Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 21

The "sales increased in 2020" problem
First off, nothing I'm going to say is an attack on anyone's research for Wikipedia. But... there's context that puts really strong doubts on seemingly-sensible interpretations of what are probably true facts. I'm going to focus on the Guardian article first, because Pape uses it as the source for her figures (with a minor mistake):

I did some checking, and book sales just generally shot up a lot during COVID, and have continued to increase since. So that sales of her books increased is largely meaningless without comparing it to other trends. This article in particular is from July 2020, which means it's 3 months into the first British lockdown and covers the UK alone, annd is dealing with an increase in purchases during lockdown. That's not a big timescale. It's also very early in the J.K. Rowling transgender views controversy, so one can question whether she even had enough bad press at that point - while people were distracted by lockdowns - for a noticable change in the first place.

In short, it's almost certainly true, but it may not be at all meaningful, and, in the absence of comparison with the baseline, probably shouldn't appear here.

So, let's go on to Pape. Pape is using the Guardian source from 2020, and (mildly) misquotes her source: she says sales of Harry Potter are up 28%, the actual source is that sales of children's books sold by Bloomberg - a class that includes Harry Potter - are up 27% - and sales as a whole were up 28%. (Frankly, though, the Guardian article is written in a sufficiently convoluted way that that Pape's mistake is a pretty easy one to make.) More problematic is the timeline aspect: As said above, the Guardian article is from 2020, before Rowling had done that much. Pape may be writing in 2022, but if the source for her statistics is from 2020, and she doesn't have other sources, it doesn't push us beyond 2020, and hits all the issues mentioned above.

(This doesn't affect Pape as a source much beyond this issue; Pape is a 2022 source, but only cites things from 2021 and earlier. Pape may be out-of-date for some information, but I don't object to using her as a source where she's not out-of-date.

The framing of this fact is where everything falls apart: "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" - again, this is an interpretation that appears  in the Guardian article (it's only implied in Pape) - but we can't possibly put that in present tense. We have no sources for booksales after July 2020. That's in no way enough to make statements about her success. The sourcing is, quite simply, far too outdated.

As for the other bit of that paragraph: As far as I'm aware, the HBO Harry Potter series hasn't even been cast yet, it's not meant to appear until 2026. We have no evidence of it being successful; it doesn't even exist yet. One could instead say something like, "Production of the Fantastic Beasts series was cancelled after the third film proved to be the lowest grossing film based on Rowling's work." and use it to imply the exact opposite.

Forbes states that American sales of Harry Potter in the same period lagged behind increases in other children's book purchases. "As the industry as a whole experiences a surge of print sales, Rowling’s works, and sales of Harry Potter books (including licensed titles), have seen a sudden drop. This reported U.S. print book sales drop in June coincides with controversy around tweets and statements made by Rowling via Twitter from June 6 onward."

It's honestly kind of awkward: Reports of profits by Bloomberg inevitably mention Harry Potter, but then give stats for Bloomberg as a whole. , say.

This is the best evidence I've seen for any sort of Potter success, but it doesn't include any numbers related to sales, just relative popularity (hit #1 in children's book sales in 2023 for the first time since 2002). - and, again, that's only British sales.

We need more recent sources on sales of Harry Potter - which include America and other countries - to say much of anything. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Luckily, the Guardian article doesn't just quote sales figures for the children's books division. The journalist also interviewed the boss of Bloomsbury, hence:
 * The claim that these figures aren't meaningful stumbles over the fact that a scholarly source found them meaningful enough to remark on.
 * The claim that these figures are outdated stumbles over the fact that these are the latest figures published by a reliable source.
 * The Forbes article from June 2020 (a) predates the Guardian one, (b) appears in no scholarly source, and (c) doesn't account for audio books or ebooks. The ebook was released for free during this period which will have affected sales.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * TL;DR: In the game of Wikipedia, doing your own research to counteract a scholarly source counts as a foul.—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The book sales sentence could be revised to make it more general; something along the lines of: (could use some wordsmithing) Some1 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree with Some1 and S Marshall on the original research aspect of refuting Pape, but also, please reference in terms of any reframing needed.  I would not use the sentence "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" at all, and if you track back to my original proposal, the idea was (to maintain neutrality) to convey that plenty of Rowling's work is moving forward (particularly the theme parks moving forward).  Without getting in to any OR about book sales etc during Covid, the original sentence stated a simple fact (her products are not losing popularity). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree it's OR with Pape, but I'm not suggesting material for the article, I'm reviewing a source. We have a duty to not put misleading or false material into our articles.
 * Also, using present tense for facts sourced to 2020 is a problem. I think there's probably some evidence for Harry Potter remaining popular, but we can't use a source from 2020 and use the present tense. As I said, there's evidence they sold really well in 2023 (in Britain); if we could add in a source about America, at least, I'd buy it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 12:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First we have to encourage S Marshall to continue with Draft 9 (both Victoria and I are swamped with IRL stuff) and I hope he will, since we are almost over the line/done here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree with that. Also it's a diversion. As of today, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is #7 on the New York Times best seller list, after 795 weeks on the list . Plus it has a up arrow next to the listing, so it's up from last week or month. Victoria (tk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 8
I'm starting to see consensus to go ahead and implement this, but it would be a pity to do so without Sandy's forthcoming commentary.—S Marshall T/C 08:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of Draft 8
S Marshall, I have another full day today, but hope to be able to look this evening. Quickly though, I did see one comma issue in the first para that may leave a misimpression: It could read to the uninitiated as if she a) resists X, and b) (instead) proposes Y, when what is meant is that she a) resists X, and b) resists proposals to Y. And there's some redundant wording and detail. Not sure how to fix it ... maybe something like ... She resisted the (year?) Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland and changes proposed (in year X) to the UK Equality Act, (both of?) which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with this.
 * I would phrase it as She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and also opposes proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Loki (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Another concern I have is (sentences numbered for discussion purposes): In earlier drafts, we didn't have Sentence 2, so that the "without a medical diagnosis" in Sentence 1 led straight to Sentence 3 (her opposition). Now with the intervening Sentence 2, I'm not sure it's clear what she actually opposes (she said something along the lines, I forget and don't have time to look it up, call yourself what you want, live your life as you please, or whatever that bit was, so it's not self-recognition per se that she opposes); what she seems to oppose is giving access to certain spaces (that she views as necessary to protect women and children) to people who self-identify "without a medical diagnosis". Maybe this can be addressed by fiddling with the word "easier" to something more explicit to her concerns and what she has said (I believe that wording can be found in her essay, or maybe reviewing that New York Times opinion piece from someone who defended Rowling would provide some wording ideas). I hope I can find time to look more closely this evening to suggest wording, but someone else may get to it sooner. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * PS, I agree we are close to installation, and will try tonight to dig up the newer sources I mentioned in discussion of Draft 7, but no promises; I am coming to sadly realize that the changes in the structure of my free time may be permanent; apologies again. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * thanks again for doing the work! It's great to see this & it looks great. Re the comma, suggest adding a "the" in front of "proposed changes" so as not to confuse that JKR is proposing the changes., re self-recognition, Whited writes, page 7, "In late 2022 and early 2023, as Scotland considered its own gender identity reform, Rowling continued to be a vocal opponent of self-designation, especially for those in early adolescence." Victoria (tk) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I made a suggestion about sentence 2 in the section above this, which would redistribute it. Does anyone have any commentary on my suggestion? We could keep or lose sentence 1 in my opinion - though I think it's largely redundant to later comments - but sentence 2 is kind of a mess. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (Also, as said above, footnote [a] is clearly misplaced as things stand. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Now tweaked to draft 8.1.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just passing by, great work by everyone. I noted a small issue on the third paragraph: "Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World. and Human Rights Campaign." There is a punctuation mark after Wizarding World that is misplaced. Maybe also change one "and" to something else then. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed in draft 8.1a.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have one more minor point: "is concerned" feels like loaded language. How about just a neutral "says" or "stated". I still think "legal protections for women" is vague, but later in the paragraph it matters less. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Loaded how? Do you doubt that she's concerned about those things?—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also share this, uh, concern with Adam.
 * My concern here is that "is concerned about X" implies that X is true. So when we say that we're implicitly saying that, a statement we haven't sourced and couldn't say in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Weird. Must be an ENGVAR thing, because "Rowling is concerned about X" doesn't suggest any truth value for X in English English. Anyway, I certainly don't love "says" or "stated". Always use a specific verb in preference to a generic one whenever you can: specific verbs don't just convey more information in a similar word count, they also make your sentence clearer and more engaging. Rowling worries? Fears? Believes?—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Believes" seems better. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I dislike using the word believes; we don't know what's in her head, we know what she has stated. I have no problem with the word concern. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Forstater times 3
Working on redundancy:
 * Current proposal: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater. When Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views, Rowling wrote that
 * --> Less repetitive: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that

Or something similar to the reduce the repetition of Forstater's name three times. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed in draft 8.2.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thx! Still working through ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

But sales of books grew, and more
Why was this sentence cut? There's more, see for example "In fact, book sales increased, Universal Studios is expanding Harry Potter World, a TV series is in the works, Maya Forstater was exonerated, etc ... " that we discussed, now back in Archive 20. If we need more sources, they can be added, but by leaving out that the popularity of her work continues, while expressing that her image or reputation has been impacted, we are losing some neutrality. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That paragraph wasn't flowing right with that sentence, but on reflection I agree that we need to put it back in... somewhere. Thinking cap on.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try to revisit this after the rest of my morning work (I finally have a fully free day!). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've tentatively added it to a fifth paragraph?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This format change explodes my brain; could be do this another way ? Like, just add the suggested para here ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the 8.3 version (Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes...) could be split off into its own paragraph (as the fifth and final paragraph of the section), and the new paragraph in the 8.3 version (Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful...) can then be placed right after the Whited sentence (in the same paragraph). Some1 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, now that I think I've been able to pick out the new para, I'm (always) concerned that we're adding text that isn't necessarily scholarly sourced ... the one sentence that was there before was from Pape. Let me continue my perusal of new sources to see what else comes up, but generally, I'm not fond of the new para, and I'm more concerned that by having a three-column proposal, we will confuse subsequent editors/readers of the page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also suspect we might find a way to work that one sentence in to the (now) third para, after examining new sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't love the new paragraph, because it feels a little off-topic: it's not about Rowling's views directly, and it's not really comparing Rowling's book sale increase to how COVID-19 affected other book sales. I don't hate it enough to object to the draft, but speculation about a series two years out and book sales increasing (Compared to what, 2019? Because I doubt they reached original release sales numbers) during a pandemic doesn't feel that relevant. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, checking this, I have major objections to the sales increasing language. See below. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * After seeing the context below, I also object to this line. It's hard to say what her sales increasing means in a context where everyone's sales increased. If her sales increased less than everyone else's, it's still possible the controversy hurt sales. And we don't get a comparison in the sources we have. Loki (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Flow issues and redundancy in first para
As discussed above by me, and under Draft 7 by Adam Cuerden, there are still flow problems in the first para, and there is a lot of repetition as well as duplication in footnotes. And that leads to a (slight) misrepresentation of her position. And there are missing links and definitions (eg, we manage to never link transitioning). I suggest simplifying the whole thing, while by the way, attributing Duggan's opinion, which is slightly at odds with Rowling's own words:


 * Concerned that easier gender transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women,  Rowling opposes proposed legislation to advance gender self-recognition and make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.  According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.

I'll work next on the sources I promised to explore for the third para of Draft 8. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd say "Rowling believes" is better than "Rowling suggests" in your last sentence: "suggests" is a little loaded, insofar as it presents the statement after it as a reasonable idea to suggest; we need to avoid any impression that Wikipedia agrees with very explicitly transphobic comments. Like, this is vague connotation stuff, but it still reads very wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation overkill ?
How did we end up with four sources citing "human rights campaign"? Did the citations get attached to the wrong bits here ? We shouldn't need four sources to cite criticism from Human Rights Campaign, so could we re-distribute the citations to what they are actually sourcing? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][39] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42]

Paragraph 3 re-do proposal
As I've mentioned, there are plenty of new sources to cite this content; since I don't have full journal access, I've only listed some at the end of this section, hoping that others will review and decide which to use. And I'd combine the bit we lost at in to this paragraph. My (original) concern was that we not lose the enduring content about the debates the controversy has generated as spillover. Suggest Paragraph 3 thusly (once new sources are chosen from list below and substituted in): Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rowling's views have fuelled discussions about feminist views on transgender topics, freedom of speech, academic freedom, cancel culture and the relationship of authors to their fandom; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign.   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. She has been the target of widespread condemnation and insults, including death threats. Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown. Some performers and feminists have supported her, <Br />*
 * and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".
 * and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".
 * and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".
 * and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".
 * and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".

Divided feminists

 * 1) This scholarly source ("Feminism and Support for the Transgender Movement in Britain", American Sociological Association) cited the Ferber piece in the New Statesman about JKR.
 * 2) Victoria, are you able to look in to this ?  "Feminist Lesbians as Anti-Trans Villains: A Comment on Worthen and Elaboration. By: Burt, Callie H., Sexuality & Culture, 10955143, Feb2023, Vol. 27, Issue 1.
 * "Worthen thus asserts that GC feminists "are opposed to the recognition of trans women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnormativity," citing Kathleen Stock, J.K. Rowling, and me, among other GC feminists (whom she labels 'TERFs')[15] (p.2). While these may be simple descriptions of our arguments, they are misguided."
 * "Therefore, any questioning or resistance—or even support for the right of others to raise questions or concerns—about negotiating sex-based and gender-identity-based claims is frequently met with hostile, even threatening, responses and derogation. This should not be unexpected; as Manne explains, misogyny targets and blows out of proportion even small violations, which are made out to be indicative of women's bad character, in general.[32] Thus women, like J.K. Rowling, who explicitly support human rights for transwomen, profess compassion and sympathy, and support non-discrimination protections for transwomen in all sex-neutral contexts (which is most contexts), can be cast as horrible 'hateful TERFs' and subject to harassment, violent threats, no-platforming with wholesale disregard for the actual substance of their beliefs and actions. Remarkably, Worthen's article, like much trans-activist feminist scholarship, is silent about the "anti-GC feminist activism" including activists' publicly expressed physical threats, harassment, and celebration of intimidating sloganeering and signs: "kill TERFs, trans power". This is because of misogyny."
 * Seems to be available via Springer, which can be found on TWL. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looked at this. Basically Burt's paper refutes this article ("This is my TERF!") & is about lesbian feminism. The two quotes above are the only time Rowling is mentioned. But yes, it is about differences in feminist ideology, though the paper is not about Rowling. This might be a shareable link: Victoria (tk) 14:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to add: I don't think this paper supports that Rowling's statements have divided feminists. Rather it's about the debate in feminism: Feminism is currently embroiled in a vociferous debate between gender-critical (GC) feminists who believe that human sex is real and determined by biology; that one’s sex matters sometimes; that gender is a social construction imposed on male and female bodies, which constrains female bodies in subordinate, caregiving roles and thus should be challenged; and that the constituency of feminism is female people (e.g., Allen et al., 2019; Burt, 2020; Lawford-Smith, 2022a). On this view, women and girls have been historically oppressed based on their sex, partly through gender, and remain disadvantaged socially, economically, and politically. On the other side are feminists who accept some combination of the following claims: (1) that sex is not a biological fact but is assigned at birth on the basis of social norms (not biological reality); (2) that gender (identity) should be prioritized over sex for all purposes with no exceptions; and (3) that transwomen are women or even actually female (making it incorrect, for example, to refer to bepenised transwomen as having ‘male’ genitalia). On this view, women are oppressed based on gender identity not by their sex. To my knowledge, this latter group of feminists does not have a label; I will call them ‘trans-activist feminists’. Obviously Rowling is on one side of the debate, but she's hasn't caused it. Victoria (tk) 14:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See ; I had already replaced the "divided feminists" wording. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Missed that. Yes, according to the sources I've looked at above and the sources being used, she's spotlighted the debate, but hasn't caused it. Also, just checking, are we keeping Suissa & Sullivan or not? It's still being used to cite the academic freedom clause. Victoria (tk) 14:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of speech and cancel culture

 * 1) Callie H. Burt above.
 * 2) Keohane, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00027642241240337 Cancel Culture Rhetoric and Moral Conflict in Contemporary Democratic Societies
 * 3) Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality? By: Norris, Pippa, Political Studies, 00323217, Feb2023, Vol. 71, Issue 1
 * 4) You are Cancelled': Emergence of Cancel Culture in the Digital Age. Lokhande, Gayatri; Natu, Sadhana. IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review. 2022, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p252-259. 8p.
 * 5) How Cancel Culture Tarnishes Morals Clauses and What to do About It. Peterson, Jordan M. Vermont Law Review. 2022, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p220-247.
 * 6) Agonism in the arena: Analyzing cancel culture using a rhetorical model of deviance and reputational repair. Academic Journal. Hobbs, Mitchell John; O'Keefe, Sarah. Public Relations Review. Mar2024, Vol. 50 Issue 1, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102420.
 * 7) HARM AND HEGEMONY: THE DECLINE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES. TURLEY, JONATHAN. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Jul2022, Vol. 45 Issue 2, p571-701
 * 8) Pape (already cited in article)
 * Burt should be available via TWL on Springer.
 * Keohane, ditto but on Sage
 * Keohane - this might be the shareable link Here's the abstract: This article argues that cancel culture rhetoric has become a key language for moral conflict in a polarized polity. A thematic rhetorical analysis of two prominent figures who claimed to be canceled, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley and Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling, shows similar rhetorical moves despite different contexts. Drawing conclusions from their rhetorical strategies, this article contends that claiming to be canceled is an effective image repair maneuver in the contemporary, polarized political system. As Hawley and Rowling’s rhetoric shows, claiming to be canceled allows a speaker to chart a middle course between empowerment and disempowerment while identifying a transcendent context to take a stand against a defined moral ill. Likewise, it crafts a moment of urgency wherein the speaker and their audience can relate, prompting a moralizing call to action. In short, claiming to be canceled facilitates storytelling where character work can occur in the service of image repair and image promotion. It's about cancel culture, but I'd be hesitant to use it to support the sentence that Rowling has fuelled debates about cancel culture. Victoria (tk) 14:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Norris shows pdf available (g-scholar) - here it is
 * Lokande seems to be hosted via Ebsohost. So, again, TWL
 * Here's the abstract: Cancel culture' is a term on which the internet is widely divided into sections. Initially meant to call out the wrong doings of the people in powerful positions and hold them accountable for their actions, is now also seen as a tool for further exploitation of the marginalized people. It is essential to distinguish between the various terminologies around it in order to understand the various standpoints around it. This research project tries to highlight the same. Social exclusion from the online space can have a significant impact on the mental health of people. Even though this has been discussed, it is essential to see cancel culture in the light of its impact on different hierarchies of the society and the rising intolerance on the online space in the Indian context. Hence, the objectives of the study are- Understanding the history of repression and social exclusion, which has now evolved into a new form known as cancel culture. Investigating the effects of cancel culture on the mental health of various groups. This study is a qualitative analysis of various accounts of cancel culture. The methodology consists of interviews of experts from the fields of psychology, political science and media and film studies. It also relies on the secondary data analysis of various journal articles, news articles and books. The theoretical framework of the study is Martha Nussbaum's theory of objectification and Noelle-Neumann's spiral of silence theory and the result is consistent with it. The conclusion summarizes the key findings and considers their broader implications. the study's rationale is to comprehend the complexities of cancel culture in the light of intolerance and study the mental health implications for various sections of society in India. Paper does not mention Rowling. Can't get a shareable link, but if logged into TWL, this might work. Victoria (tk) 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Peterson is hosted by HeinOnline - not sure whether TWL has but it's worth looking
 * Hobbs & O'Keefe >> looks like there's a pdf link right there on g-scholar.
 * Turley > not sure I'd use him.
 * Sorry am up to my eyeballs, house renovations, health, travel, etc. Hopefully will surface mid-Julyish. Victoria (tk) 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relationship of author to fandom

 * 1) Taylor https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41290-024-00216-w Harry Potter and the ‘Death of the Actor’: reimagining fusion in cultural pragmatics

Academic freedom

 * 1) Free Speech in Academia. WOOD, PETER W. Texas Review of Law & Politics. Summer2023, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p761-787. 27p.
 * This is in a 783+ page book. Rowling is mentioned on page 777. I can't copy/paste the sentence. Here's a link that might work, Here's the mention of Rowling: "The instability of the Overton window can be illustrated by the efforts of advocates of transgenderism to thrust some radical feminists outside the circle. The feminists who are at risk are those who are characterized as TERF who insist that biological males cannot become women. The popular writer of the Harry Potter fantasy books, J.K. Rowling has been subject to a campaign of vilification on this score."I'll leave it others to evaluate how to use this source. Victoria (tk) 16:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of paragraph 3 redo proposal
That's all for me; I do think once we nail down these few bits, we will be ready for install. my list of possible sources above could benefit from your scrutiny, choice, etc. I will again be very busy tomorrow and Wednesday, so done for now -- I ran out of time to cough up all the sources I saw earlier, but hope this is enough to capture the idea of just mentioning the spillover enduring issues raised. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "These few bits"? Well, I'm overwhelmed.  Someone else's turn to do draft #9, I think.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, I could just pick a few of the sources above to use, if that would help advance our finishing the job, but I hesitated to be the one to do that since I don't have full journal access ... hence I just gave a brief list. I hope you will continue, as we're almost there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft 9

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

Folks, I'm done: through with J.K. Rowling, and honestly, through with featured articles. Rewriting this is like playing a game of bring me a rock. Let the first person to quibble draft #9 take responsibility for writing draft #10.

I've amended the text in several places, because I can't stomach publishing the words "opposes proposed" in a sentence of English, and neither should you. Neither the "believes" nor the "is concerned" camps are going to get their way.

Victoriaearle is 100% right when she says that Rowling hasn't divided feminists. Feminists are already divided on trans people and they have the attitude to Rowling that you'd expect from the flavour of feminism to which they adhere. I've cut that.

I'm also hereby permanently desisting from the bizarre and slightly unhinged practice of writing proposals as a comparison against historical text laid out in fixed-width 30em wide columns (!), and I certainly won't miss that. You'll just have to work with a conventional proposal in a format that works for everyone, including those of us who don't use a colossal font size.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Discussion of Draft 9
I'm unwatching this talk page. Please don't ping me back here.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is the ping list from the FAR (minus Ealdgyth, those banned, and those already here):  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment I have been invited to contribute to this discussion before, but I shall not return as the environment here is so vile. This is despite the efforts of good faith editors to moderate it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC).
 * This part is entirely correct: Rowling hasn't divided feminists. Feminists are already divided on trans people and they have the attitude to Rowling that you'd expect from the flavour of feminism to which they adhere. Trying to assign Rowling with credit/blame for that split is the worst sort of OR/PoV combo nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Aye
If you feel that this, with all its imperfections, is enough of an improvement over the current version to go in, sign below.
 * As proposer:—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Victoria (tk) 17:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not perfect, but after working on this for months now, it's good enough. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Loki's comment here, something went wonky in this version, so closer examination and reworking may be needed. My apologies to all for the premature ping, as I had not realized this happened until Loki pointed it out.  We may be headed for Draft 10 after all.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't really been involved in this effort but I did see the ping and read the latest draft. I think it's quite good, and I don't think that a tenth draft is necessary. Thanks for everyone who worked on this. Crossroads -talk- 19:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One quibble - shouldn't the first wikilink go to gender-critical feminism rather than a section of another page? (This doesn't affect the text itself and I doubt there would be objections, so I don't think this is significant.) Crossroads -talk- 19:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's get it in, and work from there, with more normal editing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is quite good. As to the concern below about I don't think the reader has been given enough of the scale of the criticism to understand why people are distancing themselves from her I think the text of She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[9][30][31] insults, and threats, including death threats.[32][33] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[34][35][36] and Human Rights Campaign indicates quite a bit of the scale of criticism. Hog Farm Talk 00:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That sentence is actually the one I hesitate most over. It is lumping anything and everything negative said about her views, and by extension (even if unintentionally) equating the feminist critics and the internet trolls. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's good that that line is there but it's weird that it takes until the third paragraph to get to what should be one of the major takeaways from this section.
 * And I also agree with Vanamonde that it's weird that all the criticism gets packed into a single sentence. Loki (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed for months. Sometime in the past however many months someone objected to x, y, z criticisms and instead we decided to focus on Rowling, who is the topic of the article, and to delineate what her beliefs are. If we want a weekly digest of what she says and the reaction to what she says, then a lot of time has been wasted. If we want to show what she believes, a sampling of what she's said, a sampling of criticism, and the factoid that her sales are still strong - as evidenced by the fact that of today she's still on the New York Time bestseller list after 700+ weeks. At the end of the day, word count has to be a consideration, and each one of these point have been discussed. I'm still happy with the draft as is. I don't want perfect to be the enemy of good and I think we entered that territory about four drafts ago. Sorry, Loki, this started as a reply to your point but went into rant territory which isn't directed at you. Victoria (tk) 03:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally support this, modulo Crossroads's link fix above. Vanamonde93's and LokiTheLiar's concern "that all the criticism gets packed into a single sentence" and is "equating the feminist critics and the internet trolls", that's a bit of a confused formulation. Covering two disparate things in a summary is not "equating" them ("eat more fruits and vegetables" does not magically make celery and oranges indistinguishable); a central feature of the issue is a dispute between two branches of feminism, so "feminist critics" is not a proper description; various of the critics are not particularly feminist-identifying but concerned primarily with trans rights (there's a great deal of overlap, but it's not correct to suppose a 1:1 relationship); and various of the Internet trolls and threateners are in fact feminists one on side of the relevant split, so supposing that that two categories are completely separate is counterfactual. Threats and trolling are not an ideology, they are (sometimes) a means to promote a particular ideology and/or oppose another. Victoriaearle is also correct that the consensus drift across this entire interminable discussion has been toward summary and away from detailed enumeration. All that said, the fragment of his material at issue could be revised into something like the following without doing any harm: She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[9][30][31] with criticism coming from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[34][35][36] and Human Rights Campaign. Rowling has been subject to intensive internet trolling, ranging from insults to threats, including death threats.[32][33]  Next, I have to agree with Hog Farm that Innisfree987's "I don't think the reader has been given enough of the scale of the criticism" (posted below) is hard to sustain. "widespread condemnation" all the way up to "death threats" clearly does have that subject covered.  In closing, I'm going to observe that if we do not pull together and approve something pretty much like this – accepting that compromise is a process that produces something most stakeholders feel they can live with but with which no one is 100% pleased – and save minor copy-editing quibbles for later, and if we keep producing draft 11 and 12 and so on in response to such quibbles, and even proposing to reverse things we've already gotten a loose consensus for in earlier stages, then its going to be eventually be 2027 we'll be on draft 37, with the article still containing a version nearly no one considers acceptable. At some point the quibbling and stonewalling have to be put aside.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Nay
If you prefer the current version, or if you think it's essential to have yet another discussion about it before it goes in, sign below.
 * I have not followed in any capacity the turbulent history of proposals for this section, but after an incidental visit from my watchlist I can't look at this not make a comment that this draft is unacceptable (it appears draft six originated most of the problems). "Gender critical" is a term utilized by transphobes to try and legitimatize their views, and the usage of it as the primary descriptor for Rowling is both a flagrant violation of neutrality and extremely concerning. The content talking about the criticism of her views being minimized to a sandwiched couple of sentences in the second paragraph whilst a very charitably picked quote follows her denial of being transphobic in the final paragraph. The result is a biased text that quietly does an excellent job legitimizing her transphobic narratives and I shudder at the thought of it being enshrined upon the live version of her Wikipedia page.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 18:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The term Gender-critical feminism is now widely used to refer to that set of views, and as such is the title of the Wikipedia article on it. The draft above also seems to have less quotes from her than the current version. Crossroads -talk- 19:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that "TERF" is the common term, but think that can be dealt with with regular editing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "TERF" issue was covered in Draft 3, Draft 4, Draft 6 and Draft 6.1. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The very article you linked to mentions that "gender critical feminism" is considered a dog whistle and problematic anti-trans rebranding, only further proving my point. I would also likely gather that the first sentence is Gender-critical feminism, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminism or TERFism speaks to the fact there is tension between the two terms. I certainly believe she should be called a TERF herein, but I am pragmatic and doubt I will ever managed to get that through, and so suggest that either both be used in equal capacity or the wording avoid using either of them the topic sentence. There's plenty of other ways to word it.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 03:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree it’s a white-wash. Gives space for her to deny being transphobic without ever stating there is a widespread view that she is? Surprised folks thought this would read as ok. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, by the time one gets to the last sentence about this topic having "permanently changed her 'relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves'", I don’t think the reader has been given enough of the scale of the criticism to understand why people are distancing themselves from her. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point; when I compare the current article text to this draft, a few things are better in the draft but enough other things are actually better in the current text that I don't feel confident that the draft actually represents an improvement over the current text. But I'm reluctant to stand in the way of something several people put so much time into. &#45;sche (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I am not eager to either but the difficulty with a process like this is that if this version is accepted, any further changes will very likely be reverted on the grounds that consensus approved this version. So I feel like if I have objections, it’s now or never (and by never I mean, the next RFC years from now.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm particularly wondering why the "men, every last one of them" quote got removed. It was there until Draft 8, nobody objected to it, but it was removed suddenly for IMO no reason. Loki (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... thanks, Loki, I hadn't realized that. I don't understand why that happened either.  Maybe we need a closer look at the whole Draft 9, in case we missed something else (which means I apologize for pinging the list prematurely ... ) Ack. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I commented above in a more non-commital way, but will now put myself firmly into the list of bullet-pointed Nays: I think this draft is worse than the current version in too many ways, including (as I had been going to say, and see someone has said above) in that it mashes feminist condemnation of her views and a random guy's death threat into one sentence. (I also think it'd be worthwhile to see if we can find any more, and any more recent, sources about book sales, because the iffy "Nevertheless, sales of Harry Potter books grew" line which this draft introduces appears misleading for reasons articulated further up this page.) I think we will need a draft 10. &#45;sche (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * There are a couple of things from the current version that I prefer over Draft 9 (and vice versa), so I'm hesitant to vote on the draft above. Using only Draft 9 and the current version (as of June 25, 2024), my preferred version would look something along the lines of the middle column below:

Some1 (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this is a big improvement. I think the first paragraph might need a bit of tinkering - the change of the draft's topic sentence was critical but it's been defanged so much it's not even clear immediately whether she supports or opposes transgender rights. Otherwise, the formatting seems to make a lot more sense to me than either other option. Introduction, factual recounting of the origins of the controversy and her views, paragraph about the fact she's transphobic, paragraph about her defense against that characterization, and a concluding note about how this has impacted the legacy of the Harry Potter franchise. I still personally dislike she herself has to be given equal weight as the people characterizing her as transphobic and would like to see the paragraph about backlash be expanded, but I know I'm never winning that battle and don't want to commit the time investment to fighting this. Barring the first paragraph's wording, I would support this or something very similar to it over either the draft or current version.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 03:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't like this. I think it's even more tilted towards Rowling's POV than Draft 9. The mention of criticism is still buried in paragraph 3 but we're now much less clear about what exactly Rowling believes and give even more space to direct quotes from her personally. And we have that very bad first sentence which doesn't tell the reader anything useful about anything back at the top. Any good draft needs to describe what Rowling believes and why it's controversial right at the top, and this totally fails at doing so. Loki (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made a couple of edits to the combined version (highlighted in yellow). Some1 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A small comment for readability I'd say is to change either "despite" or "in spite" (both in the same sentence is a bit repetitive). How about simply, — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, I've made the edit. Some1 (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with picking up this change for Draft 10 ... I haven't gotten further than that in digesting the three-column format, will look this afternoon. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "despite" would be better. "In spite of" doesn't have the same nuance of meaning, and implies actual spite being a big part of the equation (e.g.: "Neocons tend to refer to their political enemies as 'libtards' in spite of the term's offensiveness on multiple levels."). There's no evidence that "Wizarding World" content remaining popular is a product of spite; rather, the majority of the franchise's fans simply don't know (or know but don't care enough to boycott) about this socio-political matter swirling around Rowling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Word count =461.Haven't read through fully yet, but seeing the first sentence problem again. It's a passive sentence, Rowling's views on sex and gender, on transgender issues have been broadly described as transphobic. But there's no indication of who doing the saying. Also, the sources need to be found, reinserted and checked to be certain they support this wording. On balance it's better to lead with Rowling as the subject. Victoria (tk) 13:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic writing makes heavy use of passive constructions (for good reasons). It is not necessary that the full import of one be explained within the same sentence, just close enough to it to not confuse the reader. Other nearby material in this version already makes it clear "who [is] doing the saying" (perhaps with more specificity than necessary, like name-dropping one nonprofit organization in particular, HRW).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)