Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1

Featured Article Save Award nominations
Please set up separate sections for each nomination.
 * for closing this? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

FASA nomination AleatoryPonderings
For their contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate for a Featured Article Save Award. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion editor AleatoryPonderings

 * 1) Support. Without AP's first ever edit to J. K. Rowling on 5 January, there would not have been a FAR save.  At the time of the bold edit to insert the beginnings of a literary analysis section, there were already multiple delists entered on the FAR.  From that point forward, AP worked tirelessly, over four months, to restore this very high pageview and controversial BLP back to FA status, including the initial discovery of multiple WP:ELNEVER violations, which AP processed with aplomb.  AP went from zero contribs on the article to now having written most of the article, as my (SG) contribs are overstated by the tools.  AP should proudly display the star associated with this article in their userspace. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hog Farm Talk 23:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Victoria (tk) 23:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, for having begun the heavy lifting nobody else had yet stepped up to do, and for sticking with the process through many rounds of review. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

FASA nomination Olivaw-Daneel
For their contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate for a Featured Article Save Award. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion editor Olivaw-Daneel

 * 1) Support.  Olivaw-Daneel quietly and competently plugged away at article improvements here for four months, and is now responsible for a good deal of the content, as the stats tool overstates my (SG) contribs and understates those of the others.  O-D served as a person-of-all-trades, doing a little bit of everything as this star was polished, and should proudly display the star in their userspace. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hog Farm Talk 23:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Victoria (tk) 23:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Fantastic work on the literary analysis section in particular and wrote a FL while working on this to boot. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Support excellent work throughout. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

FASA nomination Vanamonde93
For their contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate for a Featured Article Save Award. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion editor Vanamonde93

 * 1) Support.  Vanamonde93, like AP and O-D, has more contribs to this saved bronze star than the stats tool indicates, and was responsible for a good portion of the literary analysis and the rewrite of the religious debates section.  For this monumental save and collaboration, all three of these editors should proudly display the star associated with JKR in their userspace. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hog Farm Talk 23:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Victoria (tk) 23:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Support An invaluable contributor and considered commentator on this project, doing stellar work in both respects. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

FASA nomination SandyGeorgia
For her contributions towards the monumental save of the bronze star at J. K. Rowling, I nominate for a Featured Article Save Award. Victoria (tk) 23:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are a gem, but as a FAR regular, I respectfully decline; just doing my thing at FAR. We missed having you in there, but were most happy to know you kept a watchful eye throughout.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all of the kind comments below, but reminding that I have recused from receiving FASA awards, and honestly, without AP, O-D and VM93, the save would not have been possible.  Warm regards to all, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion editor SandyGeorgia

 * 1) Support. Sandy will say she was only the bookkeeper. In fact she found, read, distilled at least two biograpies and proceeded to rewrite the biographies sections of this highly read BLP. Additionally, she contributed to the article from top to bottom, bringing it into MOS compliance throughout and standarizing the referencing systems throughout. The "bookkeeping" on the FAR talk page consists of over a 1000 edits,, almost 600,000 kb, keeping a gazillion threads in order and knowing how to create not one, not two, but five subpages for the archive page. She kept everyone on track, set a stellar example for a collegial and collaborative environment, and never ran out of energy. I sincerly hope, Sandy, that for this one you will accept the credit due. Victoria (tk) 23:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Support anyway! Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Support anyway!, per Victoria. Hog Farm Talk 01:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Support anyway! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Sandy totally rewrote the biography and bibliography, did countless technical and MOS edits, and managed a truly gargantuan discussion with ease and aplomb. She may nonetheless decline this particular award but her mammoth effort deserves our recognition. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Sandy made the impossible possible with this FAR. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 12:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Support anyway! SG was essentially the CEO of this group effort. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Support if she chooses not to accept/display this award, that's up to her, but hours and hours of grunt work were needed here that I (and many others) weren't willing to do, and Sandy did it; that deserves appreciation. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Support in spite of her own wishes  :p  but seriously, yeah. A "FAR regular", but that's all the more reason for recognition, not less. I don't knowing the place well enough to know if it's always as sould-destroying as it seems, but having to go through that—or just the possibility having to through that—is going beyind the call of duty.   SN54129  13:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Support anyway! Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Article stats
Pre-FAR version 8,487 words FAC Nominator User:Serendipodous Authorship stats
 * 1) Serendipodous 15.3%
 * 2) Rodw 12.9%
 * 3) AleatoryPonderings 6.6% (first edit 2022-01-05 02:45)

Top editor stats Stats extracted on 2022-01-05, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Serendipodous · 1,126 (54.4%)
 * 2) Eagle Owl · 225 (10.9%)
 * 3) JennKR · 141 (6.8%)

Article stats at FAR close
Authorship stats
 * 1) SandyGeorgia 32.2%
 * 2) AleatoryPonderings 16%
 * 3) Olivaw-Daneel 13.3%
 * 4) Vanamonde93 5.4%
 * 5) Serendipodous 3.3%

Top editor stats
 * 1)  Serendipodous · 1,126 (32.4%)
 * 2) SandyGeorgia · 941 (27.1%)
 * 3) AleatoryPonderings · 414 (11.9%)
 * 4) Eagle Owl · 225 (6.5%)
 * 5) Victoriaearle · 162 (4.7%)

Stats as of 15 April 2022, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Archived
Notifications not done]]: when FAR was launched, notifications were not done.
 * Archive 1
 * 1) [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 1#Notifications not done|
 * 1) Biographies - to cite or not to cite: questions about which basic bios to cite (used Smith, Kirk)
 * 2) Proposal to trim "Politics" section: first trim of Politics section
 * 3) Accio: list of copyright violations the article was hosting, all corrected.
 * 4) Converting Awards and honours to prose: a listy Awards section was converted to prose, sub-article created
 * 5) Additional sources: some literary sources proposed but not used
 * 6) To Do List: first list, now done, copied from main FAR page
 * 7) Archives: discussion about setting up talk archive
 * 8) Notes from bio reading; issues resolved from Smith biography


 * Archive 2
 * 1) Update 8 Jan: archived from main FAR page
 * 2) Politics 2: Discussion of how to characterize her politics
 * 3) Spanish source - needs evalution: discussion of El Pais
 * 4) Reception: addition to Reception from sandbox
 * 5) Philanthropy: question about more general sourcing
 * 6) Dashes: endashes or emdashes?
 * 7) Notes and queries from Kirk: Kirk material to be worked in
 * 8) Literary analysis redux: more on literary analysis
 * 9) Pugh: general biographical info, Philanthropy, Honours and awards, Political views, and Transgender people: summary of Pugh for weight
 * 10) Promoting literacy: content removed
 * 11) Mendelian inheritance: content removed
 * 12) To do: Resolved: from To do list
 * 13) Trimming: content cut for size
 * 14) Sentence of title case in citations: used sentence, converted chapters to cite encyclopedia
 * 15) Citation overkill: resolved except Transgender
 * 16) Small points: Johnbod BrEng ce
 * 17) Legal/press daughter privacy: content worked in
 * 18) Alkestrand: Alkestrand unused, removed
 * 19) Relationship with father: emphasis corrected
 * 20) Muggles need fixing: muggles used before defined, corrected
 * 21) Reversion in literary analysis section
 * 22) Z1720's comments: Scottish Arts Council and ISBNs
 * 23) Laird of Killiechassie: removed
 * 24) Rita Skeeter: removed


 * Archive 3 (Transgender section)
 * 1) Drafting: Draft 12 Jan; The Current Draft regarding her trans views is appallingly One Sided; Discussion of split discussion
 * 2) Checking in
 * 3) Best sources for Transgender people section initial list of sources
 * 4) Initial queries about how to proceed with work
 * 5) Status of the lead RFC lead has unsupported text
 * 6) Draft 1 (archive full, next drafts to Archive 5


 * Archive 4
 * 1) Update 14 January: from main FAR page
 * 2) Cursed Child: weight question addressed
 * 3) Secrets of ... April release: commented out until April release
 * 4) Sectioning
 * 5) Reception/politics of Harry Potter
 * 6) Template blindness
 * 7) "Argue"
 * 8) Text size
 * 9) Ordering
 * 10) Style & allusions, paragraph 2
 * 11) Aza24 comments
 * 12) HF comments
 * 13) Archiving
 * 14) Update 1 February 2022 from main FAR page
 * 15) To Do list, (parial, resolved from talk)
 * 16) Tackling the lead, installed on 2 March


 * Archive 5
 * 1) To do list
 * 2) Generalized statement about social media, internet usage installed
 * 3) Query about why work is on an archiveX page
 * 4) Procedural queries Notes about archiving
 * 5) Draft 2
 * 6) Draft 3

Ping list
I believe this is everyone who has weighed in on the two talk pages regarding drafting the Transgender people section (pls ping if I have missed anyone). I have started a section above, but here, you might indicate for future reference whether you prefer or not to be pinged on this page. Since restructuring and reworking of the literary analysis portions of the article is underway, we might take advantage of the delay to register views above on best sources. I will also notify Talk:J. K. Rowling of the source discussion. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm preparing an update, which brings to mind that we might have a list of who has the page watchlisted and prefers never to be pinged, who always wants a ping, and anything in between. Please sign on! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Never needed, but don't mind if you ping me: I have this page watchlisted, check it regularly, never need to be pinged, but don't mind if you do ping me (although I only get pings via email, which I don't check as often as I do my watchlist). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Never needed unless you want a direct response from me. I'm watching everything and pings slightly freak me out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Same preference here. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted. but there's too much to follow here, so please ping. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Same preference. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Same preference. Loki (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Same preference (many thanks for setting up this ping list SandyGeorgia). ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Same preference. Thanks. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please ping me if you a) need a direct response, or b) are discussing her literature, broadly speaking (anything currently under influences/themes/analysis/reception). Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Casually interested but not watching; ping me if there's anything big like an RfC. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not able to pay attention outside of pings to this discussion but am happy to be pinged at times when my input may be useful. I really wish I were in a place to be able to contribute a lot more than that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Best no ping. I've fallen behind, cannot catch up, and when I am pinged feel pressured to get here and try to address issues which never goes well when not feeling great. Will probably unwatch for a while. Victoria (tk) 22:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding User:Sideswipe9th per this. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding User:Crossroads per this. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nitpicks
As we wait to see how the interim lead does, before we proceed to the TG section, looking at straggling nitpicks ... please add if you have any! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rowling has a difficult relationship with the press and has tried to influence the type of coverage she receives.. What "celebrity" doesn't have a difficult relationship with the (nasty) UK press, or hasn't tried to influence coverage? I am wondering if we can improve on this.  This is sourced to Sattler and Stanfill, which I can't view.  What do they say? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Have we sufficiently explained that the reason "when she conceived the idea for the Harry Potter series while on a delayed train from Manchester to London" is in the lead is that (as she has said according to many sources) she had fully developed in her mind the seven-series plots before she started writing? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not that up on what is typically included under "Influences", but while scholarly sources may not mention it, she does, repeatedly ... we haven't mentioned the influence of her mother in this section. We did cover it in the personal life (She later said that the Mirror of Erised is about her mother's death ... and ... Anne had a strong influence on her daughter ... etc); is that adequate ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that section as being about literary influences, and also I think the information about her mother flows well where it is; but if someone wanted to collate and relocate it to influences, I would not object. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion from me, defer to all of you, who know better how literary articles are typically constructed. Meaning; don't spend too much time on this :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to avoid having multiple sentences in a row start with "She". It doesn't read well and comes off as rather mechanical. I would think that two in a row is ok but three in a row or more seems like it's hurting the prose. For example: "She was named to ... She has used the ... She co-founded the"; "She was writing Harry Potter ... She had a ... She later said that"; I think these are the only two, though it might be worth double checking for more. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Better? I didn't check for others ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Much better; I double checked and did not find any other instances. The only other thing nitpick I have is wondering if ref 2 in the lead's 2nd paragraph is really needed. Otherwise, I commend everyone involved in this process for a remarkable improvement in the quality of prose, content, referencing and information for this article! – Aza24 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to losing it; defer to others. Thanks, Aza24! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, I missed that this was dealt with long ago. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, late to the party on this. My main thought is that a line more should be given to the subject/world of HP, perhaps saying it is set in a somewhat mildly alternative reality UK for example, where the wizarding world goes about it business with the non-wizard population unaware of them. Generally fine. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I just realized that MOS:PAGERANGE changed sometime in the last years, when I wasn't following, and that full page ranges (rather than truncating final digits) are now called for. So, I'll be going through and re-fixing my fixes on page ranges (when not iPad typing). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

To do stragglers
From earlier To do list, now archived:


 * I would like citations to twitter to be replaced. If those tweets in particular are what caused controversy, then they ought to be citable to secondary sources; if those tweets in particular did not receive attention from other sources, then us including them is original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oxford comma usage isn't standardized; should likely be checked as we finish up. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * from your edits yesterday, has Oxford comma usage been addressed? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not by me, I'm afraid! Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Starting on gender section

 * See also Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3 and Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5
 * and Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft

Pinging only those who have asked for pings at (please add yourself to that list if you have a preference). Per their preferences, I have left off AleatoryPonderings, A. C. Santacruz, Vanamonde93, Sdkb, and Barkeep49; I would ping them, along with others who have participated in this FAR, if/as we approach consensus (or if/as we are unable to gain consensus and need more feedback). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Housekeeping items as we get going: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A list of older FAR discussions can be found at ; gender discussions will go to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3 if/as the page size here becomes unwieldy. If you start a section, and find it resolved, please mark that it's OK for me to archive, so the page size stays manageable. Sometimes, if the page grows too large, I am forced to go ahead and archive; please AGF :) :)
 * The readable prose WP:SIZE of J. K. Rowling is updated at . I haven't updated since the addition of two sentences about philanthropy in Ukraine, and one sentence added this week per this recent discussion; those aren't big enough additions to make the work of doing the math worth it-- the trend is still the same and the numbers are close enough. (Of course, if someone insists, I will do the work.)
 * I anticipate that our work will proceed something like it did in Tackling the lead, where we went through quite a few iterations before we came to consensus.
 * A blank template that I typically use for proposals is at the top of User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5. (I seem less able than most to sort a proposed wording change unless I can see the whole thing, side-by-side: YMMV.)

Pugh
If anyone else needs the rest of the snipped content from page 7 from Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2, please send me an email. For copyright, I can't (or shouldn't) excerpt the whole page here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Update
Just to keep everyone updated, I've been plugging away at an initial draft to trim the transgender section, but have taken my time to revisit all past commentary, so slow going. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

First draft ready
I was frustrated while attempting to respect all of the commentary, requests and past discussion and balance the use of the sources, as sources sometimes disappear once you access them too many times. If I missed some important sources, I apologize, but in frustration, I am just going to put up what I've got. I could not find some of the supporters/opposers mentioned in mainstream sources, but I think/hope I covered the gist of it. I hope I have dealt with:
 * WP:CITATION OVERKILL
 * WP:PROSELINE
 * First sentence fails verification (!!!), did not cite that original Forstater case was overturned on appeal
 * Replace primary sources
 * Use newer sources, scholarly where available
 * Trim verbosity and litany of who supports her who doesn't
 * Deal with some issue
 * Court decision due in May 2022 makes it hard(er) to summarize Forstater case
 * Sources differ on what exactly Forstater tweeted before she was fired versus after, so glossed
 * Terminology? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Is_%22anti-trans%22_equivalent_to_%22transphobic%22? ... I tried to use both?
 * "transphobic" in lead is never explicitly addressed in body ... it's sort of hidden in there, but needs clarity, added that
 * Considerable background missing as to context of all tweets
 * Political views of J. K. Rowling was missing that Fiennes (Voldemort) supports Rowling, so that changed what could have been an easier statement about all the Potter film stars criticizing her.

Will start a new section on drafts. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Workshopping the transgender section
For background, please see notes at, and status of the lead. I don't know if I got it all, but tired, and posting what I've done so we can get moving. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft 1
Archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3

Draft 2
Archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5

Draft 3
Archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5

Draft 4

 * See subsequent changes at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox7
 * Installed 7 April



Discussion of draft 4
Thankfully, AP is on the mend and is back for wordsmithing. With AP having edited my sandbox, we have to take care now to attribute all copied text per WP:CWW. I believe (??) we have now addressed everything except the section name, which is a separate discussion, and can focus in this draft on whether any additional wordsmithing is needed. I also suggest we should talk about whether we are ready to install, for multiple reasons. I am off soon for a day in clinic waiting room, but will have iPad for limited editing; I can keep up, but can't do complex edits. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The section has been basically untouched for four months, and what is there now is ... awful. Even if we continue to work (retaining existing section name in the live version), the side-by-side shows this to be a much superior version, and we should get it on the page.
 * 2) It will be much easier for the FAR regulars to comment on the work so far if it's all on the page, and they can see how it all hangs together. Once we are done with this pass, I suggest we are ready to ask for FAR feedback.
 * 3) I remain worried about Bastun's Query about why work is on an archiveX page; installing what we've done so far, with a very clear edit summary indicating that work is still underway and with a link back to the FAR page, may bring out any stragglers and reveal problems we may not have seen.  That will be good information to have before we proceed to overall decisions about the FAR.

Discussions on "individuals" in first paragraph
By and large I'm happy with draft 4. The only change that I'd still like to see discussed is inserting "literary" into the first paragraph, such that the final sentence of it reads Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from literary individuals across America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work. as I think that got missed when we were doing a back and forth on how to reword entities. Happy to move this off into a subsection if necessary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC) edited Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just remembered that Sandy prefers to see the full paragraph in context. So here it is, minus the citations and wikilinks which remain as before. Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition aws, and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from literary individuals across America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just split this off into its own subsection now, as it seems to be getting some discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To my ear literary individuals is not idiomatic English. Nor is it accurate, given that we also cite actors and advocacy organizations. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What about literary community as that is how The Guardian source used for that part of the sentence refers to the cohort of the US and Canada open letter? For the UK and Ireland letter The Guardian only refers to authors. The support from actors and advocacy organisations is in a separate paragraph, and cited to a different source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If we went with "from the literary community and culture industries", we could refer to the same sources as in the most recent proposal but drop the companies connected to her work, since that is subsumed in "culture industries". An alternative phrase would be "from the literary, arts and culture sector" or "literary, arts and culture communities". Either way, we could also add RS mentions of the many musicians who have weighed in, as well. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I like from the literary, arts and culture sector to replace from literary individuals across America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work. You and Sideswipe are closer to the sources than I am but I assume this phrase is equally well supported and is much clearer/tighter writing-wise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's OK for me. We'd just need to move the positioning of some sources, or insert some new ones as the text we'll be replacing at the moment only references authors, publishers, and book retailers (citation 42), and Warner, Warner Interactive, and Universal Parks and Resorts (citation 43).
 * For Sandy, this paragraph would then read Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws, and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy. Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also just to make clear, the reason I only wanted to put the specifier literary into this sentence was that actors, artists, and LGBT organisations are separately and more extensively mentioned in the third paragraph. The first paragraph only makes reference to authors, publishers, and book retailers (cite 42), and Warner, Warner Interactive, and Universal Parks and Resorts (cite 43). I didn't want to rock the boat too much at this late stage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I don't intend to rock the boat either, just to arrive at felicitous and accurate prose. Billboard gives the reactions in support of the trans community from "artists" (mostly musical artists), which I think could go a good way to cover any gap in sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as you all realize this is getting us away from the book sellers, Warner etc that someone originally wanted ? I am out, dealing with husband's wound care, will check back in later ... could someone check back and see who wanted booksellers etc?  Wasn't that you, Newimpartial?  Why are we losing the companies connected to her work (eg Scholastic, Warner Bros, etc ?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was me, and to be clear, I don't think any relevant clarity/specificity is lost by using "from the literary, arts and culture sectors" rather than "from literary individuals in North America and Europe, and from companies connected to her work". I don't think the companies connected to her work are "lost", because they are part of the "culture sector", and I actually prefer not to say "...individuals and companies..." because not all of the support lines up nicely into "individuals" and "companies". And I think the ability to add musicians to the reference - which brings in quite a few feminists, and which I have always wanted to do - makes up for anything lost by people not thinking of Scholastic or Warner until they read the note. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, home now ... and I thought I was the bee's knees for having addressed the UK-centric and everything asked for before :) This wording does seem to flow better. I think I got what is being asked, but I did it in User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox7 so I can WP:CWW from there to the main article, to cover attribution of AP's edits in my sandbox.  Please check the change I made there.  Since we're adding a source, I dropped the extra Warner Bros. source, as the source that has Scholastic and Universal Studios also has same quote from Warner Bros. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Thanks Sandy! Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, too. Good work, Sandy: writing is (inevitably) a multiply-iterative process. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Me three! Also, if I can waive any rights I may have under the Creative Commons licence pursuant to which I originally made my small line edits, I hereby waive them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't, and we'd get into trouble at FAR if we did :) From the official checker of CWW at FAR ... that happens to be me :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Overall assessment
Having reviewed the whole of the new text in context, it certainly reads better (and less breathlessly) than the former one. I would feel remiss, though, if I didn't register that it feels a bit WHITEWASH-y and BOTHSIDESist compared to the sources used (and those discussed on Talk). I expect that this will be even more evident once an additional wave of peer-reviewed sources become available; I suppose the newly-minted version will serve its purpose until something major happens, or until it is time to replace it with more authoritative sourcing (which I suspect will be less deferential to Rowling than our current text). Newimpartial (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Naming the section
Without getting in to discussion yet (to avoid sprawl), could we get a list of possibilities for eventual discussion? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Transgender people
 * 2) Transgender topics
 * 3) Gender recognition
 * 4) Gender identity
 * 5) Transgender people and civil rights
 * 6) Transgender rights
 * 7) Transgender communities
 * 5th one added by ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sixth and seventh added by Newimpartial (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Process discussion
Here's how I envision proceeding; speak up if this won't work. The ideal outcome is that the most active participants on this page come to consensus (if not, we can ask the broader group participating on the FAR, some of whom asked not to be pinged until/unless we are at a stage where we need feedback). It's possible that among ourselves, we can winnow the list down based on a mini-survey here. Before discussion sprawls (page size here is a constant problem), and before we survey amongst ourselves, I'd like to add a one-sentence summary to each possibility ... one that would provide a brief guide should it be necessary to move to the broader FAR group after we narrow down the possibilities amongst ourselves. Something like the following:

So, if we can fill this in without yet getting in to protracted discussion, I can archive this section to help with page size, and launch a new section here for a survey among ourselves. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Transgender people
 * Current section name: those in favor view Rowling's comments as broadly about transgender people; those wanting a rename view them as about policies rather than people, and say the heading is biased; sources are divided.
 * 1) Transgender topics
 * An alternate to people per the same reasoning as #1.
 * 1) Gender recognition
 * The broader term used in the laws underlying the controversy (eg Gender Recognition Act 2004, Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, and beyond the UK, eg, California): those in favor (SG) view this is the most neutral framing that better encompasses all gender topics, while avoiding any categorization as people v topics; those opposed say ...
 * 1) Gender identity
 * and so on ...
 * 1) Transgender people and civil rights with drawn by proposer
 * 2) Transgender rights
 * 3) Transgender communities
 * For process, I'd suggest offering one good source for each suggestion (as a bare numbered link, to avoid clutter), in a straightforward attempt to preempt "but no sources use this" arguments. As far as I know, all the suggestions so far have at least one good source, so this shouldn't be burdensome. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was aiming a different direction ... link to the old (fuller) discussions for those who want all the gory detail. To avoid a rehash of territory already covered on sources. What do others think? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not others, but one of the reasons I made this suggestion is that I didn't necessarily post the best source for "communities" in the previous discussion, and I didn't post any for "rights" (I suspect someone else may have done, but I doubt that they were thinking primarily about source quality of they did). I'm hoping to pre-empt digressions about such matters. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Give me some suggestions above for how you would complete one item, thinking ahead to making sure it is a broad overview should we have to ping in the broader group (I'm hoping we don't :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I did offer one of the better sources for "transgender rights" in the prior discussion. And here is a good source for "transgender community"  that uses the phrase to frame the issue, though of course there are others. I just meant that a link like this could be included for each.
 * I would also caution against saying sources are divided about "transgender people", when the evidence for this is that some sources use the phrase and others do not. This situation is equally characteristic of each of the options - the COMMONNAME here probably being anti-transgender tweets, if anything, though no I'm not proposing this as a section title.
 * Also, the argument that "it should be topics because it isn't people" seems a bit reductive, since it would equally offer a rationale for most of the non-"people" options.
 * It also seems to me that you are straying away from first principles with your long rationale for gender recognition - the implicit assumption seems to be that Rowling is "really" addressing the legal framework in the UK that goes by that name, but is she really? Do the sources support that? I think this is the rabbit hole to which we would be directed by your special pleading. :p Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * errrrrr ... I get so frustrated when I float an idea just to get discussion going, and just want others to show me an alternate :) Have to visualize it! OK, hold on, will re-boot in a new section below ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have set out what I meant, in the section below. One steelperson reference for each option.
 * And by the way, I seem to have misunderstood your just want others to show me an alternate comment. Sorry! Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No you didn't ... my editing style is a pain in the backside, since it takes me four edits to get one ... this is fine, we can pick between your version, mine, or something in between. Sorry for the ec mess! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Note to  - I looked for a straightforward reference supporting your section title proposal, and didn't see one. My suggestion would be that either you find such a reference, or that you tweak your proposal so that it is supported at least one clear example from the RS, without any additional interpretation required.


 * Eek! Thanks for looking but i must admit I did not have one unique source in mind when i proposed the heading, more a combination of sources refering to Trans People and their civil rights. Samples:-
 * [Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html]
 * [JK Rowling’s blinkered views on gender show a callous disregard for trans people – and her own fans https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/jk-rowling-transphobic-twitter-harry-potter-trans-women-lgbt-pride-month-a9554986.html]


 * [Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in “anti-intellectual times” The philosopher and gender theorist discusses tensions in the feminist movement over trans rights https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times]
 * [JK Rowling row hints at generational rift on transgender rights https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/12/jk-rowling-row-hints-at-generational-rift-on-transgender-rights]


 * [BBC nominates J.K. Rowling's controversial essay on trans rights for award The BBC has defended its nomination of "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling, who offended many with her comments on transgender people. The British public broadcaster said offense is the "price of free speech" https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673]


 * Apologises if this fails to fit neatly into the simple process. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, my suggestion would be to withdraw your previous proposal but add "multiple discriptors" as a new proposal. You could use "transgender people and transgender rights" as an example in the "rationale" section; then the sources section would simply note that the relevant sources belong to each descriptor, like "transgender people" or "transgender rights". Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I might be misunderstanding but I fear "transgender people and transgender rights" reads too long winded and prefer the not much shorter existing proposal "Transgender people and civil rights." Can not the mention of "multiple discriptors" just be added to the existing proposal. (I admit I am slow in understanding the process) ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bodney, if I may be so bossy bold as to offer a suggestion that may help ... My sense (could be wrong) is that we are really divided over "people" v "topics/rights/identity/whatever", and that the best survey/RFC will come down to three options: a) some version of people; b) some version of topics; and c) some version of "thinking outside the box" that uses neither, to get beyond our divide.  My concern remains that if we don't winnow it down to where the differences really lie, we'll end up nowhere with a split !vote. I hope that does not just confuse you more :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, I haven't seen any sources for "transgender people and civil rights" as a combined heading. In fact, I haven't seen any sources that support "civil rights" at all, except as an attributed comment by people and organizations within the dispute. So I don't think "civil rights" is usable, but I think "transgender rights" is. Anyway, my basic point here is that you need sources that support your proposal without original research and interpretation, and also without relying on protagonists within the debate.

The best way I can imagine you putting forward an acceptable proposal that would get close to what you want is by proposing "multiple descriptors". But do what you want - I am just trying to help. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I most certainly appreciate the good advice both of you are offering me, I am unused to sub section titles needing exact source references, maybe it would be best if i drop my suggestion as doubt "transgender people and transgender rights" will get anywhere and might slow the decision process. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't actually believe that subheadings need to strictly match sources; if they did, we'd never have a subheading "Early life" on almost every bio, nor would we have in this article "Inspiration and mother's death" or "Marriage, divorce, and single parenthood". Subheadings are ways of grouping like information.
 * That's the heart of the difference that Newimpartial and I have over the "Gender recognition" proposal. But, where there is contention, the debate often goes to sources. And the other problem I have with that, as evidenced by the faulty LEAD RFC, is that few people even read the sources they are opining on! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this. The level 2 header is "Views", level 3 is "Politics", "Press" and currently "Transgender people". In my view "Transgender rights" makes sense for the TG section. Sorry for parachuting in again and probably not putting this in the correct spot. Victoria (tk) 23:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, the Forbes contributor piece was the best I could find for "transgender topics", but perhaps you could do better.Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Reboot proposal

 * 1) Transgender people (sample reference: )
 * 2) Transgender topics (sample reference: )
 * 3) Gender recognition (sample reference: )
 * 4) Gender identity (sample reference: )
 * 5) Transgender people and civil rights (sample reference: ) withdrawn by proposer
 * 6) Transgender rights (sample reference: )
 * 7) Transgender communities (sample reference: )

Alternate proposal to structure the survey
I lost my proposed reboot in four edit conflicts; this is where I was headed. I don't want just one source, because should we have to go to the broader audience, I was hoping for a summary of rationale. My idea was more like this (to account for newcomers not having participated in our older discussions). I don't mind giving more than one source, so they don't have to revisit old discussions-- I'm after a brief why:


 * 1) Transgender people
 * Sources: The Scotsman, Sky.com, Deutsche Welle, cbc.ca and Newshub (New Zealand).
 * Rationale: This is the current stable title of the section and is supported by a substantial proportion of the reliable sources. Many view Rowling's comments as being broadly about transgender people. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Objection: A substantial proportion of reliable sources do not use this language. Some editors view Rowling's comments as being about policies or "issues" rather than people and say the heading is biased. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Transgender issues
 * Sources: Reuters, Independent, Irish Times, South China Morning Post, ABC (Australia).
 * Rationale: It is used by a substantial proportion of reliable sources and avoids bias in its phrasing. Crossroads -talk- 05:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Objection: It has been objected that the phrase could be read to imply the group in question may have issues, or are an issue. Crossroads -talk- 05:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the Cambridge Dictionary Issue (noun) = a subject or problem that people are thinking and talking about. So a section heading like "Transgender issues" can easily be read as having negative connotations, suggesting that the group in question are an issue or problem. Therefore when writing about an individual's contentious or dissenting views regarding a minority in society (including their civil and human rights) it is probably not OK to use 'issue or problem' in the heading, e.g. gypsy issues, lesbian issues, black problem, Jewish problem. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Some also believe that this phrase implies that Rowling's comments are about abstract "issues", rather than actual people, and dispute this. Sources do not clearly substantiate that the "issues" of the controversy are not actually "about people". Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (Proposed condensed) Objection: as an issue can be a subject or problem. this section heading could easily be read as suggesting that the group in question represents an issue or problem. It seems unlikely that other minorities would be discussed in this way (e.g. lesbian issues, African-American issues, bisexual problem or -Jewish problem).
 * For others, this phrase implies that Rowling's comments are about abstract "issues", rather than actual people; the sources do not clearly substantiate this supposition. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Transgender-related issues
 * Rationale: It is verified by the same sources and has the same avoidance of biased framing as "transgender issues", but addresses the objection by clarifying that these are issues related to being transgender, and not transgender people themselves. Crossroads -talk- 05:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Objection: Same as the objection to "transgender issues" - this still suggests that Rowling's comments are about abstract "issues", rather than actual people, which is not backed up by most sources. Someone else could elaborate this further, if desired. Newimpartial (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Transgender topics
 * Rationale: It is based on the same sources and has the same avoidance of biased framing as "transgender issues", but addresses the objection by using another word that is essentially equivalent in meaning for our purposes here (using our own words per WP:V). This phrase has precedent on Wikipedia in the article title Feminist views on transgender topics. Crossroads -talk- 05:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Objection: The phrase "transgender topics" is seldom used outside of English Wikipedia (and Library Science); presenting it as a heading in a high-traffic article could produce citogenesis-type effects. Newimpartial (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Gender recognition
 * Sources: The Guardian, The Independent. (see Pedersen, Suissa & Sullivan, Duggan, for context)
 * Rationale: The broader term used in the laws underlying the controversy (eg Gender Recognition Act 2004, Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, and beyond the UK, for example California): the most neutral framing that better encompasses all gender topics, while avoiding categorization as people or topics. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Objection: Only a vanishingly small number of sources actually use "gender recognition" as the subject of Rowling's comments; the Gender Recognition Act is one, but far from the only, topic debated by Rowling and her critics, so it seems doubtful that the section title fits the actual scope of the section. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Gender identity
 * Sources: CNN, BBC ("gender and trans issues"), Variety ("due to her gender beliefs")
 * Rationale: A neutral way of describing the topic. (Editors are welcome to expand on this or my other rationales.) Crossroads -talk- 06:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Objection: Only a vanishingly small number of sources actually use "gender identity" to denote the topic of Rowling's comments; to assume that sources referring to "gender beliefs" or "gender issues" are actually talking about gender identity could be interpreted as original or overly assertive interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Transgender people and civil rights withdrawn by propser
 * 2) Transgender rights
 * Sources: Reuters, The Guardian, Hollywood Reporter, CNN, and Deutsche Welle
 * Rationale: Many mainstream sources describe this, in their own editorial voice, as what the controversy is about. This is an inclusive heading, since both "gender recognition" law and the policy implications of "gender identity" fall within the topic of "transgender rights". Newimpartial (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Objection: Some readers could misinterpret this section heading as implying that Rowling is against transgender rights, whereas she says that she is not. Someone else could elaborate this further, if desired. Newimpartial (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Transgender community
 * Sources: Fortune, NBC, Global News (Canada), People, and Glamour
 * Rationale: This heading can be read as more specific than "transgender people" (trans people more as a community than as individuals) and also as more innocuous from a BLP standpoint (Rowling has nothing against trans people as individuals). It also corresponds to one of the main voices documented by all RS as being provoked by and responding to Rowling's comments. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Objection: Some readers might misinterpret this section heading as implying that Rowling is against the transgender community, whereas she says that she is not. Someone else could elaborate this further, if desired. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Reconciling the two proposals
If we go with Newimpartial's (simplified) version, then I suggest more than one source (and I suggest we cap it at five). If we go with my version, then each proponent puts forward their best argument and signs. Newimpartial's version is filled in; my version needs people to fill in now. If we go Newimpartial's proposal, then we have to trust that newcomers will read through a long discussion that follows; they usually don't. If we go with mine, each proposer gets to put forward their best rationale from the get-go. We can pick one of these two, or anything in between, or something new ... these are just ideas for how to format a survey. I'm hoping we will quickly find the list winnowed down to about three. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to go with "proposed rationales", that's fine, but then we will need to have people actually "propose" each option - if so, these should be "steelperson" rationales, not like the ones you offered in the prior iteration.
 * By the way, I still think your rationale for the "gender recognition" option isn't maximally relevant (sources like The Guardian, while they do refer to the Act, don't actually identify the issue Rowling addresses as "gender recognition" - they call it "transgender law reform") but I suppose I shouldn't complain if you don't steelperson your rationale. :)
 * And while I see the point in multiple references, listing them does lead to rabbit holes such as I started to descend for your "gender recognition" proposal - The Independent does identify the issue this way, The Guardian doesn't, and I would have to check the other three sources myself to see whether they are referring to the Act or naming the issue. (Added: upon review, Suissa & Sullivan and Duggan only give the proper name of the Act/Certificate and don't otherwise use the term. Pederson uses the term in more contexts, but still not as a label for a public controversy. But I know this is still a worked example.) If this source analysis isn't the kind of discussion you want to have at this stage, then one best reference for each would be the more efficient choice.
 * To be clear, I am not trying to rely on the prior discussion in principle; I suppose I am just skeptical to what extent one editor's initial rationale for a title is going to actually facilitate discussion, as opposed to scenting the rabbit holes. But I am game to try if others think it is a good idea. My prior assumption is that the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal emerge in the back and forth of a discussion that is threaded, at the top level, by proposal. Maybe "pros" and "cons" subheadings within each? Or is that too much? Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Comment added by Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My original format would have, for example, had reasoning in favor of Gender recognition (framed by the proposer) and you (or someone) putting forward the reasoning against it, all in one sentence. That was my intent in the first proposal. A quick summary of those in favor and those against for each alternative, with a few sources, to orient newcomers to the discussion. To avoid less length in the discussion section once the survey launches. For example, I fully understand your opposition to my formulation; I just don't think we'll get to a compromise in this issue by relying only on sources, so I've tried to go "outside the box".  We get to use our common sense, and not be beholding to clickbait broadsheet news sources ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, clickbait broadsheet news sources that actually support your proposal seem more helpful to me than scholarly sources that do not actually provide support. :p
 * To be clear, I agree with you that we won't get to a compromise in this issue by relying only on sources - my one steelperson source per proposal idea is intended to move the discussion onto the terrain of the other policy-relevant factors by showing that WP:V is met.
 * As a final, practical matter, a bullet for and a bullet against seems like a much more promising format to me than a complex sentence per proposal, especially since the odds of anyone arriving at an NPOV sentence to summarize the main pros and cons of each option seems appreciably lower than the likelihood of nuclear Armageddon this week. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So go add the bullet against in Gender recognition (one sentence), so others can see a sample and opine on format. At this stage, we are only looking for samples to show how to format a survey that will hopefully lead to a useful outcome (as compared to that dreadful lead RFC). I don't care if "mine" is shot down as an example: there are others I can live with.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would go with something like this:


 * Rationale: The broader term used in the laws underlying the controversy (eg Gender Recognition Act 2004, Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, and beyond the UK, for example California): the most neutral framing that better encompasses all gender topics, while avoiding categorization as people or topics.
 *  Objection: Only a vanishingly small number of sources actually use "gender recognition" as the subject of Rowling's comments; the Gender Recognition Act is one, but far from the only, topic debated by Rowling and her critics, so it seems doubtful that the section title fits the actual scope of the section.


 * Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * that works for me ... should I add it above for ease of reading for others, or are you wanting to keep separate? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done so. Note also that, if we were to proceed with lists of examples, rather than a single steel person, I would object to your citing the academic sources as supporting your proposal when, in fact, do not, as part of the ensuing discussion. And I would expect other editors to do the same for each proposal that they do not favor. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so now we have two proposed formats; we wait for others to add a new one, or opine on these two. My idea is that the next steps would be: 1) run a very quick-and-dirty just those of us who are active on this page to see if there is zero support for any option so we can shorten from seven to about five (let's be aware not to cause a splitting of the !vote if some options are too similar), that is, once the format is filled in, we'll ask if anyone thinks what should be simply removed (eg, if zero people can live with Gender recognition as an option, we lose it now); then 2) archive this section for page size issue so we can relaunch the final survey; then 3) survey those of us who show up regularly on this page; and 4) only if we can't reach consensus, ping in the broader group to a new, further winnowed list. Does that sound like a plan?  I understand your objection to my sources, but my reasoning for that choice is unrelated to your (valid) reasoning for opposing it, and you get to argue that in the Discussion section ... my reasoning is quite that we have to go outside the box and think in broader terms ... and if that is rejected, that's OK ... we have enough variety in opinion here that I'm confident we'll settle on something good, just as the text has continually improved by listening to everyone. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have two proposed formats? I feel as though we are groping towards one, with the only real point at issue being how many sources we should be citing for each (one, or up to 5/6).
 * As an exercise, I have now reworked your sentence for Option 1 in the new format, by the way. If we decide to follow (some version of) this procedure, I'd suggest getting rid of the signatures within the Rationale and Oppose sections and make them editable, with the understanding that the goal of any such edits is to ensure the highest quality of support and oppose rationales for each option without making the sections appreciably longer.
 * And just to be clear, I am using my (actual) objection to your "gender recognition" proposal as an example (from a process standpoint) of a type of objection I think will receive much more traction in the multi-source format than if we rely on the single best source for framing. You can dismiss this risk, of course, compared to others, but for me it is the main process issue at stake right now. Longer lists of sources almost by definition draw attention to problems with sourcing more than single best sources do.Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree ... On launch, we remove sigs. I rejigged the sources on Gender recognition ... does that help ?  Others may have completely different opinions on format, so holding off. Would you feel better if we limited to two sources?  Three ? I am fersure no expert on how to best run a survey or RFC ... just want to avoid the dilemma that always happens, that people don't read past the first few long discussions ... so want everyone to have a chance to put forward their rationale and opposition at the outset. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just checking. Do my separate sources to the 2 parts (People and Rights) of my suggested heading title fit this process. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand the question... perhaps just add to the Rationale Objection format on your two above as NI and I have done, and we'll adjust from there as needed ? If you're uncomfortable with whatever wording you end up with, I'm sure others will assist ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, maybe we could see how things look when others have provided sources and rationales for the other proposals, and possibly trim sources to a more standard look then? For the sake of completeness, I added sources to "transgender people" so that one seems ready to go. I am willing to do the support rationales for "transgender rights" and "transgender community" tomorrow, if noone else steps up. I don't really have an investment in developing any of the other options... And yes, the gender recognition sources seem more reasonable to me now. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Bodney, I will take a look. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, we (overall) need to be flexible. We're after buy-in; that is, we want the fairest, most transparent, best survey possible, so when we have to defend against stuff like this and this as events evolve (Putin fantasies, new sources when movie launches, new sources when Forstater decision comes in, and so on), we are all on the same team.  Right now, I'm more worried that we think ahead to winnowing this list to four or five, so we don't "split the vote", but we can focus on that after all rationales are in. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , one of the sources you cite above as one of the 5 examples for "transgender rights" is a WP:FORBESCON and hence unreliable. Can you please remove or replace it? Crossroads -talk- 06:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing all that work; I will return to this tomorrow (busy day ahead) ... I will probably rejig Gender recognition a bit, as what I put up was just a sample to get us going, and we should talk about next steps after we make sure everyone is happy with the writeups. I am thinking along the lines of ... eventually move the writeups to their own page which can be transcluded; survey the FAR group; if that doesn't winnow it down or decide it, we would have to move to a "real" RFC on article talk, but can decide that later; suggest we can close the FAR without this being finalized, because FAR declarations can state that one section heading will be resolved via RFC if needed, and also it is presumed that ongoing RFCs may be needed over time as things evolve and the lead needs changing. (On the other hand, maybe now that we have a working methodology ... ala "slow and steady wins the race" and works better than ill-planned RFCs ... maybe none will be needed in the future!).  Thx again for the cleanup, Newimpartial. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, ask Jo-Jo to do the closing? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

do you want to link to Bodney's description of the "issues" issue in the Issues choice? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you're asking me, I would rather see add their objection directly to the relevant subsection, to minimize the degree of investigation expected in the division-making process. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for doing that. I have (non-destructively) proposed a new shorter version of the objections to the "issues" framing, which could be used if we end up including this entry on the section heading subpage. (If we do not include it, but do include "topics" or "related issues", we will have to move some material from this entry to those anyway.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

New process query
Process question - should we ask whether editors prefer a double-barelled heading ("X and Y") and if so, how could we ask this? When I imagine a heading that would register as neutral to the largest number of editors, most of the examples I come up with are "X and Y" (like "Transgender people and gender recognition", or "Transgender issues and the transgender community") - I'm not saying these are elegant, but they might come across as neutral. Is this a question worth asking? Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Any question is worth asking; we can at least get a sampling from those participating on this page (I'm still concerned that we have way too many options, and that will lead to no outcome ... if we don't gel these down to four or five, we are unlikely to find any consensus).  My basic premise is that anything that restricts the section to transgender  is introducing a POV ... for Rowling, who is the one who made the tweets and controversial statements ... the issue is framed in terms of women's rights and changes to UK laws. Leaving out the protagonist's viewpoint on her own BLP is odd. It also leaves out the viewpoint expressed by feminists, as it being also about laws they believe are jeopardizing women's rights. For scholarly sources, we also have framing in terms broader than just transgender; restricting a heading to transgender fails to cover the breadth of what led to the controversy.  So my individual view is that the examples above still go in the direction of preferencing one POV. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, but maybe you are on to something that could lead us to a compromise without having to hold a survey ... Gender identity and transgender reform ... Transgender reform and women's rights ... Transgender-related issues and gender recognition ... or some such ... the best outcome of all would be for all of us to find a compromise that covers all concerns. We have proven, with the text, that we are capable !  We want an enduring heading; I found more scholarly sources yesterday while I was reading in the waiting room that approach the topic beyond the NOT-NEWsy headlines, run by Hollywood, that we've preferenced so far, in the absence of better sources.  By the end of the year, we should be looking at scholarly sources rather than meaningless lists of what Hollywood people think.  We will also have better sources as the Scotland reform evolves ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And my view is that we have a large number of proposed headings here that are widely arrested in independent, reliable sources as describing what the controversy is about (and a couple that aren't). Adding women's rights to the heading would be adopting a framing that, when presented by RS at all, is typically attributed to Rowling, and that multiple relevant experts have argued is not an actual issue in the controversy. (And the idea that the category of feminists is better represented by Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock than by Margaret Atwood and Judith Butler seems absurd to me. But I digress.)
 * Including the "women's rights" framing would be similar to including "anti-transgender" in the heading, which is actually well-attested within the independent RS (in editorial voice, even) but which, to me, reads as non-neutral in a sense in which "Transgender rights" or "Transgender people" doesn't. I mean, if we wanted to acknowledge what the participants in the controversy say it is about, that would be something like "Anti-transgender statements" and "women's rights", but a neutral title would not use either of those terms IMO.
 * On the other hand, if you would like to add "women's rights" and "anti-transgender comments" to the list of options, it would be easy enough to find the best sources for them and give them a spin. I suppose there is something to be said for giving explicit consideration to what we don't want to say. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All of that was what I hoped plain vanilla "Gender recognition" would solve ... doesn't go any direction, completely bland and neutral. But still ... we have to gel this list down somehow or we will get no meaningful outcome.  Could we work among ourselves to figure out a way to figure out how?  I see four broad categories: 1) people-related (1); 2) issues-related (2 thru 4); 3) gender-related (5 and 6); and 4) how do we distinguish 8 and 9, and ... is it possible to gel these four groups down to the most preferable within each group ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question, (9) is part of the people-related group, with (1), while (8) is sui generis. But I'm not at all clear how to determine the "most acceptable" option within each group.
 * As a process, it might actually be better to try to eliminate a couple of the groups by straw poll or something, before trying to arrive at an actual title using elements from the two or three groups that remain. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had the idea of a straw poll (among us) in the back of my mind for days, but am concerned about dwindling participation here ... Where Is Everyone? Straw poll won't work if only four of us are participating ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Post a notice on the article Talk page, and I'm confident people will come. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But we're also getting into another process issue; FAR is not dispute resolution. How far do we want to get into RFC territory on the FAR?  Would it be better for us to insert the text, get the FAR closed, mentioning that we are formulating an RFC on the one remaining issue?  That is, for me the process splits if we have to get to the point of an RFC as opposed to coming to consensus on the FAR ... which I'm unsure we can do on the one heading. I'm quite unsure of how we should proceed here, as I can't recall any other FAR having been down a similar road.  My personal preference is to get the FAR closed, but that's because I'm starting to get exhausted at having to keep up with the archiving and page tidying to keep everything readable, and once we install the text, the article is really at FA standard, even if we have to hold an RFC on the section heading. (I will fight anyone who thinks a closed FAC or FAR means something in that version is "cast in concrete" forever :)  Wish others would weigh in with process thoughts ... my view is "our work here is done"; there will always be little things needing resolution down the road. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, along these same lines ... we finish up our formulation of the headings survey/RFC, strip the sigs, move it to another page, from whence it continues off FAR ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm happy with a heading like "gender recognition".
 * With regard to FAR process I'm basically just deferring to you on that since that is an aspect of Wikipedia I know very little about. I definitely support the article being kept as FA, especially after we've invested so much time into it.
 * As for process on deciding on this, I don't have much in the way of suggestions, but I do want to be sure we avoid any sort of spoiler effect. Excessive choices can be a problem in that regard.
 * With regard to an 'X and Y' sort of heading, I believe that people's choice of headings is likely to be just as much against some phrases as for others. Hence, a double-phrased heading may make it twice as likely it contains an unwanted heading. Crossroads -talk- 04:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * RE process, we are in uncharted waters. I can't recall a save of this scope before (once we got into it, there was much more to be done than was apparent initially), and I'm fairly certain there's never been an RFC during a FAR. The Coords are flexible enough, though, that they are likely to follow our recommendation, so we can think about what's best for the article and easiest on us.  With the TG rewrite, the article is sound, with a relatively minor quibble on a heading (I can live with the lead now that there is content in the body to support it).  To my way of thinking, we've shown that we have a process for resolving the heading, and it would be much easier to work it off FAR ... that is, we are now at a place where we could go back to normal editing processes on regular article talk page.  The only reasons we wouldn't do that would be if someone objects that the article can't pass FAR unless the heading is addressed or that some intransigent thinks that what passes FAR is cast in concrete, eg, stuck with the heading once FAR closes; I don't envision anyone making those declarations?  Could be wrong ... if we could find a compromise heading within the FAR, that would be easiest, but I don't see an article talk page RFC post-FAR as too difficult either. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  10:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

For practical purposes, it would probably be fine to complete FAR without doing anything about the heading, and then for an RfC to run on the heading after FAR is closed. I can't see anyone on the Article Talk page arguing that the FAR binds the heading (in fact I don't really see Talk editors feeling bound to the FAR text in general). Whenever an RfC is run on the heading, it can start with a too-long but well-docunented list of options with sources (possibly placed into groups) and Talk page participants - having presumably learned something from the lead RfC - can run it from there. I don't see much of a downside to closing FAR without changing the heading. Newimpartial (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, so we're so far thinking in similar directions. How about this tentative plan?
 * I install Draft 4 and we give it time to see if it stabilizes. Hopefully that draws participants back to the FAR (edit summary will direct them to FAR for discussion). Meanwhile,
 * On this page, we continue cleaning up the section heading list, with the idea that once it's ready, we'll strip the sigs and move it to sub-page... something like Talk:J. K. Rowling/Section heading proposal ... for eventual discussion. That page would be the basis of the list should an RFC be eventually needed.
 * Some days (5-ish ?) after install, to be sure Draft 4 install stabilizes in the article, I ping the full list on main FAR page saying a) time for a look at article and declarations to Keep/Delist FA, b) subject to pending resolution of one section heading, which is not fatal to FA status and could be settled post-FAR, but c) would participants weigh in on talk here on a straw poll to help us winnow the list ... and then point them to the sub-page list.
 * How's that? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, re "talk editors feeling bound to the FAR text", what a FAR pass does give us is leverage to help stop disruptive editing. When you combine WP:FAOWN with the discretionary sanctions, it becomes easier to stop edit warring and force collaborative discussion of proposed changes, particularly for a FAR that had such wide participation as this one (I'm pretty sure it sets a record ... other FARs have run longer and been more contentious, eg British Empire, but this one has had a couple dozen very active participants, which has included multiple FA-knowledgeable editors ... British Empire ended up delisted as editors just would not come together, and once an article is delisted, it just gets worse and worse over time). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow (12 April) will be five days from install. The article has been stable, so I will plan to ping the FAR participants in an update tomorrow. Please be sure all adjustments to Talk:J. K. Rowling/Section heading proposal are in, as I'll ask others to weigh in to help us winnow the list, still with the idea that an RFC will be run on article talk, probably after the FAR closes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Winnowing queries
Just in terms of whether we can winnow the list ...

Is anyone on board with the "Transgender issues" heading?
 * It's out for me per Bodney's reasoning. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with Bodney's reasoning and I don't think it's a good choice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought it was fine and it does have the benefit of matching many sources, but I see significant opposition to it here and I don't want to split the vote. If we drop it, I want the sources listed transferred to "transgender-related issues". Crossroads -talk- 06:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Among the two "Gender" choices (Gender identity or Gender recognition), who is on board with each?
 * My preference is Gender recognition, as I think the legislators and lawyers behind laws from California to the UK have thought this through and given us a neutral term. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whichever of these two has a higher chance of passing :) Crossroads -talk- 06:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspect we will have a hard time getting editors to read through eight proposals; winnowing would be good. Please look at the transclusion below. Otherwise, when we ping the FAR in a few days, perhaps they will help winnow. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Serial comma (aka Oxford comma)
Do we want to use it? Usage is slightly inconsistent at the moment, at least partly because the text I wrote will use the serial comma while others' prose apparently does not. This probably comes down to a raw vote since there is no good argument I know of for why one is better than the other. MOS:SERIAL has some additional guidance and flags the few cases where the serial comma is preferred. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I know not of such things ... mentioned it a while back, I leave such matters to you all. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Really? Without it, we get confusion, such as "Highlights of his global tour include Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector." ;-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As MOS:SERIAL says, there are cases in which either omitting or including the serial comma results in ambiguity - using Oxford for all lists by no means prevents confusion and silliness, and confusion and silliness can be avoided while never using a serial comma. Mostly, I read consistent Oxford use as a powerful indicator of a US undergraduate degree - advocating for it on internet platforms, doubly so. :) Newimpartial (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on a ctrl-f search, as Vanamonde93 indicated earlier, standardization is needed. Anyone/someone who has a strong view might do a thorough review; I don't :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Section heading proposals
Transcluded from Talk:J. K. Rowling/Section heading proposal Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Refining the proposals
I've started the subpage, so we can complete the proposals there, and use it as a basis for survey or potential eventual RFC. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)