Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3

Drafting

 * Note: this section was started before the complete list of possibilities was put up. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a decent list of sources—Should we start a draft in userspace? Is there language that we must, or must not, include per any RfC or other local consensus? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an RfC closed "no consensus" (and therefore protecting the status quo) concerning the mention in the lead, but nothing at all concerning the body. Of course, body text that departs too fundamentally from the current lead summary may require an RfC or similar. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, the entire LEAD is a wreck and needs a top-to-bottom rewrite. Due weight will become more clear once we get the body settled.  I am appalled at several things in the lead:  the (false) emphasis on “rags to riches” which is OR and not born out by sources, an entire paragraph on her wealth … I could go on … based on what I have read so far in the sources, I don’t see how we could NOT mention the transgender issue in the lead, but we need to get the entire lead much better balanced. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AP, my thoughts are the following. First, I have wanted to get out a list of sources to encourage everyone participating to get up to speed on the sources; I have been slowly processing through them, but still have a bit more to read.  Second, I don’t think we should advance in userspace until everyone is at least on that page. (That said, this list is by no means all the sources, just hopefully the best; the issue has been well covered by every major outlet.  Today I found a Washington Post article which was similar to the rest, but I tend to avoid them when other sources cover same because, paywalled.) Third, we are still in a phase of chopping back some parts of the article, and have yet to build the basics of her early life bio (which I hope to have done in a few days).  Until we have done all of that, and digested all of the sources, it may be hard to come up with how much space to allocate to this one issue, re DUE weight.  I think it would be helpful if we all thought about the word counts we have tried to achieve in different sections of the article, and after reading all of the sources, start to think about how many words it will take to cover this (I can see already the need to cut back some of the he-said, she-said that’s in the article now, and better cut to the core of the matter.) There is a sub-article, and we have seriously cut back other sections to use strict summary style, although we have expanded quite a bit in the literary analysis direction, because we literally had zero going in.  I think drafting will be more productive if we can decide if we are talking about a target of 300 words, 400, or 500, for example.  I believe we cut all of her lifetime of political views on everything else down to about 400 words.  We’ve gotten her considerable legal disputes well below that.  We have her lifetime achievements in Honours and awards also down to the 400-word range.  These highly summarized sections give us some ideas of how to better summarize the Transgender section, and writing may be easier if we agree on the sources and the size of the bit to write, and after we have the rest of the article better settled.  We aren’t far from settling the rest, but several participants have expressed a need to work slower and to allow more time to digest. Maybe if people do want to get a head start on writing, they can start adding text at the sub-article, Politics of J. K. Rowling, but we would not want that to lead to edit warring which would distract us from finishing.  Just as I did in the Honours and awards section, I advise that we take this slow and methodical, and setting a word-count target may be one place to start, along with some good old-fashioned outlines from which to work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I have very little idea of how many words is appropriate for any given section. IMO the starting point will have to be the academic sources listed above. We can see what incidents they highlight and see how many words are necessary to explain those clearly. The problem with Special:PermaLink/1065139073 now is that it's a blow-by-blow account sourced to up-to-the-minute news stories and even tweets themselves. Some of that is straightforward OR and some of it might as well be—we don't (or shouldn't) source articles about historical events to newspapers from that time, because we need to filter that through secondary commentary on it. Secondary sources become primary with time; we need to take a longer view. I don't say this because I think anyone participating in this discussion needs reminding about core policy, just that I have no idea how to target a word count in advance of seeing what the long-view sources say. Hence why I thought it would be worth starting a draft with the good sources we do have. Since there aren't nearly as many on this as on her biography or Harry Potter, clearly the trans section should be shorter than those. But other than that I don't know. So I thought it would be worth diving in, which I'll do unless there are objections. I will aim for 300 words and see if that feels constraining. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve read through most of the sources already, and suspect it can be done correctly in about 400 words, but wondered what others thought. Much of what is there now is not entirely helpful and never cuts to the core of the issue, rather dwells on what famous person said at what point in time … which is not surprising because it is the same sort of narrative we found throughout the rest of the article— built blow-by-blow from newsy accounts, suffering from proseline, too wordy, not well summarized … on such and so date, someone said X or did Y … the same we found elsewhere in the article.  I didn’t get a clear sense of what even happened until I read the sources; we aren’t covering it well at all. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a rough draft. I've included most of the sources above to some degree, with heavy reliance on Breslow 2021 and Duggan 2021. I am not sure about the reliability of Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences or RevUU, and I didn't see a need to use the Stack piece. What I've found, comparing the sources, is that by far the most commonly discussed statements are "people who menstruate" and her blog post after there was a large response to that tweet. I also included the Cormoran Strike bits because (1) they were mentioned in the Vox and CNN pieces, which appear to be longer-view than some of the others; and (2) are connected to her career as a writer. Interestingly, none of the academic sources use the word "transphobic", so my draft doesn't either. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (You work fast :) At only 167 words, I continue to think it could go to the 300 to 400 word range. I too was concerned about what RevUU was. Much relieved that you got rid of the tweet-by-tweet, blow-by-blow, he-said, she-said. Should the “men in dresses” issue be included?  I believe the Maya Forestater incident is key. Also, there are mentions throughout the sources of why her fanbase felt/feels so betrayed in terms of their connection to Harry Potter that might be explored. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AP can you get hold of Pugh? Page 7 has a very nice summary, which extends beyond gender … I will type up notes when not iPad typing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have Pugh, and you're right, it's quite good. I will add his description of the Forstater case. Not sure about the broader context: Duggan puts it in terms of fandom, Breslow in terms of rhetoric, Pugh's I like best because it stays focused on Rowling and her work. I'll experiment and see with what works best. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, wish I had read Pugh earlier … very useful in philanthropy, awards, and early life bio. Will type up some later, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling on trans people is now at 342 words according to my script. I have added a description of the Forstater case and "mini-reception" section using Pugh and Jennifer Duggan. I am not sure what to do about the part on Cormoran Strike. Sources have picked up on it but there's nothing really substantial about it I can see—more like, "see, she did this too". I would be fine to omit. Everyone should feel free to edit this draft although it might make sense to discuss major changes so we are all on the same page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (and all), per Pugh's overall analysis, would we have a more enduring, more general, and more encyclopedic section heading if we switched it to Multiculturism or some such? Also, AP, maybe considering how touchy this section is, you might consider moving it to a Wikipedia talk-space draft once the FAR participants are comfortable with it. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Very nice work, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. Idk about "Multiculturalism"—AFAIK there aren't whole journal articles talking about her views on multiculturalism, but there are at least two about her views on trans issues specifically. I think some of the content could be folded into Reception, especially since we already have a graf there about gender in HP, but burying it there—especially when readers are probably looking for it after the next tweet comes out—seems not that helpful if, as may be the case, WP is where people are going to quickly understand this complex topic. Should I move to something like Talk:J. K. Rowling/Proposed transgender section? Wasn't sure what you meant by "Wikipedia talk space". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft. By putting it in FAR space, we have an associated talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft 12 Jan
I have prepared a draft at User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling on trans people. All welcome to edit it in my userspace, although if you have substantive comments it may be best to put them here so we can discuss as a group. Per SG's suggestion, the plan is to move this to Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft for wider comment once/if FAR participants reach consensus on an appropriate version. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * just alerting you all to the split discussion on that talk page. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Current Draft regarding her trans views is appallingly One Sided
I was not sure where to write this, apologies it is a repeat of Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft

The current draft regarding her views is extremely (add missing words) one sided and I do mean have been seriously extremely rewritten to be WP:UNDUE & WP:POV towards Rowling's fringe views, despite these being a minority view. You have deleted or hidden the current balance entirely. Why do we mention the support of a single trans entertainer but hide the criticism of several national and international trans specialist organisation including Mermaids, GLAAD and Stonewall that represent the views of 1000's of trans persons and whose views are far more notable. Why do we mention Bindel whose trans critical views are a minority amongst feminists, not mention it is a minority opinion and not balance it with views of more mainstream and qualified Judith Butler. What is the relevance of her domestic violence and sexual assault, does it have any relevance or why is the empty detail that she might have been tricked into becoming a man. Why are we including the Reuters report of her unsupported claim that the is a threat that people who she claims are men (questionable) are a danger to women in bathrooms as reported in reuters article of which the is no evidence with out balancing with the numerous UK and USA articles that report the is no such threat including  Reuters  which reported  Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? the next day   that, in the United States, women's rights groups said in 2016 that 200 municipalities which allowed trans people to use women's shelters reported no rise in any violence as a result; they also said that excluding transgender people from facilities consistent with their gender makes them vulnerable to assault. A few of the other articles include:

[Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate] [J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351] [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 reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html] [J K Rowling, predatory men and the nuance we're all missing out https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jk-rowling-trans-people-tweets-letter-reaction-bathrooms-a9561871.html] [Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times' url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times] [Feminist writer Judith Butler has given her theory on why JK Rowling has deemed it necessary to speak out on url=https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/01/04/judith-butler-owen-jones-jk-rowling-british-feminism-transphobia/ [An open letter to J.K. Rowling https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/dear-jk-rowling/ ] President Says J.K. Rowling's Words Create Dangerous Environment for Transgender Community

Again I am not sure where this critique should have gone

~ BOD ~ TALK 15:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could read what you have written & make basic language corrections so your meaning is clearer. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of split discussion

 * We have now an unfortunate three-way fork of a discussion; could we keep comments here, together? My response on article talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to Sandy Georgia for your constructive help  ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but I'm not sure if I've accomplished anything. With commentary regarding the various sources now in three places, it is difficult to see where consensus stands even on the best sources to use. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * did you set up Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft as a subpage for centralized discussion re TG? If so, let's start advertising it and pushing all the discussion there. I noticed it linked at the top of Bodney's comment. If not, then we should have a single place for discussion. Bodney's comment made me take a look; I'd not realized discussion was spread across so many pages. Victoria (tk) 18:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. To see the history of how this evolved, start here (above).  After I started a section to begin to gain consensus on what sources we should be looking at, the draft was started in user space at User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling on trans people. I suggested we were moving too fast, and that the draft would eventually go in a sub-page of this FAR, but the draft was moved to that page in less than two days.  It is unfortunate that we now have a three-way split and premature alarm about the state of the draft, which is based on little consensus, complicated by consensus that is hard to read because of the three-way split.  My recommendation is that, to avoid fracturing the work on this FAR that had been proceeding so well, we should mark that draft historical to minimize the alarm that has been generated, and re-focus discussion on what sources to use, how much weight to give them, and how much space to give this item in the article. And it is extremely premature to begin discussing what to do about the lead, when there isn't even consensus yet on the body.  We have been working very fast; my intent is not to point any fingers, but to sugggest a way to get us re-focused on the considerable work to be done, and to do that methodically. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, it is true that after the draft was launched and announced on talk (which surprised me), I did alert the Coords to the split, link the other discussions on talk, and ask that we move discussion to that talk page (hoping discussion would not continue in three places rather than one). That has proven to be a mistake; some have continued to weigh in on article talk, others here, and others at the draft. We now have alarm and a three-way split, with different editors offering opinions on three different pages.  Perhaps we should ask  to weigh in; it's possible that their brains can go three ways at once better than mine can :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Archive 3
To deal with the size of this page, I propose to allocate Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3 for archiving of discussions of the Transgender section. This section currently has: I'd like to archive all of 4.3, but leave 4.1 and 4.2 for continued discussion of sources, to make way for the eventual discussion of the next draft. Since you have commented in those sections, please let me know if that is OK; your comments won't be lost; I'll put a prominent link to the archive and to the draft. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4	Best sources for Transgender people section
 * 4.1	Sources
 * 4.2	Discussion of source list
 * 4.3	Drafting
 * 4.3.1	Draft 12 Jan
 * 4.3.2	The Current Draft regarding her trans views is appallingly One Sided
 * 4.3.3	Discussion of split discussion


 * Yes, please archive. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with AleatoryPonderings affirmation to archiving, it will hopefully make things clearer and easier to work afresh. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Checking in
Are people still enjoying/needing a JKR break, or are we ready to get started? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm around, but I can't take point on writing the Transgender people section, sorry. I provided some sources on the talk page at some point; aside from that my input is going to be limited to reviewing. It's also not what concerned me at FAR anyway, so I don't care too much if we revise it at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Best sources for Transgender people section

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

Discussion of source list
When I started the alphabetical list above, I contemplated that we would discuss the sources in gory detail, then winnow them down to a short list for a survey should that be needed and if consensus did not form, and only after we had consensus on sources would drafting begin. That's not how things went, and we have now ended up with interspersed discussion threads on some, not on others. I am still hoping that we will eventually (by whatever means) come to consensus on sources before drafting. Assuming time for all participants to have read the discussions above this one, and on article talk, might we use this section for general discussion of sources? I'll start with my queries: Unless someone disagrees, those two can probably be dropped. Beyond that, there are a number of other media sources that might (??) be duplicative; where do we stand on those and can they be winnowed to a shorter list for consideration by all ? We now have (numbered for ease of discussion):
 * If I am following correctly, no one supports using Burns (Vox). Is that correct?
 * I don't believe anyone supports using Kolirin (CNN). Is that correct?
 * News (broadsheet/agency)
 * 1) Brooks (The Guardian)
 * 2) Carras (Los Angeles Times) (full text available at Wyoming Tribune Eagle)
 * 3) Gross (New York Times)
 * 4) Milne (Reuters)
 * 5) Petter (Independent)
 * 6) Rosenblatt (NBC News)
 * 7) Shirbon (Reuters)
 * 8) Stack (New York Times)
 * 9) Thorpe (The Guardian)


 * Online news/magazines
 * 1) Calvario (ET online)
 * 2) Ferber (New Statesman)
 * 3) Keller (RevUU)
 * 4) Parsons (PinkNews)
 * 5) Robertson (Vanity Fair)


 * Journal
 * 1) Breslow
 * 2) Duggan
 * 3) Hotine
 * 4) Pugh


 * Web
 * 1) Fitzpatrick (Masters of Media)
 * 2) Mermaids
 * 3) Tudor (Engenderings)


 * Other
 * 1) Heiltjes, a grad thesis, I think?
 * 2) McNamara (Los Angeles Times) – opinion column

I believe that's everything on the list; my apologies in advance for anything I goofed. Could we work on winnowing it down to the highest quality? If we can't come to consensus in a week or so, we could try a survey. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Broadly, my views on the sources listed so far are:
 * Since the article should/must employ summary style, and there is a sub-article at Politics of J. K. Rowling where detail can be explored, we should not be using tweets or primary sources on this (main) article, nor do we need a detailed list of who supports or not Rowling. Any source that is only being used to add to what could become a difficult-to-control list of he said/she said is not needed.
 * Vox is opinion, and so are ReVUU and Hotine (being in a medical journal doesn't make Hotine any less an opinion piece); not helpful.
 * Heiltjes is a grad student thesis, should not be used here.
 * The web sources could be used in the sub-article, but not here; they seem to be mostly used for he said/she said. We don't need to revisit the entire controversy over transgender issues in this article. I could be convinced otherwise, but I see the same problem with all the magazine sources; I am unconvinced that all of these opinions give us anything beyond the basics that are already covered by recent high-quality news sources, Pugh, and perhaps Duggan.
 * I'd like to see us winnow the main news sources (Guardian, NYT, Reuters, etc) down to the two or three most comprehensive. I don't believe we can disallow news sources for a recent controversy, and neither should we overrely on any advocacy or opinion piece or niche journal articles.  There are other articles where the broader controversy can be explored; this article should focus on Rowling, in a broad summary, with detail in sub-articles or elsewhere. I'm not a fan of Los Angeles Times because they are paywalled and less people subscribe to them than to, for example, NYT or Guardian.
 * I'm partial to how Pugh presents the transgender issue, and the weight given in a broad seven-chapter overview of Rowling/Harry Potter, all multicultural views get a half page. As we work through these, if we can't come to consensus, in a week or two, we might consider a survey, so I am viewing this discussion as a first pass to see which of the above make the next cut; just hoping to get this discussion going to take advantage of the delay as the literary analysis is being reworked, restructured, rewritten. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree on dropping the sources you suggest dropping. (I'll note here for the record that WP:SCHOLARSHIP outright says that masters' these are not reliable sources.) Crossroads -talk- 05:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The LA Times piece in the list above is a column and should be dropped with the other opinion pieces. I'd like to sub in Carras (Los Angeles Times). I have a subscription until July, and would be happy to provide quotes or an email copy of it, or other LA Times articles. Firefangledfeathers 05:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Firefangledfeathers, LAT won’t even let me see the title. If you can give me that, I can look it up on ProQuest (and will add it above with ProQuest ID for others). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The title is "With ‘Harry Potter’ reunion, HBO finds itself between J.K. Rowling and a hard place". Looks like it was syndicated in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, so everyone can access the text here. Firefangledfeathers 16:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Odd, ProQuest does not return LAT on that; adjusted above, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can access it (LAT) too, directly for some unknown reason, I am clueless why. I am relaxed how things are now proceeding. Firstly, we have Rowling the famous international author, regards which I happily bow to others expertise (plus I am impressed how much work is being done to improve the core of the article). Secondly we have Rowling the celebrated author with a huge public platform, who makes makes political/socio-political comments that have attracted sustained coverage in the international reliable press. Personally the less said about the latter Rowling the better. If it needs to be covered from the long view, it should be correctly balanced throughout with unqualified individuals not having the same weight as the reliable mainstream national LGBT and Feminist organisations. I am not sure how Vox and CNN, both WP:RSP, are any more opinionated than any other media source, however again I agree that long term views are best. Regards the Mermaids open letter maybe I should have only have added the secondary Petter (Independent) article, if the open letter is a primary source. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The link on your useful list Sandy to Fitzpatrick (Masters of Media) does not work for me, but it does on the list above. I note what Crossroads says about the source. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now; thanks! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Archive ?
The talk page is at 175KB, so unless anyone objects, I will archive this section tomorrow or the next day to make room for draft 2. It will only be a click away! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Initial queries
Might participants comment generally on the following (or anything else of concern) before we start drafting? If there is (rough enough) consensus on the overall work plan, then I will put together a first draft, but I don't want to get ahead of the game yet. There is no time pressure at FAR; slow and steady wins the race. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The summary of where things stand and a plan for how to proceed from the main FAR page.
 * 2) A readable prose size target of around 375 words, to respect summary style, and keep the section size in line with the rest of the article sections.
 * 3) ' proposal (which I endorse) to change the section name to something broader and more neutral?
 * PS, please lodge comments here, rather than on the main FAR page, to keep everything in one place; this is the working page, that is a summary page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said over on the summary page: I don't agree with the proposal to change the name. "Transgender people" or maybe "Transgender rights" gets at what Rowling was talking about and it's also very simple and intuitive. On the other hand, something like "Transgender identity", which Crossroads proposed, IMO doesn't really convey accurately what Rowling was talking about. She's not talking about some sort of abstract philosophical debate here: her comments are clearly situated in a particular political context and in them she supports particular policies and particular political actors.
 * To briefly summarize the other things I said over there: I think the section is already serviceable but I'd like to get rid of the excessive citations, remove the lists of who supports and opposes her (other than actors for the main characters in the movies, whose opposition to Rowling's comments is, I think, notable enough to get a mention in this session), and remove the lengthy quotes, in that order of priority. Loki (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

A link to LokiTheLiar's full comments on the FAR page. For now, just as a starting place, can we consider this starting place as an informal poll (sort of like you would take when a jury first convenes), so we can see what talk sections we will need to start in order to work towards consensus. That is, do we have any points of agreement on which we can move forward; a) do we agree on a general trimming approach as opposed to a full rewrite; b) is a 375-word target reasonable, and c) what kind of support is there for renaming the section? To avoid having the section sprawl already, let's see what kind of general opposition or agreement we have on the big issues, before we get into specifics. With much work to be done, a step-by-step approach may help us avoid sprawling too soon. If we have broad points of agreement, we can get to drafting.  If we have broad points of disagreement, we can take them one by one before we spin our wheels on drafts. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll take my turn:
 * I agree with an approach that is more trimming than a full rewrite, focusing on a reduction of individual views, primary sources, and over-quoting.
 * I believe WP:DUE and WP:SIZE indicate we should do this in the range of 350 to 375 words.
 * I support a discussion of how to rename the section.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding 1 and 2, I'm cautiously optimistic on that approach, but it's in the specifics where I'd want to be sure that some aspects aren't left off entirely, even though I do agree that trimming is good. With 3, I definitely support renaming, with "transgender topics" being my preferred choice. I do have more to say in reply to Loki and other specifics but am holding off for now so as not to make a mess/get ahead of how you planned on doing this. Crossroads -talk- 06:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding 3. The section name was the result of several discussions, I do not support a change. It is already neutral. When covering a individual's (controversial) opinions regarding a minority of or other specific group of people (especially their civil and human rights) we should treat that group respectfully and not as some issue or topic, such framing can dehumanizes the minority in question. If the group in question were Jewish, Muslim, Black, Lesbian I do not think we would have a heading like Jewish topics, Muslim issues, Black probl.... (using a simple synonyms). Some reliable sources use the word "Comments" in their heading ~ NYT "Ms. Rowling’s anti-transgender comments", BBC "comments about transgender people", Associated Press "JK Rowling’s tweets on transgender people", NBC "her controversial stance on the transgender community",  USA Today "her recent anti-transgender comments." Due to the fact Rowling's publicly expressed opinions  very clearly targeted at and affect trans people as a whole not just their civil rights but she also questions the very validity of trans men and trans women, I think we should keep the section heading both broad and neutral as simply Transgender people.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, are we going to hold the discussion now then, or simply decide whether we should open a section to discuss this? The idea here was to get a broad overview of what work was needed, and a plan of approach that would avoid page sprawl early on. Crossroads respected that request (thank you), which was intended to help keep the discussion manageable.  Do you have any concerns regarding items 1 and 2? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for jumping in regards 3, I am afraid my head went 'oh no, not again'. The naming discussion can happen at the end. I am happy with the approach suggested regarding 1 & 2. Trimming down to a summary style would definitely improve the article as long as we do not sacrifice relevant details (the section ought to be a balance between reflecting the extensive RS coverage and her relative non expertise on the subject). Apologies for not understanding what feedback you wanted. I would like to see the relevant sections of Pugh, so I will email you. Many thanks.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, ; my typo-filled rambling writing often lacks clarity. We saw in the rewrite to date that the page filled quickly, and often needed archiving, even on non-controversial topics, so I'm trying to force some step-by-step structure here.  I'll send you Pugh as soon as I get your email.  And once we settle on a work plan, I'll archive all of this section; for now, I want to allow time for others to weigh in, which sometimes means waiting for the weekend. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thoughts in order.
 * By and large agree. I've got a question on access to the Pugh source text, though I'm not sure if I should ask that here or there.
 * Not so sure on the word limit. I ran the current text through a word counter and it came out at 493 words. I've got some concerns about sacrificing clarity of the events for terseness of our prose. How flexible is the limit? How far over can we go, if necessary to ensure we aren't omitting important information?
 * I'm fine with a discussion on naming of the section. I don't know however if we should have that now at the outset, before we've drafted the content of the section, or if we should wait until after we've finished drafting. My instinct says we should do it at the end, as we won't fully understand the scope of that section or what will be an appropriate name for that section within context of our article, until we have a more definite idea of what that content will say. If we do it now, before drafting, that could (in theory) influence our drafting so that the content fits the section header, instead of the section header fitting the content. If that makes sense?
 * One additional question that springs to mind. If the text in the main article is to be a summary of the "Transgender People" subsection of the Political views article, will we also be looking at redrafting that text as well? Or is the FAR only within the scope of the main Rowling article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ipad typing, apologies for brevity:
 * I can type up the relevant sections of Pugh and email them to anyone who sends me an email requesting that. I earlier typed up some excerpts, but couldn't include everything per copyright.  Whether or not we end up using Pugh, he provides good context. I can't send the whole thing, but can send the paragraph relevant to this section.
 * The word limit is a suggested target for trimming to keep this section at due weight with the rest of the article; the number is not set in stone, we can see how things go.
 * You have identified my concerns there: do we hold a discussion now or later?  And if we end up needing to ping the world for more feedback, is it better to hold off on that until we have made more progress, or get this out of the way at the outset?  That's the kind of feedback I'm after, so we can proceed in a way that won't end up bloating the page and forcing us to archive sections before done.  I'm trying to gauge how to structure our work to minimize friction and the need to ping in others to build consensus and archive long discussions repeatedly.
 * On your other question, I am of the opinion that we have already summarized the sub-article here, and our work is just to trim it a bit. I don't see that we have to work over there. Hope this is clear, typing from car, Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, everything was clear.
 * I've sent you an email now.
 * Sounds good and addresses my concerns about that.
 * Glad I understood what feedback you were after at this stage! Makes complete sense.
 * Sounds good, and that helps clarify what the scope of the remaining work is. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Will check my email when home, previous partial writeup of Pugh is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the status update SG. For me:
 * Overall I like the plan. I do think most of the viewpoint name drops can go, though I'd like to see a summary statement on the views of the HP cast. I caution against over-reliance on Pugh.
 * 375 is a good limit, shorter if we can manage it.
 * I am likely to be opposed to a section rename, though I'd probably be fine with "Transgender rights".
 * I see continued FA status as likely, and I think common sense cleanup of the this last section is all I'll need to support it. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Just noting additional correction needed in Transgender section: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PROSELINE: every paragraph starts with a date

Unless anyone objects, I will early archive this section, as page size is now over 200. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Another initial query: status of the lead
I don't usually discuss the lead until the body is all wrapped up; leads are last, as they summarize the body. But in this case, I'm going to deviate from my Standard Operating Procedure, to see if we have a point of agreement that may help us determine the direction of work. In all of the discussions so far, I don't believe anyone has taken the position that the lead is so unacceptable that a new RFC is in order; it's possible I missed something though. There seems to be a general feeling that the article is at FA standard now, with some trimming and cleanup needed in transgender material, but with no complaints about the lead summary. Would it be correct to assume that no one is wildly dissatisfied with the RFC-consenus lead we have now, with the exception of one minor word change mentioned by Sideswipe9th on talk? (And I would change one "but" to an "and", but all that is another discussion, for later.). If that is the case, it gives a better idea of where we're headed on the trimming needed, and we could dispense with our comments/concerns about the lead early on (recognizing that consensus could change as we work). Comments? If you are dissatisfied with the lead to the extent that you would consider it a deal-breaker on continued FA status, please speak up here so we can know if we also need to work on it. I'll add my views after others have weighed in, but they basically amount to "not the best ever for an FA, but I can live with what we've got, subject to discussion of the "some" and one "but" to "and". Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with the lead as it stands, and believe it is not a barrier to FA status. I would like to reserve judgement on the final sentence of the lead, the one on Rowling's views on transgender people, until that section is revised; it's hard to judge if it's accurately summarizing something that hasn't been written yet. Otherwise, I don't see any need for changes at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies again if this in the wrong place but I am answering your question (it can be discussed elsewhere/later) personally I do worry that the trans lead sentence is written sentence has a wrong implication, "criticised as transphobic by .... some feminists, but have received support from other feminists  To me it implies that some or a few feminists are critical but ALL other feminists agree with Rowling, which is not the case.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Similar to Sideswipe9th's comment on talk ... so I think we should be able to revisit that via a few simple word changes, without triggering a new RFC. Will see what others think before starting a work plan. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article mentions three feminists:
 * Judith Butler (critical of Rowling), but I could find no mainstream source that mentioned her
 * Julie Bindel (supportive), The Guardian, adds "Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel ... "
 * Ayaan Hirsi Ali (supportive), her own opinion piece and Evening Standard
 * On the other hand, scores of higher quality sources mention the actors' positions, yet they aren't in the lead. Considering that an entire RFC was conducted around "feminism" in the lead, what are the other sources to indicate this belongs in the lead at all? Perhaps I have missed them in my frustration with paywalled sources, but as of now, this looks like more than an issue with where to put the word some. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to the placement of the word some. From memory, which I'll be happy to strike or amend this if my recall is not accurate. One of the points of contention in that RfC was the equivalence implied by the text, that the number of feminists who supported Rowling is (roughly) equal to the number who criticise her. At least one of the proposed replacements clarified this, by explicitly stating that Rowling's views were criticised by mainstream feminists and feminist organisations, with support coming from a smaller number of fringe trans-exclusionary feminists.
 * To answer the specific question, I'll need to re-read the article (both in its current and past states) to answer that, which I'll try and do tomorrow. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the RFC came to no consensus, would it be more expedient to come up with sources? Because the sources I've seen so far do not warrant this being in the lead at all (per due weight). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I have this vague memory that it was supported in the text sometime around the date of the RfC. If that's the case, then it makes finding the sources easier as it'll just be a case of copy/pasting here for review. There were also other sources discussed in the RfC that weren't used in the text. You mentioned before about being frustrated by paywalled sources, would you be able to list those in case any of us here have access and can summarise? Also general note on paywalled media, like The Telegraph or The Times, I've found that checking the article URL in the various web archiving sites like archive.today or web.archive.org often unlocks the full text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That text is unchanged since the article entered FAR. The RFC closed on 1 January.  The text is mostly unchanged since 30 November.  Here is 9 November. Older versions have one bit of additional text: "and some feminists", cited to Thorpe (which we still have, and states that "an array of feminists" supported Rowling.  So we are at the same place.  An entire contentious RFC was held over three names, one unmentioned in mainstream sources, one with marginal mention, and one generalized statement from The Guardian. Not one of the three having broad enough coverage to even be in the article. And yet, the statement that ended up in the lead goes the opposite direction of what those sources support, and none of them are due weight enough to warrant being in the lead at all.  And information is in the lead that was and is not in the body and not supported by sources. It appears to me (and this is something I only realized yesterday) that the RFC was a supreme waste of time, and was all about apparently original research in the article, attempting to label and separate feminists into groups.  So ... how to fix this now??? We have a bogus RFC that saddles us with unsupported text in the lead.  can you shed any light here?  You have referred to the RFC several times; what happened?  Unless we can find some sources to support the text in the lead, we have a faulty lead sentence and I don't know by what process we fix that now ... hold another RFC only three months after the last one?  Re paywalled sources, yes, I try that trick.  Sometimes I find info that would be helpful when I am iPad editing (see the top of my talk page for explanation about the tree that fell on me), and when I am next at the computer and try to pull up same, I find it paywalled.  So I can't remember what I find and lose, but it wasn't relevant to this portion of text. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, what do you mean by the statement that ended up in the lead goes the opposite direction of what those sources support? There are many potential "opposite direcrions" that could be taken, and I don't want to mistake your meaning. Could you spell that out a little? Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the whole matter of where to place the infamous some. We have sources so far for one feminist critical of Rohling, and two plus an array supporting her (and none of those showing any weight to warrant being in the lead at all, as far as I know at this point, but I am in the process of reviewing every link on the RFC now). Even if we were to add the word some somewhere, it would not be where it is now (on "some feminists" referring apparently only to one, Judith Butler).  What am I missing?  I am going through the entire RFC; right now I'm starting on the list of sources listed by Aquillion at 07:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC).  As I said earlier, it would probably be faster for us to start over and see if we can locate any sources to support this text, other than the one Guardian "array of feminists".  And it looks to me like the RFC missed the boat on where a real statement could be made about most/some, as that was in Hollywood re the list of performers. But I'm still looking at sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, I'm only coming up with Dave Chapelle re categorization of position on Rowling relative to feminism. Does anyone else have sources for the statements in the article now? I've checked most of Aquillon's list of 20 sources at 07:57 on the RFC. It does not appear to me that most of the RFC participants actually even looked at whether the terms were supported; someone please correct me. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to dig too deeply into the matter of "who supports and who criticizes Rowling", but plenty of her critics on this issue - aside from Judith Butler - are feminists, including Cynthia Nixon, Tegan & Sara, A J Sass, and Tinashe (that being a totally arbitrary selection I pulled together using only secondary, independent sources). So I'm not seeing how some...some or some...other could be inaccurate wording as far as feminists are concerned, much less misleading as you seem to imply. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have such sources can you please provide them? Right now (and during the RFC), there is unsupported text in the article. Having sources might resolve the dilemma without the need for a new RFC. We can't really avoid "dig[ging] too deeply into the matter of 'who supports and who criticizes Rowling'," as that is what is stated in the RFC-imposed lead, and I don't see how we can remove it without a new RFC; does anyone propose any other way around this dilemma, resulting from a poorly-formed RFC? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you mean by It does not appear to me that most of the RFC participants actually even looked at whether the terms were supported - are you referring to the terms proposed for the lead, or the term "feminists" or something else? On the former question, Sideswipe9th and I added and discussed additional RS besides those introduced by Aquilion, as can be seen in this diff. Hell, my whole motivation for introducing Option E into the RfC was as a result of the reading I did for that discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this statement in the lead:
 * These (refers back to "her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights") have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.
 * We need high quality sources/due weight references to those "some feminists" who criticised her and "feminists and individuals" who supported her. Master's theses are not reliable sources. Thanks for the diff above, which I hadn't yet gotten to.  For example, I see Vanity Fair supporting Cynthia Nixon; that is not in the article, nor are there sources supporting any of the names you mention (which makes one wonder if participants in the RFC were even examining the article).  If you can give me that list of sources (more quickly than I can find them myself), we can more easily and quickly sync the body and lead. Cynthia Nixon is not identified as a feminist in the Vanity Fair article or in her own article, so from whence come these divisions by labels, if not original research? All we really have as of now is one statement from The Guardian about "an array of feminists"; we hardly have due weight in high-quality sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To take this in small pieces, for Cynthia Nixon as feminist we do indeed have multiple, reliable sources; the Crossroads position that it has to be the same sources that indicate Nixon's feminism that also indicate her opposition to Rowling's stance on Trans issues is a mistaken (potentially TENDentious) reading of policy, in my view.
 * It is certainly true that the LGBTQ organizations' positions on Rowling's stance on trans issues are better documented than those of feminists - can we agree on that, at least, or is that also part of the sourcing that you find suspect? There is another category of commentators - human rights groups - that were also fairly consistent in their criticism of Rowling's comments, according to reliable sources. It might be worth including them as well.
 * I'm not sure how you're interpreting the RfC, but it was not organized as a referendum on the elements of the status quo of the discussion of these issues of the lead - it became a back-door endorsement of the (flawed) status quo because of the No Consensus close. Editors could not decide whether to endorse one of the (also flawed) specific proposals to change the language, to decide to remove the mention from the lede, or to retain a mention in the lede using language to be developed later (my proposal). I am confident that the existing language would not have been chosen in a bottom-up, 'tabula rasa'' process based on the sources, but I am equally convinced that policy-based consensus would not decide to remove mention of the issue, based on the currently available sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't personalize on this page; your statements above would have been equally understood without the tendentious personalization or singling out any individudal's views: please remove them so as not to derail this discussion. I don't know or care what anyone's opinions were in poorly positioned, chaotic RFC; anyone with a keyboard can influence an RFC-- that is not the case at FAC or FAR, where WP:WIAFA must be upheld.  We have text in the article's lead that is not supported anywhere in the article, and I'd like to find the easiest way to solve that without having to hold a new RFC. Yes, to state that feminists per se were aligned for or against Rohling requires sources that state that, just as The Guardian does-- not our WP:SYNTH of sources, or breach of WP:DUE to draw a conclusion not stated in the preponderance of high-quality sources. I have searched every name you gave above, and come up empty.  Most curiously, the Cynthia Nixon example supports what I now see in the sources, which is the due weight should have been accorded to performers, rather than feminists, in the lead, as that's what the majority of sources are concerned with and explicitly mention.  I am seeking solutions here, not personalization.  We have a faulty lead based on a poorly formed RFC: how can we fix that? Those who attended the RFC might opine here whether a) we can simply drop "feminism" from the lead, and b) whether we can exchange it for something like "leading actors" as well supported by sources. We had a faulty RFC: what's the solution now? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have struck my reference to a particular editor, though I find your characterization of that reference (as contentious personalization) to be much more inflammatory than my original comment (and I would appreciate you striking it in return).
 * As far as the formulation of the lead, I see the status quo as having two essential aspects: (1) that some have criticized the tweets as transphobic, while others have supported Rowling and (2) who has taken what view. My sense is that the basic structure (1) has much better support - from the RfC (and previous discussions), from the community, and from the sources - than does the current version of (2). So I think a bottom-up approach to "who holds what view" might work, which is why I was asking you how you felt about the sourcing for "LGBT rights organizations". Performers have mostly been critical but obviously some have supported Rowling, and "gender critical" activists have been lavish in their support. So if we can come up with a balanced construction that doesn't mention feminists at all, I would be fine with that - the underlying requirement is to answer the inevitable "by whom?" citation tag were the text to say simply that her tweets had been criticized as transphobic but were defended by others. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now, I'll accept anything that will a) gain consensus among participants here, to b) avoid a new RFC, and c) allow us to move forward when we are so close. If a re-formulation of this small aspect of the lead is a possibility, we might leave that until after we finish drafting the transgender section, and return to it later. I agree that the fastest easiest solution at this point is to remove mention of feminism from the lead, but I have no sense at all of whether that will generate controversy. You mentioned rights organizations, but avoiding digging in to any specific group will get us there fastest.  I wonder if the best way out of this dilemma is just to broadly generalize ... we don't need to specify any individuals or groups when we have so many sources all over the place:
 * These have been both criticised as transphobic (we have tons of sources to support that) and upheld as supporting women's rights. (see Guardian as sample, as well as Duggan p. 2 and others)
 * If you can live with something like that, we can formulate a proposal, but that might be best done after we finish our workshopping of the transgender section. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I can certainly live without mention of feminism; my problem with "upheld as supporting women's rights" is that this seems to lean into a "criticized by LBGTQ but supported by women" framing that simply does not fit either reality or the way the reliable sources depict reality. Feminists and women (overlapping groups) take both critical and supportive stances (but mostly critical, when push comes to shove) and men (mostly celebrities in this context) also take both critical and supportive stances. (I am not attributing any particular framing to you, SandyGeorgia, just noting genre of objection to some of the language you propose, which will need to be navigated at some point.)
 * I do agree that the best time to propose new lede language is after there is substantial agreement on the relevant section, per LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It would no longer say "criticised by LBGTQ", and considering all the performers criticising it as transphobic without regard to LBGTQ status, why need it quantify or specify the criticism to certain groups? This general formulation does not exclude overlapping groups; in fact, embraces them. (PS, many men are feminists.) We have no source that specifies broadly which group thinks what with the exception of The Guardian "broad array of feminists" supporting her, and another Guardian source that qualifies "leading actors" criticising her; one source does not due weight for lead inclusion make. Here's why I'm after some tentative (non-binding) agreement now.  We have an article that cannot pass FAR in its current state; it has a lead unsupported by sources (which we only discovered yesterday). If the large group of participants on this FAR can come to some consensus (after we finish the body) that we can present on article talk as having our consensus, we have a better chance of that being accepted without controversy.  If we can't do that, we're spinning our wheels on FAR. Once an article is defeatured, it turns to black goo on the internet because you lose WP:FAOWN and WP:WIAFA: we all lose. We don't need to do this now, but we do need to know that it's doable when the time comes.  If you reject my general formulation, how would you do it in a way that is likely to gain consensus and is verifiable with due weight to high quality sources?  That is, the launch point should probably be Duggan, Pugh, or something of that caliber. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What about:
 * These have been viewed alternately as transphobic or upholding women's rights.
 * ... completely removed the words support/criticise? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My own view is that this is going too far into FALSEBALANCE interpretation, more than guesstimates of who holds what view are likely to do - have been viewed ... as transphobic is supported by numerous, quality sources. What is the sourcing for viewed as ... upholding women's rights? Should we really be presenting both of these interpretations in parallel? Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I listed (some of) those in my post at 20:29, 28 March 2022 ... But I'm not tied to anything; again, what would you do to resolve this dilemma? It's think-outside-the-box time, unless we want to run a new RFC. And even if we did opt to run a new RFC, it's probably too early, and we'd have to generate options for the RFC anyway. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick history recap; though my memory is not perfect, I pieced this together from the linked discussions: it was originally added in February 2021, and for a long time the text said something very close to, have received criticism from some LGBT organisations and support from some feminists. At some point, this was whittled down to These views have led to controversy. In October 2021, a large discussion began when this was objected to, and in which I proposed reverting to the February version. What developed was the current version. The reason this sentence says "some feminists" in opposition despite the lack of textual support for (plural) feminists in the body is because some editors object to the only feminists being mentioned being the Rowling supporters.
 * Sandy, I recommend you read over the October 2021 discussion, especially the sources noted there - some of which likely have not found their way here. (There's also a link there to the February 2021 discussion in Archive 8 if you're interested.) Then, as you know, there was the massive (95 participants) November/December RfC, in which the official closure was no consensus (i.e. status quo remains) and a plurality of votes were specifically for Option A (the status quo). Beyond this there was division between full removal and a version which, in the view of myself and others, was far worse in unsupported text.
 * In case Newimpartial's question here is floating the idea of just mentioning the "transphobic" accusation without any mention of the main faction that supported her, this is contrary to numerous reliable sources clearly delineating these things. This would throw out dozens and dozens of votes from the RfC, who voted for options with that in place, and the closure for which left that version in place.
 * Personally, Sandy, I have no issue with your proposed summary sentence, but I doubt some others will accept it, and the recent RfC carries a lot of weight. I don't think rejecting the RfC status quo will lead to a better summary developing among the much smaller group here. I do very much want this article to remain an FA, especially after all the work put into it - the only thing currently unsupported is 'opposition from some feminists', correct? Can we find a way to support that in the body? I don't doubt it to be true at all. A quick additional mention of HP actors, if that is felt to be necessary, probably wouldn't be an issue.
 * Ultimately we do need to mention that who, broadly, is on each side of this social controversy. All of that is well sourced, but describing it concisely in the lead means editors need to put aside any personal conviction on who the 'true feminists' are or anything else and stick to the bird's eye view espoused in the best sources. Crossroads -talk- 06:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Crossroads; I appreciate particularly the detailed history of how an FA came to have text in the lead unsupported by any sources. I followed the RFC as it was happening, but knowing the article was likely to appear at FAR, and wanting to remain strictly neutral, I intentionally avoided seeing what position individuals took or what their reasoning was. When reviewing an article at FAC or FAR, I consider it imperative that I initially only look at what is on the page and in the sources, as I frequently have to critique writing of Wikifriends and associates, and  don't want to be influenced. For the same reasons, I intentionally completely avoided visiting this text until the rest of the article was up to snuff.  When I have read through the RFC, I have avoided reading through comments all the way to the sig line, unless they include sources.  So that is my state of knowledge, which only changed a few days ago when I started trying to draft and discovered for the first time that the article does not have (nor do there seem to exist) sources supporting the text. I did a lot of reading last night, and now have new sources and several ideas for helping clear up part of this.  I think we all agree that revisiting the RFC would derail all of our work, so I want to find something workable, and I think I have enough sources now for putting  forward proposals. Even if it takes us quite a few iterations to come up with something we can all accept, I at least feel now that it's doable within the restrictions the RFC left us under. I have quite a few possibilities for how to repair this, and will put them forward when not iPad typing, and as we continue work on the draft. Thanks again for the history, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, Crossroads, I was not floating the idea of leaving out Rowlings' supporters, which would be daft. I was objecting to the interpolation, viewed as ... upholding women's rights, unless there is substantial RS support for this as the reason some have supported her. If, for example, the only sourcing for this is those of her supporters who happen to be "gender-critical feminists", then I think it would be more neutral to note who these supporters are (gender-critical feminists), than to try to explicate their logic - which necessarily involves POV issues.
 * In retrospect, I have the feeling that the whole "some feminists ... other feminists" business could have been avoided by specifying which feminists defend Rowling: gender-critical ones. My objection, at least, to the February 2021 text was that it painted Rowling's supporters as LGBTQ and feminists as supporting her, which is false on both counts. Plenty of non-LGBTQ people, including actors, human rights groups, and feminists (especially cultural producers) have criticized Rowling's tweets, while her defenders are not at all limited to feminists (I would hazard a guess that not all the UK Conservative Party's culture warriors are regarded as feminists, for instance). I have no objection to any form of inclusion of this in the lead that doesn't mislead our readers. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I think now I understand the gist of everyone's main concerns. I have several ideas forming somewhere in the depths of my still-uncaffeinated-brain this morning, but roughly the biggest roadblock with all my formulations is this.  Sources give us several ways to categorize those opposed to Rowling:  we have sources supporting due weight to the LGBTQ charities, the leading actors, and even the Potter fansites if we feel they are warranted in the lead.  So I have no problem giving the opposition their due weight in the lead.  (I still don't have sources to explicitly put feminists in that group.) It is much harder to categorize her supporters, although I did find several new sources mentioning feminists in last night's reading.  The problem then is ending up with a sentence that is very specific as to who opposed her, while a vaguer generalization about some individuals that supported her. The only "group" identified in sources is feminists, which takes us back to something like "feminists and some individuals". But it seems that the core dispute here was around the use of feminists in the lead. Thus, I'll end up putting forward several ideas (once I gather the new sources together), and we'll just have to see what we can come up with. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

based on the issues raised above, could I get your opinion as to what leeway we have to repair the lead, considering the no consensus close? If the participants in this FAR (which has been well advertised at each step on the article talk page) come to consensus to adjust the lead to reflect reliable sources and due weight (which the current lead does not), would that be in breach of the RFC close? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, just noting that this has been one of the best attended (if not the best attended) FAR I've ever seen; it is rare to have so many editors participating, and we have a good number for forming consensus. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, since it was a no-consensus close (Convenience link) I don't think there is much to say. I think one point that comes through in that RfC is that you need to be super careful on how to write and source the lead statements, in particular to not generalize/extrapolate too much and to keep it in line with how the rest of the article discusses the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jo-Jo! Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I realize this section is a lot to read, and there is no hurry on this, but when you have time, could you tell us if any of the literary sources you have (I already have added Duggan and Pugh) specifically address the concerns here: that is, do they have anything mentioning or categorizing support/opposition to Rowling's views on the transgender tweets along cultural lines, feminism, women's rights, and similar? If so, perhaps email me those sources if you are able? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

New sources
here are the sources I found last night. I think these will provide the possibility of more broadly framing the controversy as it relates to differences among feminists (Pape also frames it as a freedom of speech issue, which makes me lean towards combining Pape with a much briefer mention of that issue from the Russell Award). I also found defense of Rohling among rights charities, conservative opinion, and the like, but I've checked today, and since they are not covered by any secondary sources, not usable. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Workshopping the transgender section
For background, please see notes at, and. 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)

Discussion of draft 1
Let her rip ... but remember, it will probably take multiple iterations, slow and steady wins the race, and collegiality will get us there faster. As most of you know, my prose always needs polishing, but if we stay focused on content early on (what goes, what stays), we can polish the prose in the later iterations. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin

 * I suppose at this point, we're going to need a sentence at the end summarizing the recent Putin speech and her response, aren't we? Silver  seren C 00:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think so; why do you? (Or perhaps you are referring to adding that to the Politics section, rather than Transgender? I don't think that rises to the level of inclusion here, as it can be fit in somewhere at Political views of J. K. Rowling. It's more a matter of him trying to stir people up by associating himself with her than it is about her. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While Putin's overall comparison was the effect sanctions were having on Russian cultural output, when Putin mentioned Rowling's views he specifically did so in the context that her views on transgender people were the reason why she was being cancelled. Per UK media Putin said They cancelled Joanne Rowling recently – the children’s author, her books are published all over the world – just because she didn’t satisfy the demands of gender rights The Guardian, The Independent, Sky News, BBC News, The i. While a broader mention would be in order at the Political views page, I think it is on balance due that a brief mention should be made in the transgender views section, as well as her response. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see ... when we get to Draft 2, I'll add a sentence. For now, I want to keep focus :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair! Thanks for understanding. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked at all those sources now, and I'm still unconvinced that this article needs to entertain Putin's fantasies. This is not something we'll remember Rowling for five or ten years from now, and WP:NOTNEWS seems apt.  seems to agree that mention of Putin isn't warranted here (see next section), so with you and  wanting to include it, we're split, and need to get further views from others. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose including Putin. This is a perfect example of the WP:RECENTISM that has plagued this section from the beginning. I agree that this is hardly going to be memorable in the future. It's just Putin stirring up the West, as usual. Maybe WP:DENY applies... 😁 yes it is sourced, but definitely a WP:NOTNEWS matter for this article. Crossroads -talk- 06:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So we are still somewhat split. I'd like to move forward to the next draft by tomorrow, and wish we'd hear from more people.  If we don't hear from others soon, I'll probably put the next version forward with a reminder of what is still pending. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose including Putin, per.... well, yes, WP:DENY 😁 and common sense! Rowling has been cancelled? Really? Has anyone told the people buying her books - 678 weeks in the NYT bestseller list? Heavily advertised blockbuster film coming out in a couple of weeks? Putin's remarks won't be remembered in 10 years. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Kennedy

 * Thanks for the draft! I am happy with the way you condensed the various reactions to her 2020 tweets and essay. My first read on the prose is that it's good enough, and it's likely that we'll want to tackle the ideas before we get into the wordsmithing. I don't think the Putin content needs a mention (yet?). I have some thoughts about the Russell prize that I'll bring up in a subsection below. I think the Kennedy stuff is afforded too much weight, which I see as a carryover issue from the current version. I'd cut it to something nearly as short as "Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the group Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights after its president, Kerry Kennedy, criticised her views." Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear more on that; I considered trimming it, but it is twice-fold relevant: Kenndy was her personal hero, and it's a kinda big-deal award. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good reasons, but there's too much big-deal stuff to cover here, and we have a sub-article. Of all the major beats in this history, I wouldn't single this one out for near-equal length when compared to the sub-article's treatment. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If others agree, will trim in draft 2, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that trimming it would be good. Crossroads -talk- 06:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps I can work the significance of her returning this award into one sentence by making use of the sourced statement "Rowling called it 'one of the highest honours I’ve ever been given' ..." or something to that effect. Unless others speak up soon and have different opinions, will work on that in draft 2. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Film franchise

 * With regards to the third paragraph, how separately are we treating the Fantastic Beasts films from the Harry Potter films? Both fall under the Wizarding World umbrella franchise, but in the text we're only specifically mentioning the Potter films. Given that actors from the Fantastic Beasts series have also criticised her, Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, and Dan Fogler have done so, should we amend that sentence to either include reference by name to both films, or the umbrella franchise as a whole? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How about changing "Harry Potter film series" to Harry Potter and related films? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems overly clunky to me? If we want to mention both franchises in the same statement, I think we'd be better using the Wizarding World umbrella. Something like ...and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned..., otherwise though it is more wordy, it would be clearer to mention both film series by name, eg ...and leading actors of the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts film series contemned... Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. Either version works for me; will wait to see what others prefer, for draft 2. (The source says "the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise" ... does that encompass both, or do I need to pile on more sources?  Keep in mind I am not a Harry Potter fan, and did not know a Hogwart from a warthog before this FAR.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From a quick look at the source it is only referring to the actors in the Potter films, and only Daniel Radcliffe by name. We'd need other sources for the other actors from that franchise, as well as the dissension by Fiennes. We'd also need a source for the Fantastic Beasts actors. As for how to explain the differences between the two film series to a non-Potter fan, it's similar to the differences between Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. Both series are part of the Star Trek franchise, and have overlapping characters who make cross-series appearances. But aside from the shared setting, the series are independent. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it ... on the list for round 2! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Is "leading" actors necessary? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe? How could it be phrased differently to accurately convey that all bar one of the primary actors of the Potter series, and at least three (I've not done an exclusive source search yet to check if there are others) of the leads from Fantastic Beasts have commented on this? Without specifying, we could run the risk of misinforming our readers that the comments were made by guest actors, or prominent background/supporting actors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sideswipe9th, and it's what the source said, so provided a neat way to tie up the list. I don't know how we could make an accurate statement without going back to a list, and almost every reviewer wanted to be rid of the list of who supported or not. (Fiennes supported her after that source was published.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

How's this? I've found a source for Redmayne that allows me to continue the "leading actors" wording supported by The Guardian (to keep the construct simple), and removed the "exception" wording on Fiennes, which was original research on my part. The new wording encompasses Redmayne. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I assume it's the bullet point below this, and above the sources? If so, looks good to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * LGBT charities and and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments;  GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".

Russell Prize
I'm not sure if anyone else has looked into it, but is the Russell Prize really much of a thing? As far as I can tell, the BBC's media editor just picks out work he liked that year and gave it a fancy name. There was no coverage of the prize before 2020 (he started in 2017), a bit of non-lasting coverage related to Rowling, and no prize was awarded in 2021. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Certainly it's a recent prize. The first year of it was 2017, but there was mention of it on the BBC website in 2018, 2019, and 2020. You are correct though that there has been no prize awarded for 2021. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am indifferent; will go with whatever the rest of you come to on consensus. I liked the mention of freedom of speech ... on the other hand, if we remove it, we can contain the size should we decide to add Putin. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember looking into this, and agreeing with Firefangledfeathers?  O-D? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem notable, especially relative to the awards in the next section. See the description: As always, the selection process was watertight, in that nominations were submitted by me, to a rigorous and impartial panel of one, also me, wherein I have self-identified as convenor, founder, chair, president, and - in a new designation for 2020, approved by me - CEO. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included, per you. Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We're still somewhat split. Pending hearing from more editors, I'll try to trim it in draft 2 to only keeping the freedom of speech reference.  Need More Feedback! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Essay summary incomplete
We have room for this when the Kennedy stuff is shortened.

Right now the description of Rowling's essay implies that it is almost entirely about security in bathrooms/changing rooms. Actually, her essay spends more length on other aspects that are covered in secondary sources about the essay and are mentioned at the Politics of J. K. Rowling spinoff article. I never got around to ensuring that was covered in the main article since, frankly, I didn't feel like dealing with the inevitable arguments about it. And I didn't want to do it early during the FAR and mess up the process. But it has to be done, and now's the time. Here's the summary in the spinoff article:


 * She said she was concerned that girls were transitioning in order to escape womanhood, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".

Here are quotes from each of those sources supporting it (the first is already being used in your draft): Reuters: She also said she has wondered whether she might have sought to transition to being a man had she been born 30 years later. She said she had received abuse for her views including being told she was “literally killing people with your hate.” She said she refused to “bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class.” Deadline: “I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class"...Another reason why Rowling says she tweeted stemmed from her concern about “the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.” “The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”

Other secondary sources on the essay, like The Guardian, also go into this: In her essay, Rowling writes of her own struggles with sexism and misogyny, and her adolescent sense of being “mentally sexless”, adding that reading accounts of gender dysphoria by trans men had made her wonder “if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition”. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred,” she wrote....She said she believed misogyny and sexism were reasons behind the 4,400% increase in the number of girls being referred for transitioning treatment in the past decade.

I could easily cite more, but I hope this will suffice to show that this article's coverage of the essay has only been partially complete. These sources and the essay itself treat these aspects as just as much a part of it as the other matters. Crossroads -talk- 07:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I avoided adding more on the essay for several reasons:
 * Trying to contain size (agree we now have room when Kennedy trimmed, and also agree due weight of the sources allows for more here)
 * Wanting to eliminate over-quoting, per many complaints, but not confident in my own writing to summarize the essence
 * Feeling it better to start small and see where others wanted to go
 * So, all-in-all, I agree the summary of the essay is now misleading. I'll work in more in draft 2, recognizing that others may need to start polishing my (stinky) prose by draft 3. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)