's soul is whole, nourished by friendship and love. 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.

''This has absolutely nothing to do with J. K. Rowling, which is weird because there's also a section J._K._Rowling 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. 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. In Rowling's world, good and evil are choices rather than inherent attributes: second chances and redemption are key themes of the series. 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; and prominently in Snape's characterisation, which has been described as complex and multifaceted. 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.

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)
 * , 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  and  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.    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. Sandy Georgia  (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. Sandy Georgia  (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 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:45, 19 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)
 * 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)

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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) New book sources (Whited and Henderson) were never added to Source list, resulting in HarvRef errors and short notes going nowhere: done.
 * 2) 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.  (or anyone else with journal access), could you please provide the page number or range?
 * Sorry 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  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.   I believe you did the install  (I could be wrong as I stopped following closely -- are you able to complete this cittation?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another user did the install, but I guess I did accidentally removed some sources in this edit . 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? Sandy Georgia (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! &#45;sche (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thx! As you can see from the historical version of Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 21, 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. Sandy Georgia  (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. Sandy Georgia (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)

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...) &#45;sche (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I would go for something like 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)
 * 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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:42, 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)