Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 20

"Transgender people" section should be re-titled as "Transphobia"
Why are we white-washing her transphobic views? Representing overt transphobia as simply her "views on transphobic people" is reductive. It makes her views sound way more benign than they really are, violating NPOV in the process. 98.116.173.242 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. Because it labels her, and leaves no room in a section like that for any supportive or neutral views of transgender people, and this is a WP:BLP which must maintain a neutral point of view. There is no ban on representing her transphobia in a section entitled Views on Transgender people, and well-sourced content on her transphobic views are welcome in that section. The heading is fine as it stands. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reinforcing this - WP:BLP has a very specific and strident set of guidelines about how we can refer to a person and, in order for us to just say "Rowling is a transphobe," we would need the vast preponderance of reliable sources, including, in her case, academic sources to say "Rowling is a transphobe." Otherwise we simply cannot. That's why you'll see the fiddly and fussy discussions over minutia above. There's a pretty widespread sentiment right now that the article, as it stands, is not neutral or accurate regarding how Rowling has expressed her political views surrounding the rights of trans people. And a lot of effort is going into trying to correct that within the bounds of what we can do on Wikipedia. For more, though, we must use other venues than Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't, for reasons already explained. But since Rowling's comments have been made in the context of changes to laws, a more apt section heading would be something like Transgender rights. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 98.116.173.242: This is an idea riddled with bias and cannot be accepted. I agree with @Simonm223, this page is very left-leaning and biased. I think it needs radical changes, personally. Scientelensia (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you should probably go back and re-read what I said. Because my concern is that it is not neutral in that it under-plays the extent to which Rowling is transphobic but that we should make sure that changes happen within the appropriate boundaries of WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Suissa and Sullivan
We've discussed anove what an odd source this is, and how it has sections that are clearly pro-gender critical movement. The introduction explicitly states that transwomen are not women, and that transgender people need no mord rights than already offered under UK law at the time. In the revised draft, it's used once. Does it have to be used at all? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Is it your position that no source that takes such positions should be used? How about sources that take opposing positions (stating that trans women are women, that transgender people need more rights under law, and being anti-gender-critical movement)? Do all sources have to be strictly neutral, or is it just that sources taking one side (but not the other) need to be avoided? &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that it appears to be a non-mainstream position in academic philosophy. (I'd link that to WP:FRINGE but in the context of philosophy that feels inflammatory. Nevertheless, I still would avoid citing it for its argument for similar reasons.) And it's also only being used as a redundant citation for a single footnote right now. Loki (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In which case there's no reason to cut it.—S Marshall T/C 07:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's giving a questionable source exposure. I'm not sure how it adds anything but makes the article vulnerable to a source check. Does it even support the content? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 07:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you say it's questionable, but you've raised questions about its ideology rather than its accuracy.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They're saying it's WP:PROFRINGE - which it is - and as such it should not be used as a source in circumstances like this one. Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that sentence isn't promoting a fringe theory.—S Marshall T/C 18:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The paper is, for example, We will argue that current conflicts around sex and gender are not about trans rights per se, which we fully support, and which are already protected under current UK legislation,1 but about the imposition of ontological claims underlying a particular ideological position. Often associated with the intellectual traditions of postmodernism and queer theory, this position entails denying the material reality and political salience of sex as a category, and rejecting the rights of women as a sex class (Jones and Mackenzie, 2020). Disallowing discussion on these points is a feature of and, as we will argue, fundamental to a prominent strand of activism associated with this position, which we will refer to here as the gender identity ideology and movement. Is dipping into fringe territory with the claims that:
 * There is a postmodernism and queer theory-derived ontological position that denies the material reality of sex as a category.
 * That said ontological position "rejects the rights of women"
 * That discussion of these points is disallowed
 * These are fringe positions. They're frankly farcical if you have even a passing familiarity with queer theory or the major ontological works of "postmodernism". Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Carrying on, we have this chestnut: For gender identity campaigners, simply asserting that sex exists as a meaningful category, distinct from people’s self-declared ‘gender identity’, is deemed transphobic. Lobby groups such as Stonewall demand affirmation of the mantra ‘Trans Women Are Women’, with explicit and repeated calls for ‘No debate’. The statement ‘Trans Women Are Women’ could be assumed to be a polite fiction. Which is both deeply inaccurate, deliberately disingenuous with its interpretation of what "trans women are women" means and also pretty bloody bigoted to boot such as the language it uses to position Stonewall (charity). Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would give this line In practice, the kinds of statements that routinely lead to people (overwhelmingly women) being denounced as transphobes include: a big old tag if it were in a Wikipedia article. Since, you know, it makes a factual claim with absolutely no citation nor evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Over and over Suissa and Sullivan make the claim, unsupported by evidence, that the ideology of Stonewall and another trans rights charity erases, eliminates or obviates sex as a protected category. This is a factually inaccurate statement and is, frankly, a WP:FRINGE view within politics, social sciences and philosophy regarding the relationship between sex and gender and how trans rights legislation goes about protecting the rights of trans people. This is what I mean when I say it's fringe. The whole paper, front to back, is fringe. And, in fact, had such slap-dash research quality that the press had to issue a factual correction. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

My draft uses that source as a reference for: "[Rowling] received insults and threats". Not a single part of WP:FRINGE or WP:PROFRINGE is relevant.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The question is whether the source, as a fringe source, should be used when another, non-fringe, source would suffice for that particular piece of copy. I don't think anyone is objecting to the claim that Rowling was insulted and may have even faced threats. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, if it's not a reliable source, we shouldn't use it to source anything. Loki (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd also question whether it's even a great source for citing the information it's meant to. Quote the text in Suissa and Sullivan that supports that point. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay! I've said "Rowling received insults and threats".  Suissa and Sullivan p. 69 supports the insult part of that, which if you read it, is specifically that Rowling got told to "choke on a basket of dicks".  Among many other things.  Because that's the level of discourse you get on Twitter.Anyway, at issue here is whether Suissa and Sullivan is a reliable source for the claim being made.  You have identified that it's not an impartial source.  As you rightly say, it has a POV.  Predictably, Wikipedia has a rule about that.  The rule says that Wikipedia articles have to be neutral, but sources don't.  Good sources are by experts and experts always have a POV.  Our task, as Wikipedians, is to construct a NPOV article from POV sources.  (This is all written up in WP:RS, and specifically the paragraph at WP:BIASEDSOURCES.)It's also true that some sources are just unreliable for any claim at all.  We call those sources "deprecated" and they include for example the Daily Mail.  The Daily Mail isn't unreliable for being a horrible Tory rag full of ghastly right-wing opinions (even though it definitely is).  We don't deprecate other horrible Tory rags full of ghastly right-wing opinions.  We deprecate the Daily Mail because it has a history of straight up lying, publishing stuff its so-called journalists made up in their lunch breaks.Where a source is an academic or professional journalist, to deprecate it needs an extraordinary level of proof.  The Daily Mail's complete sitewide deprecation needed three RfCs, here, here, and here, the third of which I personally closed in June 2020.  If you want to say Suissa and Sullivan are unreliable for any claim at all, then that's the kind of level of proof that Wikipedians demand.But if you want to say it's unreliable for the specific claim I'm making, then that's a normal use of a talk page and I'm all ears.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how any of this works. What you're describing is not deprecated, it's generally unreliable. "Deprecated" means that a source is both generally unreliable and we warn people whenever they try to add it. Even generally unreliable sources should never be used for information about a living person, as this source is being used here. Loki (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not unreliable for the claim I'm making.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no policy-based reason for excluding the source or the content it's citing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You yourself say that it only sources the insult part - and it literally only quotes one incident of it. So it doesn't even source half the content that's its only reason for being in the article in the first place. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 23:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I get that you don't like it, Adam, but this is a teachable moment. I can use a source without conceding to a single one of its biases.—S Marshall T/C 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should. It's improving the prominence of a POV, Fringe source without any compelling reason, not even to properly source the phrase in question (as it only sources half). Insisting on including it is no different than someone putting in a spam link to vaguely cite some fact in an article. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 00:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my answer of 14th May at 22:36, paragraph 2.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of WP:IDHT going on here - our concern is not with whether Rowling was insulted - I am confident you can find plenty of reliable sources for that - the concern is that this source is WP:PROFRINGE and as such should not be used for a general comment about a WP:BLP regardless of whether the source should be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's certainly plenty of IDHT going on here. Since you persist in claiming that the source is generally unreliable, I'll open a thread on WP:RSN about it later today, so we can collapse all this verbiage until it's archived.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 12:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding discussion properly, per WP:ONUS, Suissa and Sullivan is out and we can finally move on with getting this back to FA level? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. Someone should make a draft 7, if we feel it's necessary. Loki (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Reboot: Draft 6 (near final)

 * First five drafts can be reviewed at ; previous discussions and source dumps in Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 16.

Draft 6
NOTE!!!! I have reversed the order (draft vs. historical) compared to earlier versions because it's easier to edit with the draft first. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of draft 6
My intent was to work in everything mentioned under Draft 5, recognizing that the first sentence may still be a sticking point. My apologies if I missed anything (it's been quite a chore to keep up with this talk page :). Going forward, could people please remember that we are now at a state which is approaching final and would like others to weigh in, so please try to keep your feedback chronological, brief, and within a separate fourth-level heading when starting a new issue. All that said, I think great progress has been made, in a collegial and collaborative environment!! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sandy, for consistency with the previous drafts, I think these need to be flipped with the new one on the right and the historical on the left. Unless I'm missing something? Victoria (tk) 20:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I left a note about that at the top of ; when editing to make changes, it's easier if the version being edited is first. I often had to start over, as I entered changes in the old version when trying to change the draft, so having the draft first is easier. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I shouldn't have peeked while multi-tasking. Sorry for clogging up the page. Will get back to it later when I can focus. Victoria (tk) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

First sentence: feedback needed

 * This is a substantial improvement. I'd delete "espoused" without replacement, and I'd simplify "Beginning in" to "Since", and then I'm happyish with it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 00:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Implemented beginning in --> since.. On the opening sentence, now that the rest of the para gives more context (the laws and the self-identification without diagnosis), I would probably be OK with that as well, but I'll wait to hear from others before implementing that change in the draft. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It reads okay without "espoused". If we keep it, suggest converting to present tense - "espouses". Lets see what others say. Victoria (tk) 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer the version without "espoused", and I agree if we do keep it, it should at least be present tense. Loki (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed to present tense. On the rest, my concern is that we cite three scholarly sources who quite carefully do not label her as such, rather state that some do. Wikipedia does not lead; it follows sources.  I'd feel much better about flat out labeling her if we had three scholarly sources which did that. (I've included the exact quotes from the sources; the reasons we can't label her flat out are already covered in the section just above this one, . And the section name should be "Transgender rights".) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Followup from WP:BLP: "Material about living persons added to Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." In the interest of moving forward, I have attempted to find a compromise ("espouses views") for this area of disagreement.  I have always been willing to install content developed by consensus on talk to the article even when I disagree with that content; I can't do that in this case, as without sources, I believe the proposed changes to the first sentence breach BLP. We can't label Rowling "gender-critical" in the absence of high-quality sources that do so. The sources we have so far do not do that.  Our options at this point are:  1) find scholarly sources labeling her outright, 2) wait for more feedback, 3) someone besides me installs the draft should consensus form to add what I believe to be a BLP breach, or 4) run an RFC (do we install before the RFC, or wait a full month to get something installed, or find an interim compromise?).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's really important to be fully immersed in the sources to understand the nuances, and I'm not convinced an RFC would be helpful at this point. I'm fine with "espouses" because that's really the best that can be done with the sources. I'm wondering whether the sources support that she's outspoken? If so, can we simply say something along the lines that "Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical beliefs". Sorry, I'm not feeling well today, so this is just brainstorming and an imperfectly framed idea and I don't have sources open to check, so feel free to ignore. P.s - thanks Sandy for the work on the talkpage - I got caught in a number of edit conflicts earlier. Victoria (tk) 18:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * After walking away for a bit of perspective & then re-reading this evening, "espouses" seems fine to me. Victoria (tk) 23:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources are written for scholars, so there are things they don't say.
 * The sun is quite large and rather hot. But you won't find a paper in an astronomical journal that says so. The paper might give specifics of the sun's temperature at various depths, its diameter, its mass, its density or its circumference. But if you need to explain in a Wikipedia article that the sun is big and hot, scholarly sources are no good at all. Because the astronomy professors are writing for an audience that knows about stars, there are things they don't have to say and they don't waste words on.
 * Therefore you need a source that says the sun is big and hot, you have to go to a non-academic source.
 * But, Sandy, I want to ask you to stop and think here. If, as it seems, you can genuinely read the sources on Rowling and not think she has gender-critical views, then really, how objective are you about this?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 00:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we shouldn't require scholarly sources specifically if we have good quality WP:NEWSORG ones. But I do sympathize somewhat with Sandy here: this is a featured article on a BLP and we do need to make sure we can clearly source everything we say about her. Loki (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Re S Marshall, the "sun is hot" analogy doesn't apply to this situation for two reasons.
 * We have three high-quality sources (that multiple editors seem to agree are good scholarly sources) that quite specifically are not silent on the topic, as an astronomy professor may be on whether the sun is hot. The academics we have so far do address the matter by specifically not saying that JKR is a TERF, rather they clearly state that some say she is, while others disagree.  Silence on the "sun is hot" is not the situation here.
 * Since the sun is not a living person, Wikipedia doesn't have a Wikipedia policy to make sure we don't defame it.
 * We can't use lower quality sources to refute good academic sources that we have on this matter, and Wikipedia can't be the first to say something that high quality sources, when specifically addressing the matter, have not said as far as we know. Re your final question, perhaps you would stop and think about whether you want to be the first editor in several years to personalize a discussion on this, or the FAR, talk page? What any of us thinks is irrelevant; our content is guided by policy and sources. If there really are no scholarly sources or academics willing to label JKR a TERF, then we should be moving forward on an alternate way to frame the first sentence; compromise should not be hard, considering there are many ways to frame the sentence. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * All right then.
 * We need one phrase that encapsulates J. K. Rowling's views on sex and gender. In draft 6, we've already decided and agreed that she:
 * Opposes gender self-recognition;
 * Accuses trans women of being men;
 * Believes sex is real, or at least, warns of dire consequences of thinking sex isn't real; and
 * Denies being transphobic.
 * These are of course the precise views we cover in Gender-critical feminism, with a long string of academic references for the definition. But also at issue here is the law, and there's also a legal definition of what gender-critical views are, from the judgment in Maya Forstater -v- CGD Europe & ors.  They include: The belief that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity... [which are] ...absolutist in nature and whereby... [Forstater would] ...refer to a person by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment. According to the Tribunal, this is the element of gender-critical views that amounts to a protected philosophical belief.  It's even more simply encapsulated (at page 3) as: the Claimant’s belief as to the immutability of sex.  (This is the Law of England and Wales.  Unfortunately for 13tez, Maya Forstater's case isn't about Scots Law.)
 * Therefore, J. K. Rowling's views on sex and gender meet both the academic and legal tests for what a gender-critical belief is. QED.
 * The objection is that a sufficiently academic source doesn't say so. Wikipedia does have a problem with this.  We use hedges like: "[Donald] Trump's political positions are viewed by some as right-wing populist" (from Political positions of Donald Trump), because to say Donald Trump is a right wing populist in wikivoice would be sooo controversial.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel it should be pointed out that this section "[Forstater would] ...refer to a person by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment." is the Appeal Tribunal quoting the first instance judgement, and was an interpretation disputed in that appeal. The Appeal judgement found that "On a proper reading of the Judgment, the Tribunal was stating that the Claimant would not use preferred pronouns whenever she considered it appropriate not to do so. That must mean that she would not use them where she considered it to be relevant. If that is correct, then the description “absolutist” would appear to be something of a misnomer as her position was more nuanced and context dependent." Absolutism and an automatic rejection of preferred pronouns are not therefore part of the legal definition of the protected gender-critical belief in the UK. Daff22 (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary attribution ?
Re Could we drop the attribution, and make this just:  My impression is that this is a widely supported statement, so that the attribution is creating a false impression, not needed, and only clunking up the sentence. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Imv: Yes, drop it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree we can drop the attribution there. Loki (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts from Scientelensia
Regarding this part: “In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".” My main criticsm of this draft (though it is much better than before) is that:
 * Could it be changed to this (or a shorter version of it)? “After the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 had come into force in April 2024, Rowling, who resides in Edinburgh, took to X to criticise the bill, stating that "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed. She further posted a list of transgender women, and wrote that they were "men, every last one of them". Rowling also said: "Scottish lawmakers seem to have placed higher value on the feelings of men performing their idea of femaleness, however misogynistically or opportunistically, than on the rights and freedoms of actual women and girls." ”
 * The actors who didn’t support Rowling are in the main text, the others are merely a note. I understand the difference between main and supporting actors, but it does seem that those who oppose Rowling are being given more prominence. Intentions could be misconstrued. As for scholarly sources (which Sandy Georgia wanted; these are surely adequate I hope):   (for example). From Scientelensia (17:47, May 7, 2024)
 * Another main criticism is that this paragraph…
 * Fans turned away from her work, boycotted events, and publishers hesitated to accept her work. Criticism came from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, and LGBT charities Mermaids, Stonewall, and Human Rights Campaign. GLAAD called Rowling's comments "cruel" and "inaccurate". Leading actors of the Wizarding World spoke out against her stance; Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne and others declared support for the transgender community. 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.
 * …almost wholly only lists critics from organisations. No support for her has been mentioned at all, which arguably displays bias as there was a lot of support for her also. From Scientelensia (20:04, May 7, 2024)


 * The last paragraph also fails to mention any praise for JK Rowling’s essay; only criticism. Only the views of trans people are considered. See for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55350905. From Scientelensia (20:08, May 7, 2024)

Thoughts from Victoria
A couple of thoughts to keep things moving. Personally, I think we're almost there. In fact, I think we could take the "it's good enough" route and say that Draft 6 is good to go. What do others think? Victoria (tk) 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First, there's been a sustained effort to improve what's currently in the article & in my view that's a Good Thing. Pats on the back all around!
 * Second, re first sentence. What we have is honestly fine. There are other options too. I'm not convinced that CONTROVERSY applies - it's an essay about articles rather than about one section in an BLP. Following that line of thought, then we can write something like Rowling's remarks/comments (pick the word) have been/are controversial. This Glamour article (very long) has been continually updated for a number of years & is cited by a number of the literary critics. The verbiage they use is that J.K. Rowling has come "under fire" for controversial tweets (not verbatim, but very very close). We should either stick with the first sentence as written in Draft 6 or consider rewriting along the lines of the controversial tweets verbiage.
 * Third, re scholarly sources: Rowling is a productive writer - something like 20 works in 25 years - and the reason this article exists is because of her writing career. Because she's a writer, literary critics do what literary critics do - hence scholarly sources. For this topic in Rowling's bio, those sources simply distill news sources and are now the desired secondary sources.
 * Fourth, I think Scientelensia raises points that are maybe worth considering. Back when we were discussing Draft 3 it became clear that draft had veered into discussing what others were saying about Rowling, rather than what Rowling says/believes. To veer back, we might consider trimming or even cutting the text in the third para beginning from "Criticism came from the Harry Potter fansites ... " possibly to the end of the paragraph. If so, the text can focus on Rowling & there'd be fewer words.


 * My general thoughts are that while there are things I'd change if I could write it entirely myself, I think that Draft 6 is basically fine and I'm not that interested in getting in a big fight about what are essentially small quibbles. Loki (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that the proposal has veered into non-neutral territory by overfocusing on one academic writer (Whited) rather than a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. A survey of the entire literature would not have seen us drop the one sentence in the article that is most likely to endure beyond what any Hollywood star said or thinks. "Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture ... " and more). But this is not a hill worth dying on; I wouldn't mind if we install and move on, but if I had my druthers we'd move the list of all actors and organizations to footnotes (who is surprised at the list of charities?), and restore and expand instead the content that will endure beyond Hollywood -- that is, the overall and lasting cultural effects of the whole brouhaha as reflected in a variety of scholarly sources.  A thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature produces scholarly analyses of linguistics, hate speech, fandom, feminism, women's rights, trans rights, etc -- much more than passing opinions of Radcliffe, Watson and anyone else who spends the GDP of a small country to attend the Met Gala.  I don't think the draft is POV enough to tag it as such, the POV is subtle, and I won't protest if it goes in, but somewhere along the way, neutrality was dropped in the content that was excised.  My solution is different than Scientelensia's; rather than add in those who support her, delete all of that recentism, and focus on a survey of the literature and the broader issues raised.  But if someone wants to install now, I won't object.  I still believe the section heading should be "Transgender rights".  I don't think Draft 6 is FA material, but the rest of the article is, so neither do I think a FAR is in order; it's good enough, but won't endure.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your solution would work also, but there would also have to be rigorous testing to ensure that the selection of literary works constitutes an unbiased interpretation. Scientelensia (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Looking back at Victoria's fourth point, I agree; that's where in my view most precious real estate (word count) is misspent on excess detail, and trimming that would give us room to work back in some neutrality and replace some RECENTISM with enduring content.  could become  by moving the detail to a footnote.  That word count could be better used on more enduring issues.
 * 2. Whited may have said this, but here's where neutrality is particularly lost: "Fans turned away from her work, boycotted events, and publishers hesitated to accept her work." In fact, book sales increased, Universal Studios is expanding Harry Potter World, a TV series is in the works, Maya Forstater was exonerated, etc ... so while the statement is true to some extent and for many people, it's factually inaccurate in terms of leaving out the big picture, and redundant to territory already covered in the first point above. Dropping the sentence is an alternative to discuss.
 * 3. Looking back at Draft 4 reveals the problem with trying to write an encyclopedic entry with topic sentences: doing so can result in a POV construction that leads the reader (I forget which article is on a record number of FACs for this very problem, which has proven insurmountable). Grouping like content logically by paragraphs avoids wasting wordcount in ways that risk leading the reader or telling the reader what a paragraph is about; just the facts, and let the reader make their own decision.
 * 4. I agree with Scientelensia that the sentence she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them" needs a few more clauses for context and relevance, although I wouldn't take as many words as Scientelensia suggests.
 * 5. And after doing that wordcount reduction, use the gained space to rework and update the enduring content based on a survey of the literature, which was: Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors ... we seem to have lost academic freedom, and there's plenty of scholarly literature on how fandom has evolved, and the power of Twitter.
 * We could put in Draft 6 now, but it is POV and we'll be back here in less than two years to repair the damage we inflicted.  I had my turn; are you interested in working up Draft 7 ?Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PS, my separate and growing concern is that none of the three main FA authors have shown up to update the rest of the article to reflect Whited 2024, so if that doesn't happen, we're likely to end up at FAR anyway. I think we made a mistake in over-relying on Whited for transgender content, but she certainly should be used for updating literary content. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia You suggest Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World., but that implies (to me) all "leading" actors, which isn't true. Either define "leading actors", or quantify with "most", "some", etc. Bazza 7 (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, I wasn't trying to wordsmith the thing yet ... just give the broad points I'd do if we started over. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * please excuse my brevity, but I'm not at all able at this time. Will get back here when able. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 23:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft 6.3
Since I agree that all of Sandy's proposed elisions improve the text, I've made them. I've made no effort to add the suggested new content, and I view cutting words as more important.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Discussion of Draft 6.1
Thanks for getting the ball rolling on this,, and I hope Victoria feels better soon. I am traveling today and won't be able to peek in 'til tomorrow. Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed, thanks. As a newcomer to this discussion, I have to ask why are we just relying on one critic, Whited, whose opinion seems at ace level very pro-trans. What gives Whited the right to be here? Would it be useful to insert another critic to level the bias, or remove reference to Whited together?
 * Also, in terms on labelling JKR, if a label is needed, gender-critical is indeed appropriate and applicable. Scientelensia (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can find a proper Rowling scholar who doesn't think Rowling's a trans-exclusionary feminist, go ahead and cite them.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's getting pretty good, actually; focused mostly on what she actually said rather than endless tedious recounting of what other people think of it. As to the discussions about whether to say "gender-critical", that seems to be a reasonable label to use, one that is frequently used as a self-label by people expressing views of a similar nature to JKR's, not a pejorative name like "TERF" or "transphobe". The point of disagreement is in the apparent lack of her actually self-labeling this way; it seems JKR hasn't applied any sort of ideological or political label to herself, preferring her views to speak for themselves. This makes it harder to put a label on her, but if one is to be applied, this one seems fairly reasonable. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Weird characterisation
"Since 2017,[4] she has written frequently about transgender rights, mostly in the context of proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws that would make it easier to transition without a medical diagnosis."

I don't get why we're using such a weirdly unspecific wording as "about". Like "she has written frequently against transgender rights" says something. If we can't get the sentence to say something with actual meaning, then the sentence is filler and should be scrapped: as it is, the only part that seems to be meaningful is "since 2017".

Well, there's also the part about the gender recognition laws being the main focus... I have to ask if that's supported by sources as a general rule, or if the sources only say that she reacted at three times to such laws. It's kind of hard to make such a general statement with sources locked to very narrow periods of time. If the statement is something like "initially in response to..." then that's much easier to support.

Like, the draft's a massive improvement, but that one sentence... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 22:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And, she's not writing about or against transgender rights. She's writing about the law and the definition of a woman, with a focus on access to female-only spaces.  I'll get my thinking cap on.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually why not just say that?
 * The downside is, it's long.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think, as long as that doesn't replace the sentences after the one under discussion, that it's okay, but I do worry we're skirting the line of falling into the gender critical movement's framing of itself. As the rest of the paragraph explains, her views are very anti-transwomen. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't just say anti-trans woman. She has expressed some pretty serious contempt for trans men too, just in the "poor deluded girls" framing that often gets people to mistake condescension for concern.
 * I agree that "about" is bad and "against" is better. But maybe something like She has frequently opposed proposed laws that would expand transgender rights, such as... would be even better? Loki (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * True, though her views on transmen aren't as widely reported (and more-or-less don't appear in the rest of the proposed paragraph) so it's a little harder to source with the restrictions on sources Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't write "opposed proposed". You might say I'm disposed to oppose opposed proposed.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright then, She has frequently spoken against proposed laws that would expand transgender rights, such as.... Loki (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright then, She has frequently spoken against proposed laws that would expand transgender rights, such as.... Loki (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright then, She has frequently spoken against proposed laws that would expand transgender rights, such as.... Loki (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * Better?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 19:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This works! Scientelensia (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now up as draft 6.2.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I still don't like it because IMO Since 2017 she has written about transgender people is meaningless without saying which way she has written about them. We could cut that sentence and just have:
 * Loki (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * She hasn't, though. She started writing about trans issues in 2017 but the resistance to legal changes dates to 2019 at the earliest, so that's counterfactual.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Was there any commentary of particular prominence or noteworthiness in 2017 or 2018? If not, one could say something like "While she had made some comments beginning in 2017, her views first came to widespread prominence in 2019..." and then jump into the Maya Forstater stuff and the proposed changes to UK law. If her extremely early views are going to hurt an otherwise clear and consise description of what she did, cut out the information or isolate it to its own sentence. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of extra words though.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 06:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of extra words though.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 06:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In draft 6.3, I've cut the disputed sentence.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 06:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft 6.3 continued
I've noticed you've been less active the last few days. Are you planning to tweak up Draft 6.3? I haven't yet entered my commentary, aware you may be taking a few days to re-think. Pls let me know ... I have a list of comments on 6.3 that I'll type up when/if you're ready to continue (I've also been busy). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm temporarily distracted. I intend to work up a fresh draft without the disputed source in due course, if no-one else beats me to it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it ... I should find time by tomorrow evening or Wednesday morning to type up my quibbles and concerns. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Death threat
A man has been sentenced for making death threats against J K Rowling and Rosie Duffield. I think this should be added to this article, but I don’t want to interfere with any redrafting, etc. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Incorporated in draft #7, below.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 7
Suissa and Sullivan are out, and Glenn Mullen is in. As there's no good faith dispute at all over whether J. K. Rowling was insulted and threatened for her views, I've left that in.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Discussion

 * Is that meant to be titled as Draft 6.3, or is it a mistake? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Busy for the rest of today, but I should be able to enter my commentary (as promised weeks ago), by tomorrow. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * PS, this might provide an updated source to replace her website essay. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , thanks for doing this & huge apologies for being awol (there's another article where I'm in over my head & my time for Wikipedia keeps shrinking). A couple of comments to get started:
 * I have some as-yet-very-muddy-thoughts about the first sentence & the phrase gender-critical so I'll try to flesh those out later.
 * Minor point, but there's some repetition of "She, she, she" in the first para that needs wordsmithing.
 * For people with no clue, have been wondering whether we should try working in a link to Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe
 * "affected her reputation" should be cited to Whited page 8
 * Good to see the draft less wordy; I'm wondering how others feel about putting back the sentence "Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." that's in the historical draft? The end of that sentence mentions includes " "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real", which is another way of saying sex is immutable. Should that be clarified?
 * That's it for now. Victoria (tk) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In draft 7.1, I've attempted to address points #2, #3 and #4 that you raise, and I await further input on #1 and #5.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! Agreed that input from others is needed. Just to spin my thoughts out a bit more. Re the first sentence, I've realized that one reason it's been bugging me is that the term gender-critical may mean something very different in the US than in the UK. Recently I read an article about someone running for congress whose opinions about women are, shall we say, a bit archaic. Beyond that this person claims the LGBQT+ movement was created by radical feminists. So we need to be clear in terms of where links are going & what exactly we mean for a global audience. Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with ""Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made. Also I've not had time for a full examination of the essays in Whited (} or Konchar Farr {{{Project MUSE|99615|type=book}}), which in my view needs to be done. Anyway, let's see what the others say. Victoria (tk) 23:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. On the wildest, most far-flung fringes of the US right, there lurk certain characters who do indeed like to burst out of their swamps, yell things like "the LGBTQ+ movement was created by radical feminists!" and then slide back into the mire, waiting for the next gloriously unhinged thought to turn up.  Like you, I'm often refreshed and challenged by their unique perspectives and their idiosyncratic ways of putting things.  I think my personal favourite is "blame the gun".  Presumably someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to drive without a driving licence is "blaming the car".I don't think we can use language the way those people do, and I also don't think we should be trying.  Conservapedia is thataway ->.  I feel that as encyclopaedists, it's our task to summarize things in simple and clear terms, even (especially!) when the things we're trying to summarize are complex and difficult; and we should use normal, natural language in its usual meaning; and, despite what the US right might think, it's quite possible to be supportive and tolerant of gay and lesbian people, but intolerant of trans people; and that J.K. Rowling is; and that "gender-critical" is succinct, accurate, and neutral.  It's not a pejorative.But I can see that "gender-critical" is an uncomfortable thing to say about someone.  Even though it's not a pejorative, it's a pungent term.  It reeks of repression and segregation and prejudice.  It's scrupulously accurate, though.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I knew I wouldn't be able to make myself clear & that's why I have trouble engaging here. Being told to go off to Conservapedia doesn't want me to engage. To try to clarify: can we not just say she's a Gender-critical feminist whose views align with Maya Forstater (i.e the #IStandWithMaya tweet) & then tell readers who don't know (or who do know) those views are x, y and z (including that they believe sex is immutable). I think we're close. So just ignore me. Victoria (tk) 14:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Victoriaearle If we call J.K. Rowling a gender-critical feminist in the article, do we need to clarify what that means? Surely the page it would link to would give people an idea of what those views are without having to reclarify here? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we should because this is her biography & the article is about her. But I need to step away to refamiliarize myself with the sources & don't have time for that at the moment. Victoria (tk) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My thought is this: J.K. Rowling uses the term herself, e.g. here. I think we can safely call her gender critical - ideally with an explanation - because it's language she seems to accept as a description of the group she belongs to anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically I was only wondering if we needed to gloss the term & failed to explain myself at all well. Stricken a bunch above. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been stalled by real life matters on coming back to this, but I'm concerned that the process is not engaging WP:WIAFA 1c; yes, we're updating to Whited, which is a good thing, but that's only one high quality recent source, and it's not apparent whether we're working towards a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Instead, we seem to be working towards preferences of individual editors, which won't render this in compliance with FA standards.   I don't have easy/full journal access, so can only access that which is freely available, but that (limited) survey continues to support the most NOT-NEWSY, NOT-RECENTISM, and likely to endure statement that was once in the article, and is mentioned by Victoriaearle at 23:56 June 15:  "Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with 'Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc.' ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made."  I've been hoping the other FA writers of the FAR version would find time and inclination to weigh in here so we could address the WIAFA issues, including any updates needed to the literary portions of the article based on Whited and more, but I don't feel like I should ping them again.  I have other (more minor) concerns about the draft, but if we aren't working towards meeting WIAFA, I'm unsure what the value of time spent here is ... so I haven't yet spelled those out.  Ideas ??  Most certainly, that one deleted sentence is warranted by what I can access as a survey of the relevant literature (scholarly articles restricted to 2024), and is likely the most enduring of the section, so I hope it comes back with updated citations. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With all respect, you seem to be objecting to change by holding standards that are not apparent in the original version of the section, which, if anything, is far worse. If this fails WIAFA after the changes, it fails it without the changes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I (and others) have explained several times that the FAR was constrained by the results of a very recent, and very well attended, RFC, and that all acknowledged we would have to revisit after some time had elapsed from that RFC ... so I won't repeat all of that again.  Please do reread the archives of discussions already had with you. Now that we are revisiting, we should be keeping WIAFA in mind. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From a high quality sourcing point-of-view, I'm not convinced there's enough yet to revisit. The search function at the top of the page of The Wikipedia Library goes to Ebscohost. If sorted by newest the first page shows results only from Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Hollywood Reporter, Business Wire, USA Today, and so forth. Sorting by "peer reviewed" does show much and nothing I'm seeing that can be used, on a quick perusal. That said, anyone can search there. Whited is a start, but not much of a start & only published a few months ago. Waiting is not the worst option; agree that the understanding was that the section would be rewritten when high quality sources come available. Victoria (tk) 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the draft as written constitutes a considerable improvement on the current text. I'm certain it can be improved further, but we ought not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I do think the sentence beginning "Rowling rejects these characterizations..." needs some reworking specifically because we've lost the reader on what those characterizations might be. I'm also not certain the statement is broadly true; she denies being transphobic, and rejects the "TERF" label (though nobody really embraces it, do they?), but if there's evidence she rejects "gender critical", I've yet to see it. I'm also noting I don't have time to engage deeply here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Her statements have divided feminists...
This sentence was cut because: I don't object to restoring it if we feel the extra words are justified in the circumstances.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about J.K. Rowling's views; and
 * There was pressure to cut the word count.


 * The proposed word count now (400-ish) is approaching 10% less than what was in the article historically (430-ish); IIRC, any pressure to reduce the word count was when the section on transgender rights was hovering around or at times above 475 words (eg here, although I think at one point we were near 500). I propose we have room to bring back one sentence, but that if we did, it could be updated and cited to newer scholarly sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * re this edit, WP:WIAFA is linked in the discussion just above this one. It stands for What Is A Featured Article, also abbreviated as WP:FACR, Featured Article Criteria.  It is separate from Featured Article Review; it is not clear to me that  was suggesting (yet) that we need a trip to FAR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the sources for the "divided feminists" sentence are 2019 and 2020, I don't think this should be used without very explicitly putting some context as to WHEN feminists were divided. Though the sourcing then adds additional problems:
 * one source is explicitly about her comments on Maya Forstater. It'd be a great source to use in the context of Forstater, but not to use as if it applied to anything else Rowling said.  It's also pretty clearly the main source for the statement; neither of the other two have "feminists divided" as a clear reading.
 * One source is just probably not very good: A single tweet by (non-academic) blogger Claire Heuchan is literally the only evidence of feminists supporting Rowling presented.
 * The third source is... honestly a great article by Judith Butler, but she explicitly says "...I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen." A source that says gender critical is WP:FRINGE is a poor source to use for a statement that presents the views as equal within feminism.
 * So... aye. I'd probably say that, without modern, mainstream sources talking about a division in feminism, that sentence is dead in the water. And, let's face it: Even if we did find sources, if we kept the text exactly the same, then we wouldn't be summarising modern sources, we'd be using a summary of a source about the reaction to her commentary on Maya Forstater, treating it as if it covered all Rowling's comments since then, and retrofitting sources onto it) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, this is straightforward. Her statements haven't so much divided feminists, but rather, feminists were already divided on trans issues, and they've split on Rowling according to tribal lines. Those feminists who're gender-critical like Rowling and those who're gender-inclusive dislike her. Her statements have certainly prompted debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech, and they've certainly given rise to declarations of support for trans people from various actors and pressure groups. Nobody who's read the sources could possibly deny any of that, could they?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm only commenting on that one sentence (as written) and its poor sourcing. I don't disagree with what you just said, but what you just said explicitly rejects the statement I'm commenting on, and what you said, that already gender critical / TERF people supported her, is sky-is-blue stuff that probably doesn't need said. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably does need to be said, though, doesn't it. We're an encyclopaedia.  Imagine we're writing for an intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, teenager from a village in rural India.  If you want reliable/recent sources for this stuff, you don't need to look further than the BBC, which has published so many pieces about J.K. Rowling that she has her own dedicated topic page, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c50znx8v82dt.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably does need to be said, though, doesn't it. We're an encyclopaedia.  Imagine we're writing for an intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, teenager from a village in rural India.  If you want reliable/recent sources for this stuff, you don't need to look further than the BBC, which has published so many pieces about J.K. Rowling that she has her own dedicated topic page, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c50znx8v82dt.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Featured article criteria (WIAFA)
Without changes to this section the article is outdated. Without the proposed changes it represents a historical version of what J.K. Rowling is famous for, and it's consequently drawing attention from people who want to update it piecemeal. A wholesale rewrite from the best sources available is the least bad option.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Choosing to not update it is basically saying this article should not be an FA. If we're not going to do the best job we can with it, then it's not featurable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 22:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I agree with S Marshall. But I also understand the urge to swap newer sources for those the FA writers used some years ago. I wasn't one of the contributors (except maybe a little around the edges) and tapped out with Wikipedia atm. To keep the process on track, do you have any comments to make regarding S Marshall's most recent draft, ? That's how we keep going. Victoria (tk) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly happy with it. I'm just not happy with - and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is.
 * There's bits to argue. I think "She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased. But that's not the worst objection, is it? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four -  I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.)
 * We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is, yes you are misunderstanding -- I've not said (or meant) that at all. As I stated above, this process has not (yet) fully engaged 1c of WP:WIAFA by engaging in a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and as I've mentioned, there are newer and better sources for redrafting that sentence, which I believe to be one of the most FA-worthy parts of the section (that is, what is the lasting effect, beyond JKR triggering every news cycle, and editors then wanting to insert that NEWS here rather than in the sub-article).  My apologies for not having time to delineate them, but repeating, if we aren't engaging the FA criteria, and as most of the FA writers who did engage it originally can no longer engage, I'm unsure where we are headed if we are going to keep filling the talk page discussions with NEWS and RECENTISM. , when you stated yesterday that you find little new from your scholarly search to incorporate, were you referring to updating the literary portions of the article, or only the transgender rights section?  When I browsed the other day (from the car, so couldn't save the sources), I found indications there is plenty for re-drafting that sentence, although I could only access those that were freely available.  I'm relieved to have now heard from VM93, but remain concerned we may not be engaging in an overall way that will lead to retaining FA status.  I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, but it's possible we could get more FA-knowledgeable writers to engage the criteria by in fact going back to FAR, where the off-topic RECENTISM is less likely to overtake the discussions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This characterization of using material from post-2020 as "off-topic RECENTISM" is disputed.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I probably misunderstood. I wouldn't call my quick dip-stick search at Ebscohost a scholarly search. I thought you were referring to high-quality scholarly vs. news sources re the transgender section - and no, I didn't see anything that we aren't already using (but I didn't go beyond the first page). Even if you can't save, is it possible to capture links? In terms of updating the rest of the article, there's plenty, but as I mentioned Whited is new & generally lit. articles don't get updated within months of a new publication - at least not the ones I steward. It's always good to wait a bit.As far as the sentence in question, I'm not wedded to it. It would be better to keep the process moving, imo.As for as going back to FAR, don't see the need. The only immediate is need an overhaul of the transgender section & given the suggestions overnight think S Marshall's current version is fine.  But ... today's article in the Times will need to get incorporated at some point because of the election.Victoria (tk) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to be wrong. Thanks, Sandy. I think there's a major tension between recentism and outdated here. We need to include some amount of recent content as Rowling's views have pretty clearly moved to more extreme ones, but we also don't want to merely document the most recent three incidents. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RE, "the most recent three incidents", that is the tricky part of working on this article (she triggers the news cycle weekly, so how to decide which to include). Re Victoria and S Marshall, when I was browsing from the car, what I meant was that I found plenty of scholar.google sources that could be used to update that sentence and that we don't need to go to news sources -- enough so that the still-relevance of the sentence was shown, which is why I think it the most enduring.  The reason I didn't save those I found is that I considered my search (without journal access) incomplete.  I could find them again, subject to same constraints, if my real life issues  and give me a long-enough break to refocus here (sorry :( . Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To some extent, we don't need to be perfect, as long as we cover fairly typical and/or illuminating events. We're trying to give a flavour of her sort of activity. Ideally, analysis that makes the choices for us would be better, but in the absence of that, we have a little editorial perogative to pick and choose. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This morning's article in The Times
is extraordinarily timely and helpful. I propose that we suspend updating this section for the moment because Rowling's latest little rant will provoke a reaction and, hopefully, some analysis by third parties.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ...could you please post a link to this article? Or at least the title? Loki (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @LokiTheLiar, @S Marshall: There's a summary and context at this BBC article. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Everyone agrees the current draft is much better, and nothing says we have to stop work on drafts once we put something up. If we're going to suspend, let's implement the current draft. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would like to point out that while I haven't been a big fan of the allegations of WP:RECENTISM so far, relying heavily on breaking news about Rowling's comments about a currently happening election really would be RECENTISM. Loki (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rowling is in the public eye on this matter. Coverage isn't going to miraculously stabilize at any point. It is likely that we will need to periodically revisit this, especially as scholarly sources come out. That isn't a reason not to adjust the present wording, which is sub-optimal and considerably worse than the draft above. I support implementing it, my quibbles above notwithstanding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

For easy discussion.
I mentioned this above, but:

"She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased.

I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.) We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want.

Footnote [a] is mispositioned, if we accept my change, put it with footnote [b], otherwise, it should be a sentence earlier.

These two sentences come right before a remarkably readable and clear statement of her positions (most of the rest of that paragraph). And they are in no way as clear or readable as those statements. At the least, it shouldn't come first. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I do think it's important to be clear about at least some of the specific bills she opposes, since she does oppose specific bills and not just the general concept of gender self-recognition. But I also agree that sentence 3 should come first: we should say the general thing first, which is that she opposes gender self-recognition and then progress to more specific things she's said, like the specific bills she's opposed. Loki (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)