Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5

To do list
Please add new items here. If you have added an item, please revisit to strike once your concern has been addressed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * If we can leave that 'til the rest of the article is up to standards, it may be more understandable why that entire section needs work. (I had not realized earlier on the extent of the Accio.com problem; glad to see AP making progress on that, but it was an unanticipated setback.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings has a draft up on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed a sentence in "later Harry Potter works" to "Rowling collaborated with writer Jack Thorne and director John Tiffany", as the extra verbiage wasn't adding anything; if it needs to convey that the collaboration was in some way limited, might need to be revisited. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oxford comma usage isn't standardized; should likely be checked as we finish up. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While I'm always happy to the cleanup, Oxford comma usage is not a strength; who might look at this? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Generalized statement about social media, internet usage
A dilemma; (and anyone else actively following, but I know these three have all the sources). In the Legacy section, we have touched on the role of the internet in her fandom: We have also alluded to it in the Press section:  Her usage of social media is a factor in all three sections of Views: Politics, Press, and Transgender. Would it be possible to craft a two-sentence introduction to those three sections, so we don't need to add context about her usage of twitter to Transgender only? We shouldn't have to add size to that one section, when usage of twitter is a general thing affecting all of that section. I am thinking of the comments from Pugh: I could take the one-sentence from the earlier draft: but as a stand-alone introduction to that section, it feels too stubby, and I suspect there may be more in other sources that would permit a two-sentence introduction that applies to all three Views sections. While I have your attention :) Could we wrap up the items at #Nitpicks so we can archive that section? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rowling frequently expresses her political views on her Twitter account, with sharp, sardonic, and sometimes snarky responses to political leaders and their pronouncements.
 * ... sparked an online fan community both enthusiastically passionate as well as sharply critical in their responses to her creations and achievements.
 * Rowling often uses Twitter to express her political opinions.
 * I'm not totally sure what you're after here, but what about the following? Rowling is an active political commentator, expressing her views on Twitter, her personal website, and in the news media. Her public comments have centred on the politics of the United Kingdom, the press, and transgender issues. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * AP, I was after an expansion of the statement from your earlier draft, that is cited to Pugh ... do we have secondary sources for the version above? It looks more like a summary of the three sections ? I was hoping some of the other secondary sources cover her social media/internet usage as Pugh does, as that would provide context and a lead in to the three sections. Do Salter & Stanfill add anything about her usage of social media that would provide an introduction to the three sections in views ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the version above was a summary of the existing text. Here are some quotes from Salter & Stanfill, who do not focus much on her political engagement. Salter & Stanfill and Pugh are the only commentators I know of who devote any sustained attention to her online presence. I can send the complete Salter & Stanfill chapter to anyone who wants to read the whole thing. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Salter & Stanfill at 41:
 * Salter & Stanfill at 42:
 * Salter & Stanfill at 43:
 * Salter & Stanfill at 58:
 * Thanks; pages 43 and 58 give what I was after. If we augment your earlier sentence from Pugh, with one sentence from S&S, we can have a general lead-in at Views, before the three sub-heads, which prefaces and gives context for the Political, Press, and Transgender sections. Then e can avoid taking space in only the Transgender section for her twitter usage. Would others support that plan? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed introduction to Views section
I'm after something like this, to provide general context for how she uses the internet and her connections to express her views, so we don't have to cover that in the Transgender section. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)



Discussion of proposed introduction to Views
This is just an initial idea. If the suggestion is workable or accepted, the wordsmiths might improve my prose (which always needs polish). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents are that it looks quite good. Crossroads -talk- 04:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I like this. It clarifies the delineations between the various subsections. There's one thing I think we should add, based on a quote above; Rowling frequently expresses her political views on her Twitter account, with sharp, sardonic, and sometimes snarky responses to political leaders and their pronouncements. Leaving aside the controversy of some of her tweets, a recurring theme in many of them, across all of the topics, is her use of wit and sarcasm. I think we should include a brief mention of that in the generalised header paragraph. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Crossroads. Should I work in the 13.9 million Twitter following? Something like:
 * Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common and Twitter, where she has 13.9 million followers as of March 2022, became an important platform where she connected with Harry Potter fans. She often tweets about her political opinions, sometimes generating controversy and scrutiny of her views.

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My only concern with citing how many followers she has on Twitter is keeping it up to date. If that isn't done, then over the medium to long term it starts to look like the specific follower count was picked at an arbitrary point in time. We could avoid that by keeping it more general, something like ..., where she has amassed a significant following, became an important.... Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

So those comments bring us to 52 words:
 * Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common and Twitter, where she has amassed a significant following, became an important platform where she connected with Harry Potter fans. She often tweets about her political opinions using wit and sarcasm, sometimes generating controversy and scrutiny of her views.

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Installed here; trimmed to 43 words, and removed "siginficant" as original research. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm curious how "significant" is considered original research? Contextually it would be synonymous with sizeable, per the term "significant amount". Unless it's unclear, and instead suggests that she has certain notable figures following her? Otherwise looks OK to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The source says, "she told her 13.9 million followers on Twitter" ... if we qualify that as "significant" based on our interpretation, someone could question how we know that is a significant number (that is, in relation to what? what is a high, medium, low number of Twitter followers?  how did we decide that was a significant number ... besides common sense, which counts for zero on Wikipedia :); it would be nice to find a source that quantifies it for us ... I looked, but struck out. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I will early archive this as page size is over 200 now. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Query
Comment: I am confused by this process. Why is there an active discussion apparently taking place hidden away in an "archive" subpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 18:47, March 29, 2022 (UTC)


 * Any chance you could sign that, Bastun? Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Bot beat me to it - sorry, I was distracted. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

why do feel this discussion is "hidden"? I will momentarily put up a list of the number of times we have posted direct links to this page at Talk:J. K. Rowling, along with direct links provided in edit summary as we have edited the article, along with numerous notifications about the FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, you may be confused that every WP:FAR is placed at an archive page at its outset (because it is easier bookkeeping for Template:Article history); this FAR is still and quite active even though listed as an /archive page. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

And on 20 Feb 2022, and 23 Mar 2022, you seemed to be aware of the Featured article review. So, the page doesn't seem hidden, everyone seems to be finding the Featured article review, and if you think the work is hidden, do you believe we need to remediate that problem? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FAR notifications: Serendipodous; WT:WPBIO; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment; WT:BRISTOL; WT:CHL; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers; WT:WOMEN; WT:NOVELS; WT:FANTASY; WT:WPHP
 * Talk:J. K. Rowling notices and posts: 17 Dec 2021, 6 Jan 2022, 8 Jan 2022, 8 Jan 2022, 11 Jan 2022, 11 Jan 2022, 12 Jan 2022, 13 Jan 2022, 21 Jan 2022, 1 Mar 2022, 20 Mar 2022, 23 Mar 2022, 28 Mar 2022
 * Article edit summaries: 2 Mar 2022, 28 Mar 2022, 13 Jan 2022 (and probably more, stopped there)


 * Yes, the FAR has been mentioned on the main article talk page, and I did indeed make a suggestion on wording on the main article talk page (as well as reverting a breach of WP:TPG here). I guess that's also part of my point - why here, and not there?


 * I guess that from 15+ years of being an editor at WP, I'm also quite used to seeing notices at the top of "archive" pages, saying This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. I don't get why we would treat FAR issues differently, just to make things "easier bookkeeping for a template", rather than "easier for general editors", but I've never been involved in a FAR before.


 * Also, this "archive 1" also has multiple archives? That's Inception levels of meta! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can explain on your talk how all FAC and FARs came to be listed at archive pages (way back in about 2007 or 2008); don't want to take the space here. More relevant is, do you feel that these discussions are being missed or have not been widely enough notified?  The archives associated with the FAR, and discussion at the FAR, are to assure that all FAR-related stuff stays together and is easily found in the future Article history entry, which is something all FA participants are familiar with (having to look for some comments on the FAR and others on article talk would be ... ugh). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers, replied there. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

is it OK with you if this section is archived sooner rather than later, because of our page size issues? I am thinking in about a week ... ?? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sooner works for me! We're the only participants, bar a request from to sign from Newimpartial. Will do it now. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Procedural queries

 * 1) Just checking that others have seen my suggestions of sections to archive at the top of the page, to keep the page size manageable. If anyone objects to archival of some older sections, please speak up; by keeping a list of archived sections pinned at the top of the article, I've hopefully made it easier to locate older archived sections should anyone need to refer to them.
 * ✅ Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Also, when we reach the point of moving to draft 3, my plan is to remove the "current version" from the table in, since that is included in  and will be repeated in Draft 3. This is a space-saving measure; if anyone objects to that, please speak up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * New plan: with consensus not yet formed on some parts of Draft 2, but Draft 1 behind us, I will instead archive all of along with #Another initial query: status of the lead, but leave links back to them at the top of new sections. When discussions grow lengthy, newcomers are less likely to read anything, but having them easily accessible via hatnotes means those who will read them can find them. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem with archiving the older sections.
 * Sounds OK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (PS, taking into account that you expressed that you processed diffs better than broad changes, I've figured out how to provide you with a diff when we move from Draft 2 to Draft 3 ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohh! Thank you! You didn't have to go to that trouble! I normally just read each page update by the diffs in the page history, then find the corresponding text later if I need to reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , once I activated my brain, it wasn't hard at all; just put before and after in sandbox. Here are all the changes to Draft 2 since I posted it:  I can now do the same when we move to Draft 3. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Workshopping the transgender section
For background, please see notes at #Starting on gender section, #First draft ready 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
Draft 2 PROPOSAL (348 words)

Rowling's statements relating to transgender people have provoked controversy and have been deemed transphobic by critics. Her responses to proposed changes to UK laws and her general views on sex and gender have been criticised in a dispute that has divided feminists  and fueled a freedom of speech debate.

Rowling expressed support in December 2019 for Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views. In response, Rowling tweeted that trans people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate". While expressing empathy with trans people, Rowling was concerned that women's rights and reality were "erased" if "sex isn't real".

LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments;  GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with a 3,600-word essay. She revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that most trans people were "vulnerable" and "deserved protection", she believed safety was at risk by allowing "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny, she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".

The Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, UK charities Mermaids and Stonewall, and US charity Human Rights Campaign also criticised Rowling. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the group Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. Rowling has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist), though she rejects the label. As her views on transgender issues came under fire, some performers and feminists have supported her.

Discussion of draft 2
I am putting this up without yet having heard from all participants because AleatoryPonderings indicated on my talk page that they have COVID; I thought it best then, to keep moving, even though I haven't gotten everything. Summary: I have not yet dealt with Putin: more feedback needed. I have: and significantly (I hope :) added three new sources to provide context on the feminism debate to hopefully (later) help us resolve status of the lead more broadly, as opposed to naming/labeling who supports/who opposes. My sincere apologies if I missed something. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * trimmed Kennedy
 * addressed Film franchise
 * removed Russell Prize while alluding to it along with a new source that mentions freedom of speech
 * added one more sentence for Essay summary incomplete
 * added Human Rights Campaign

"Some critics"

 * Partial adjustment made: "Some critics" and "women's rights" removed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

First comment - I don't think "Some critics" is an appropriate opening for the section, for two reasons: (1) it isn't just "some" of the critics: it is most or nearly all of the critics, and (2) it is not only critics who make this statement; some independent, reliable sources use their own editorial voice for this. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I took that explicitly from a source, as it's hard to rejig that without original research. Propose a solution, pls.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What if we just say "Critics"? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a slight improvement, but I think the sources support (and I would prefer) "Rowling's statements relating to transgender issues have been widely criticized and labelled as transphobic". Here are multiple, reliable sources using these specific terms:     including People, Reuters and Newsweek. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with widely criticised (other than continuing to fight the z to s issue). The problem with your recast, though, becomes the same I'm fighting throughout: we end up using the same word (criticised) in two consequent sentences in the lead. That's why I can't work piecemeal on this, and always put up a full new version. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's easy: change the second sentence to something like, provoked controversy, which would not only be less repetitive but would actually add information for the reader, since the ensuing controversy has spilled over well beyond discussion of Rowling herself - and the sources reflect this. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just change "some critics" to "critics". "Widely criticized and labelled as transphobic" is a violation of WP:WEASEL: Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. (Emphasis added.) "Widely" is specifically named as a weasel word there. It would be wide open to a "by whom?" tag. Not all segments of society consider her comments such.
 * 3 out of the 5 sources that Newimpartial points to are entertainment-focused outlets, hardly papers of record, and such sites make no pretense of politically unbiased reporting or of taking care to represent societal views in specific and non-sensational terms. Even then, People doesn't support "widely" for "transphobic", and ET Canada only says it with the very important limiting clause "on Twitter". Of the other two, Newsweek doesn't support "transphobic", and Newsweek is a questionable source, in yellow at RSP (WP:NEWSWEEK). That just leaves Reuters, which is a good source, but merely says (emphasis added) The essay was widely criticized by LGBTQ advocacy groups as divisive and transphobic.
 * Those few sources which do make the broader claim are also not representative of reliable sources in general. As noted, two of the ones already mentioned do not make it, and there are many, many others which discuss the broad situation, are highly reliable, and make no claims about "widely" (I can find more if needed, but here are two examples).
 * All in all, just stating "critics" works best. Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, Crossroads. The support for "widely criticised" is stronger than you say, and the error would be limiting the criticism to "critics", as though Rowling had a pre-existing group of detractors waiting to respond negatively to whatever she said. My proposed text is "widely criticised" and "labelled as transphobic", each of which is strongly supported in the sources. My understanding was that you had conceded in prior discussions that "labelled as transphobic" is widely supported, but if you like, I can add sources for that too, later. This discussion is supposed to be about "widely".
 * So, for "widely criticized" we have This isn't the first time Rowling has been called out for anti-trans comments. In December, she was widely criticized for supporting a researcher who lost her job after saying she did not agree that "trans women are women." (Today), J.K. Rowling was widely criticized over the weekend for supporting anti-transgender sentiments in a series of social media posts (People), Routers The essay was widely criticized by LGBTQ advocacy groups as divisive and transphobic and ET Canada Rowling’s message has been widely criticized on Twitter, with many accusing her of being transphobic. I'll drop Newsweek, and add Insider Rowling has been widely criticized by LGBTQ people and allies since 2020 when she tweeted about her belief that trans activism hurts women and lesbians, Kirkus after a series of tweets from Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling was widely criticized as being transphobic and the New York Times Ms. Rowling was widely criticized in 2020 after voicing support for a researcher whose views on transgender people had been condemned by a court. From the UK we also have PinkNews Her comments have been widely criticised by fans and even Harry Potter stars, Metro Ms Rowling, who has been widely criticised for her views on transgender rights in recent years, NME after the author was widely criticised for her comments about transgender people, the Daily Record The author has been widely criticised by LGBTQ+ activists for her remarks about transgender people, which have been viewed as transphobic and The Independent Rowling, whose views on transgender rights have been widely criticised in recent years. And these are only sources using "widely". Business Insider Australia, and sources in India and Ireland also support "widely criticised". And these are only sources using "criticized". USA Today chose widely condemned as did EW.com and the Irish Mirror. I could go on all day. And while a few of these sources identify the criticism with certain groups (usually LGBTQ people, Harry Potter fans or actors), most of these sources do not, simply stating in their own editorial voice that Rowling's tweets or her essay (or Troubled Blood, but I have left all of those sources out of list) are widely criticized/condemned. To pretend that this language is found only in a few sources that are not representative of reliable sources in general is pure POV nonsense, as far as I can tell - reliable sources communicate, in varied language, that these tweets and the essay have been widely criticised. The Independent and The New York Times use this language exactly. Not to mention the many, many sources showing that not only activists and actors, but also other performers, writers, human rights groups, and people in politics and the culture industries - as well as random Twitter users - have also participated in this widespread criticism. Meanwhile, I am aware of no sources at all suggesting that Rowling was not "widely criticized"; this is a statement of uncontested fact, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder here, so we can keep the discussions focused, that a Featured article uses the highest quality sources. In this draft, and to support division among feminists, I added back the New Statesman source with the mention of Judith Butler in the spirit of compromise, although we have no higher quality or multiple mentions of her.  If that level of sourcing means we're going to spend a lot of bandwidth here discussing sources that will never be used in the article, I fear people will be less inclined towards seeking middle ground and compromise here in the wording.  Let's stay focused please on due weight from high quality sources, and consider whether spending time on a word like "widely" will have any impact ultimately on the lead, which is where we will eventually have to spend our time.  Also keep in mind that we'll move from working on what gets included to polishing prose in Wikipedia space once we have reached some stability among participants here:  compromise consensus collaboration collegiality to get to a place where we can settle the body and move on to the lead. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Much as I am tempted to get into the discussion of, say, how internet controversies are better covered by specialized sources than they are by more conventional "high quality" sources, I will hold off on that for now.
 * But SandyGeorgia, are you not under the impression that the New York Times, The Independent, Reuters, Business Insider and Kirkus Reviews are among the "high quality" sources we should be following, here?
 * My own actual view, by the way, is that we need to see sources as an ecosystem; I see many dangers that result when we impose personal hierarchies within the universe of independent RS (an act I have mostly seen done either TENDentiously or as a resource management strategy). While I would never suggest that the Irish Mirror ought to carry the same weight as the NYT or The Guardian, I do find a wide range of professionally written and edited sources to be relevant (and I have a particular fondness for literary magazines as sources, as discussed previously). Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In general (although the page hasn't covered everything) see WP:RSP. More specifically, I'm relying on what I have seen frequently questioned at WP:FAC and WP:FAR over 15 years of engagement there (and is likely to be questioned here when/if we reach the stage of postulating that the article is ready for a FAR decision).  Business Insider is likely to be questioned, as is People magazine. Newsweek and Metro UK would be clearly unacceptable.  New Statesman isn't even covered at RSP, so I convinced myself it was OK to add since it only gives background to the "some feminists" issue, without actually citing text about Judith Butler.  Those are just some examples (I haven't yet this morning fully digested everything above). Then, moving even beyond RSP, and thinking of when we get to the lead (which is where the metal hits the pedal), we have to be really focusing on due weight in the highest quality sources.  Just to keep the end goals in mind ... down in the body of the article, where do we best spend our time?  I'm suggesting that the word widely isn't a hill worth dying on. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * RSP is a useful quick checklist for source reliability, but it only explicitly has entries for sources that have multiple queries made about their reliability. That a source isn't on RSP isn't an obvious indicator of whether or not a source is reliable, just that it hasn't been frequently discussed. For that you really need to do a search of the RSN archives. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree (which is why I added that I am relying on what I have seen questioned over the years, and why I went ahead and added New Statesman ... against my better judgment and in the spirit of compromise to help resolve the lead problem). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If it helps, Duggan mentions Butler's interview in New Statesman in p. 15, footnote 6. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah ha ... yes, that makes me feel less un-FAish for having added the source :) Thanks, O-D! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: I'm not saying "widely or bust", but I also don't see how the sources using "widely" are at all inferior in quality to those not using "widely" (nor do I see how sources not using that word can be reasonably interpreted as !voting against "widely", an argument I have seen Crossroads make - with impressive tenacity - on parallel cases at WT:WTW). Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting we stay focused. Widely is not in the RFC-imposed lead, and I doubt would make it into the lead even if a new RFC were held, now or any time in the future, unless boatloads of high quality RS support it.  Whether that word is or isn't added way down in the body of a 9,000 word article is of no consequence to most readers.  A non-FA JKR article will open it up to chaos, turn it to black goo on the internet, and a defeatured JKR over Hills Not Worth Dying On ultimately benefits no one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion on that, and I am entitled to mine. Mine is based on what I take to be WP:NPOV in this area - describing facts as facts, according to the sources; making sure that opinions are voiced as opinions; and ensuring that we follow the BALANCE of the best available sources without falling into FALSEBALANCE traps. At the moment, my only concern is that we end up with an article section that meets these criteria with high quality sources attached; if that is done, then the existing lead or any eventual future lead will work fine, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably just a prose issue and probably easily fixed. Suggest rephrasing the first sentence to something like this: There has been backlash against Rowling in response to her transphobic statements relating to women's rights and transgender people. Thoughts? Victoria (tk) 18:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but I don't think we can put either women's rights OR transphobic statements in Wikivoice, since both of those characterizations are part of the dispute. As I note below, a typical phrase in French is jugé transphobique, which doesn't have a really convenient translation (though "labelled transphobic" comes closest, I think). Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We can hedge with something like this: There has been backlash against Rowling in response to her statements relating to transgender people, which have been labelled transphobic. I've removed "women's rights", which we can probably put in a separate sentence or combine elsewhere, and used "labelled transphobic". Victoria (tk) 19:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I came across several sources (could not say which without digging) which used a phrase something like "deemed transphobic by critics". Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Deemed transphobic works too. Here's the sentence w/ "labelled" struck and "deemed" instead. There has been backlash against Rowling in response to her statements relating to transgender people, which have been labelled deemed transphobic. In my view "critics" isn't really necessary because it's implied, but I could be wrong. At issue here is that we're working through a "draft" - by definition still in need of work (and thanks Sandy for presenting something to work from!). Victoria (tk) 19:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I believe that "widely criticized" is more precise and better sourced than "backlash", but these new proposals at least have the merit of not being misleading. Personally, I would probably prefer a "provoked controversy" statement in the first sentence and "widely criticized" in the second, or perhaps "accused of transphobia" or "widely condemned" in the second sentence. Any of these would be based on very good sources (NYT, Reuters and The Independent for "widely criticized"; BBC, Times of London, and LA Times for "accused of transphobia"; The Independent, Variety, and LA Times (again) for "condemned", among many - a number of good French sources also support "accused of transphobia", by the way). Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not in love with "backlash" myself. "Provoked controversy" is fine. How about this: Rowling has provoked controversy in response to her statements relating to transgender people. I've dropped "transphobic", because I agree that it shouldn't be in wikivoice and might prefer to use a quote or an attribution. So this iteration of the sentence is to make it a general topic sentence. Victoria (tk) 19:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We have transphobic in the RFC-imposed lead; this draft is attempting to deal with that problem, and the second problem that we have unsupported claims about feminism in the lead. If we can't somehow source transphobic in the body, we risk having to run a new RFC only three months after the last one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, that is precisely why I attributed "transphobic" to "critics" using a source (NBC News). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarification. Here's my last effort for the day (getting tired :)))Rowling's statements relating to women's rights and transgender people have provoked controversy and have been deemed transphobic. Still needs work, but I'm out for now, hopefully I can get back here tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's what is in the lead, and unsourced in the body:
 * These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.
 * All passed in an RFC never mind being unsourced in the body. Unless we keep in the body a) criticised as transphobic by LGBT groups (which the word critics was attempting to do), and b) can figure out how to source some feminists calling her transphobic (perhaps we can fudge on one feminist, Judith Butler), then our options are to run another RFC or find a fix to the lead that won't trigger controversy.  The second part of the sentence (support from other feminists) and easily be or is already sourced and sourcable. I am thinking we may need to separately workshop the first two sentences of this draft, so we can sort the evventual lead problem, including a formal survey of all participants here, so we can move on with the rest.  We are trying to work around an RFC-imposed lead that was not sourced when it was RFC'd. This won't be easy, because we are contending with a fatally flawed RFC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandy, it didn't "pass an RfC". An RfC closed no consensus (but consensus that something on the issue should stay in the lead), and that defaulted to the status quo. You make it sound as if the RfC offered a choice between one text and another, with sources presented for each, but that isn't remotely like what happened. (The RfC was intended by its movers as a choice of language but was then almost immediately brigaded using biased notices; a significant minority of !votes supported removal of any mention from the lead, which was not at all the question the RfC was designed to answer. This environment wasn't conducive to reaching any kind of consensus, much less evaluating sources for purposes of wordsmithing.) Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't disagree on the big picture (please ignore that I'm accustomed to using the word "passed" because of my work at FAC and FAR). I still think we are somewhat stuck with what we have based on similar reasoning to what Jo-Jo said, in that we have to be extremely careful if we try to change it. And most likely, as soon as we do try to change it, we'll have another fuss.  Meaning we are walking a tightrope to find a compromise that won't generate controversy. Other people were stating on the main FAR page that we were close enough and should try to tweak/repair the body, but not attempt a full rewrite; this was before we knew that we had text in the lead that was never even supported in the body, so the tightrope became even thinner.  While trying to remedy this, we seem to have deviated from our plan not to do a full rewrite, with requests to add material that has never been there.  My personal view is that a new, carefully planned RFC, developed in collaboration rather than launched by surprise, will be needed in a year regardless, since the article is now hamstrung by a poor RFC, but also has WP:RECENTISM issues that will need to be addressed over time ... we'll have more scholarly sources in a year and can stop going back and forth on what sources are best, and dipping in to lower quality sources.  I'd like to see us reach a compromise for now, with the understanding that a better positioned RFC will be planned at about the year mark ... leaving plenty of time to plan the wording and launch it without the chaos of the last one (which seems to have been a surprise poorly planned launch, and no RFC works well that way). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've got a selection of other feminists for you, in case this helps square this peg. Unfortunately all, bar the two published in the English language version of De Correspondent and one in Current Affairs (magazine), are self published on blogs, their own websites, or social media in general. I've tried to find secondary sources citing these or other statements by these individuals as some have made many such examples, but I've not had much luck so far. If I can find any I will add them to the list.
 * Julia Serano: Current Affairs, Julia's Twitter
 * Laurie Penny: Laurie's Medium blog
 * Valentijn de Hingh The Correspondent
 * OluTimehin Adegbeye: The Correspondent
 * Grace Lavery: Grace's website
 * Katy Montgomerie: Katy's Medium blog Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you unpleased if we just say feminists are divided, as we now have in the draft, since that is decently sourced? I suspect an adjustment to the lead along those lines would not be controversial ... no? ... because it's close to what we have now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not unpleased by that, though I can't say I'm enthusiastic about it either. As a compromise it's OK. Mostly I was just trying to address where you said perhaps we can fudge on one feminist, Judith Butler by providing some other names to go alongside Butler. But if we've moved on from that in the time I was trying to find sources for this list, that's grand. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with New Statesman for Butler, and saying divided to avoid the one/some/many conundrum, but we just can't really use blogs in an FA; we need secondary source coverage. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, a situated statement about transphobia has to be in the section, not because of the RfC but because the great mass of high-quality sources on the topic reliably document this as being what it is about: "accusations of transphobia" or "condemnation for transphobic tweets" or "positions that have been labelled transphobic" or what have you. Sources sympathetic to Rowling as well as those presenting more critical voices all agree that the issue concerns transphobia or anti-trans positions or statements that are (said to be) harmful to trans people. There isn't really another major topic here, though freedom of speech/"cancel culture" and doxxing and "women's sex-based rights" emerge as secondary topics in the RS.
 * Victoria, Rowling's statements relating to women's rights is a non-neutral phrase, taking one point of view that is disputed by others. Most of the RS do not agree that Rowling's statements "relate to women's rights", although of course some document that she sees her perspective in this light, and a minority of sources accept this framing. Many, however, disagree quite explicitly, so it isn't a thing we can say in wikivoice. Newimpartial (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We edit conflicted, will look in later, tied up right now. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to strike "women's rights". That gives us, Rowling's statements relating to transgender people have provoked controversy and have been deemed transphobic. Can you put up the next suggestion? I've run out of energy for the day. Victoria (tk) 20:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this content. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, you can see from this RFC-imposed dilemma what I was hoping to accomplish with Draft 2: specifically source the first half of the lead sentence with "some critics" (which could be reduced to just "critics"), and find a way to split the difference on the feminism problem, by just saying it divided feminists (so we don't have to count one, some or many). With most sources supporting that many feminists don't see the statements as transphobic, then we can't make them transphobic in wikivoice. Hence "critics".  I don't see a strong case for keeping "women's rights" at this point; I introduced before it Victoria educated me via NYT. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Add "by critics" to the end of Victoria's sentence, and I'm good. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, my apologies that I am just discovering how the reply tool handles edit conflicts, so that my last two posts crossed in the mail with other people's posts ... I will take greater care going forward. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Does this work? Rowling's statements relating to transgender people have provoked controversy and have been deemed transphobic by critics. Victoria (tk) 20:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think, given we've (all ?? I think ??) agreed to drop "women's rights", and drop "some", that does the job. With those two adjustments, it's a better version of what is at the first sentence of Draft 2 now ... but I still need to look at whether we should reverse the order of the two sentences. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial adjustment for now; I played around with trying to switch the order of the sentences, but it just didn't work, and in fact, I thought ended up watering down the impact. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good compromise. Crossroads -talk- 04:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can live with it. Newimpartial (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Copy edit nitpick
Second comment - I'm not happy with She expressed empathy with trans people, along with concern that women's rights and reality were "erased" if "sex isn’t real". As a minimal change, I'd suggest While expressing empathy with trans people, Rowling was concerned that women's rights and reality were "erased" if "sex isn't real". Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * As a general note on this, I am struggling with too much repetitive prose throughout (eg, words like criticise, expressed, concern); looking for ways to vary prose, but for now, let's focus on what is in and what is out content-wise. We can fix my prose later. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't add any repetition. :p Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  Since we don't seem to be approaching readiness for Draft 3, I am going ahead and fixing the little stuff in Draft 2. Better ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. (Forgot to say this yesterday.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion of doing a copy-edit/repetition pass at the end, once we know what content will be in. It's easier once we know what it is we're saying to avoid redundancy when saying it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

UK-centrism?

 * Note for subsequent readers: "women's rights" removed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Third comment - the reaction described in the section seems overly UK-centric (the sources cited in the section include non-UK performers among Rowling's critics, for example, but the proposed text doesn't communicate this). Also, the reaction from the writing, publishing and bookselling communities is missing, and seems more germane than some of what is included. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not following (possibly because I do not know what is UK centric vs. what is not). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that Rowling's comments have been widely criticized outside the UK, but your draft doesn't communicate this clearly.
 * As far as the literary and publishing communities are concerned, we have RS coverage of a letter by North American writers opposing Rowling's views and of letters on both sides of the controversy within the UK literary community.
 * The reactions of Canada's largest book retailer, Rowling's major rights-holder in Hollywood, and the president of the relevant game studio seem pertinent (and happen to represent the relevant cultural industries and non-UK perspectives, simultaneously).Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Got the literary, still confused on UK centric. I don't know where you think the text implies that the criticism is only in the UK or has not been criticized outside the UK ... ?  Perhaps I am just too tired (after the query below your posts, it's probably time for me to walk away for the day).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is her views on women's rights that first signals UK-centrism to me. I know that is Rowling's framing, but it is a framing that mainstream UK sources accept, at least in part, but I can't think of any non-UK sources that would use "women's rights" in this context (as opposed to "women's experience", which many non-UK sources would use instead).
 * Otherwise, the mainstream UK-based framing is "some people criticise her and others support her", while the mainstream framing in North America is "opinion in the UK is mysteriously divided, but around here most voices* are critical of her views". This difference between UK and non-UK (and in this context I mean mostly North American) reaction does not come across at all in the draft - it is only the UK framing that comes across. Hence, UK-centric.
 * There are fringe right-wing voices in the US and Canada that are pro-Rowling on trans issues, but I think that reinforces rather than undermines my generalization here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to digest this tomorrow; hopefully others will weigh in and lend some clarity. I can only deal in what sources give me, and I don't know where to go with this.  I think Duggan is in Norway, and Pape is in Switzerland (although educated in US and with US publishings and connections), and Pugh is in South Carolina ... but Pugh gives us little to work with as the paper was before the second Forstater tribunal.  We've got a preponderance of UK sources, which is natural since Rowling is British, but important pieces from NYT, CNN, USA today, NBC News ... I just don't know how to address this. For Rowling it is a women's rights issue, no?  She's from the UK: how do we leave that out? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just popping in for a moment. I read this NYT article some months ago, "How British Feminism Became Anti-Trans and found it interesting. It doesn't mention Rowling, (though it I found whilst searching for Rowling throught the NYT archives). For me, at least, it added perspective and I believe explains the differences UK vs. US framing. Anyway, putting it here, in case it's helpful - it might not be. I have some other sources too, but still fighting health issues. Will add what I can when I can if needed. Victoria (tk) 20:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Victoria. I was thinking of linking to this piece as background, and I'm glad you did. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that we leave out Rowling's framing or marginalize UK perspectives. Also, I am talking here mostly about the difference in perspective among publishers: between, say, the perspectives of The Guardian and The Independent on the one hand and those of the NYT, People, Newsweek and, say CBC.ca on the other. I find that the way the section is currently drafted favors the former framing over the latter, mostly by leaving out the voices of writers, film and game studios and booksellers as well as "performers" (and here I am thinking especially of musicians more so than actors) who are, outside the UK, fairly uniformly critical of Rowling's views.
 * And I have to disagree with We've got a preponderance of UK sources, which is natural since Rowling is British - I don't think the preponderance of reliable sources specifically concerning the trans tweets and the essay is British, which is one of the reasons I've used some non-UK sources in my comments above in the "some critics" section. (In this section, I've cited a UK source on the US letter, which I suppose could be read as a kind of colonial anxiety on my part. But I digress...)
 * Finally, as far as For Rowling it is a women's rights issue, no? Well, for her, sure it is. And I'm not objecting to your second and third mentions of "women's rights", which are situated clearly in relation to her views/experience. But the first one, that critics have labelled Rowling's statements relating to women's rights and transgender people as transphobic puts "relating to women's rights" in wikivoice, and I think this is disputed. Deutsche Welle, for example, refers to controversial statements about trans rights and the classification of trans women as women. Canadian and US sources typically refer to statements "about the transgender community" or "about transgender people". Looking just now, I haven't been able to find any sources outside the UK that accept the "women's rights" framing, which in my view means that it must be avoided in wikivoice according to core WP:NPOV principles. Newimpartial (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't sign your post, I can't use the reply tool (it doesn't give a link), and when I am iPad typing, that adds a whole 'nother level of frustration. The reason I had left out everything you listed is much simpler than all this ideology added Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC) (eg in the NY piece from Victoria):  a) we decided not to do a complete rewrite, rather just patch up what was here and that stuff wasn't here (yours is the first mention of wanting to include more of this in an already long section), and b) this section is already too long in relation to the rest of the article.  I can probably work in the writers etc in one or two sentences; will we have to sacrifice then something else that someone else wants? WP:SS; there's a sub-article.  We don't have to include everything (eg Putin). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the signature glitch, which came from an edit conflict (with Victoria; not her fault, of course, and I should have seen my error).
 * You might have noticed that I was not someone who weighed in on the "patch what's there" question. My own method is dialectical - when I see something misaligned at a top level (this time, what I have called "UK-centrism") I look at the bottom level for what seems to be missing and what seems to be over its skis. In the case of your draft, I see you introducing the "women's rights" framing in Wikivoice (which is not in the status quo). Also, thanks to your much improved organisation and presentation of the material, I now notice that the reactions noted in the piece do not represent those I see in the broader RS coverage. I especially feel that responses from Rowling's literary peers and from her licensees at Warner are of more encyclopaedic interest than a lot of what we find in the status quo version.
 * I understand the desire to trim the section and don't disagree with that goal. However, the requirement to use NPOV language and to represent the available reliable sources as a whole, in relation to the more encyclopaedic elements of this topic, is more pressing for me than the desire to trim a sentence or to avoid rocking the boat by changing the list of elements included in the previous version. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So are you saying more than a) lose the "women's rights" in the first para, and b) find space to add in the writers etc (which I may be able to do in one sentence, possibly two), or is that the full gist of this section? My thinking is that the size should not grow from where it is now.  I could shorten the RFK award back to what Firefrangledfeathers suggested, and we wouldn't have room for Putin ... what else might we do? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At the outset I asked about how flexible the word limit is, and the response was that it wasn't set in stone. As we seem to be butting up against it a few times now, perhaps that is a sign that we need to increase it slightly? I understand wanting to stick to summary style, but it seems as though right now the approach is too rigid to cover the content without the potential for misunderstanding.
 * Or another alternative approach is to disregard it entirely for draft 3, to get the various bits of content in, and then trim it back again for draft 4. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's still flexible; I was expressing my personal view. I have a very hard time justifying the size of this WP:RECENTISM section when I look at the sizes of other sections at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6. So far, I have included everything everyone has asked for; consensus is split on Putin, and Firefangledfeathers wanted Kennedy trimmed further than I did. So I think we're on track, unless there's something I'm leaving out that consensus says we need. I still think we can get this new content in, without sacrifice (if I am correctly understanding what Newimpartial wants).  My suggestion is that, after all have weighed in, we proceed to Draft 3, and then Draft 4 moves to the old Wikipedia space we set up at Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft where everyone can edit to clean up prose. At that point, we make a prominent announcement on talk, and hope we don't get blowback for the Bastun notification concern, and determine if that version stabilizes. Then we discuss if it's ready to install.  And then we deal with the real problem, which is syncing the unsourced content in the lead with the body.  The key dilemma is the lead problem more than this section, and whether others think that we can use my new sources to adjust the lead in a way that won't rock the RFC boat. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For Rowling it is a women's rights issue, no? Yes, but that also frames any resulting discussion of her arguments exclusively in her terms. It's not at all uncommon for a person making a controversial remark, especially in the areas of gender, sexuality, politics, or racism, to frame it in a way that sanitises their views. This is quite often done through euphemisms*. The people criticising those views will almost universally draw attention to that euphemism, to clarify what the actual intent of the words are. In transgender contexts, this is frequently done by making it seem as though women's rights are in conflict to, if not diametrically opposed to trans rights. This is especially the case in the UK, and Rowling herself is no stranger to doing so.
 * She's from the UK: how do we leave that out? I don't think we need to leave it out per say, more that we need to as Newimpartial says, avoid putting Rowling's framing in Wikivoice, as doing so would be a NPOV violation.
 * * Yes I know I just inline linked a YouTube video, I'm not suggesting we cite it in the article, nor am I suggesting or implying Rowling is in any way alt-right. It just the video explains better the use of euphemisms in a controversial topic area than I can. If I knew of a similar video that wasn't using alt-right politics as a framing mechanism, ideally one that used gender as its framing mechanism, I'd use it. Unfortunately I don't know of such a video. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the NYT article from Victoria, I get the big picture now. By dropping women's rights in the first para, are the concerns satisfied or is there more? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would the first sentence then read Some critics have labeled Rowling's statements relating to transgender people as transphobic, with otherwise the same sources and subsequent sentences? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because Newimpartial had other issues (see section above). I'll recast the two sentences once we've heard from others ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Right; in the earlier section I proposed Rowling's statements relating to transgender issues have been widely criticised and labelled as transphobic for the first sentence, and replacing the repetitive "criticised" in the second sentence with "provoked/led to/engendered controversy" (pick a verb; the key point is the controversy). I would also see the point in flipping the order of the two sentences, since in this instance I think the controversy is the big heading and the accusations and counter-claims must be brought in to explain what the controversy is about. Newimpartial (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. Odd thing on Wikipedia how we also sometimes end up writing sentences around where the stupid little citations will be least bothersome.  Sidswipe9th, the reason I like to have all suggestions in before rewriting is to sort repetitive prose and such ... I was also thinking of flipping the sentences, but prefer to work with the big picture ... someone else may come up with something else that needs to be factored in. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Personally I prefer the other way, working with the small bits. I see details better that way before they feed in to the big picture. Also helps prevent me from becoming overwhelmed by the enormity of how a thing may be at the outset. Unfortunately for this specific bit, it will prevent me from giving any useful feedback on whether a proposed change will resolve the issue, until I can see the change as enacted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well unless someone else comes up with something else that has to be factored in, Newimpartial summed it up ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Sandy, to be clear - I'd have to see the actual draft, but in principle a recast of the first two sentences goes a long way to assuage my concerns, and some added content that includes the North American writers' letter could go the rest of the way (I'd rather have that plus Warner rather than that plus the much less-signed UK letters, but that's not an ultimatum). Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, unless someone else comes in with something major that affects overall size dramatically, I think everything raised so far is easily doable. I was quite set back today by Bastun's post, fearing we are moving too fast and I'm also worried about AleatoryPondering's absence per COVID, but I'm fairly certain AP has no strong concerns about this section, nor does Vanamonde93, so I'm hoping we've heard from everyone who has an opinion by now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS prosewise, I'm still bothered that the live article now has 10 instances of the word criticism; that is unavoidable in a literary topic, but six of them are in the Transgender section. Wordsmiths alert ... we need to vary the prose. Fortunately, we have only one use of the word controversy there now, and we use condemned in this draft in one place ... have to watch for too many expressed concerns. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For now, I have adjusted to remove "women's rights"; I'm having a harder time with the suggested additions, as the sources are varied as to what each criticism was, and I'll need to work further tomorrow. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see any kind of "UK-centrism", any more than we would expect and be unable to avoid for a UK writer. I think "women's rights" is well-sourced, but as a compromise, if that phrase is deleted, I guess that's fine. However, I also see no need to mention anything about the game developer, a Canadian bookseller, etc. There are tons of opinions from variously-connected individuals that we have just summarized, even ones more closely connected that are not specifically named anymore. Not every person who opined on this will be mentioned.
 * If the American literary-figure group letter is mentioned, the two UK ones should also be mentioned. This is per NPOV and the fact that it would be quite odd to leave out the reaction of writers in her own country while emphasizing foreigners. And Americentrism is already a problem on Wikipedia.
 * The idea of "widely criticized" was floated here, but "critics" is much better, as I will address above under . Crossroads -talk- 04:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing about the letters is that the North American (Margaret Atwood isn't American) one was signed by far more literary figures than the two UK letters combined, and it is much easier to discuss - for the other two, it would be necessary to point out that the pro-Rowling letter came first, and was followed by a more widely signed critical letter. For North America, the story line is much simpler (and this is part of my point): long list of literary figures like up in support of trans people in response to Rowling's tweets. Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it is right to distinguish fairly clearly between the UK & Nth American responses, not try to lump them together, but what about the rest of the world, since HP is a huge global phenomenon? We don't seem to have anything from anywhere else, rather typically for WP. In the absence of any evidence, I'd imagine it is more like the UK, perhyaps even less outraged. We should try to tackle this. SG, anything in Spanish? Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've linked coverage above from Germany, Ireland and India, though most of it is about what prominent voices in North America and the UK have to say (relevant for DUE but not able to preempt a "globalize" template). I've also seen coverage of booksellers in Australia reacting against Rowling, and of Australian politicos getting dragged into gender identity disputes linked to Rowling, but someone more familiar with the Australian media landscape would be better placed to sift through that coverage. The New Zealand coverage I've seen was (like the coverage from India) quite global in focus, though I had hoped to find something more local. I haven't looked at the non-English language sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As usual on WP of course. I forgot Putin, though I don't say he needs a mention. The French bio cites a number of local stories, as well as the Anglophone ones; the Italian bio rather fewer. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Outside of the UK matters regarding transgender issues as covered in Victoria's NYT article, I suspect most of the other coverage has been driven by Hollywood; I find nothing in Spanish-language sources to change that impression. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * how do you suggest we go about "distinguishing fairly clearly betwen the UK & Nth American responses", i.e., how do we do that without original research? We have now a CNN "explainer" (that seems to be intended to help bewildered people in the US understand the uproar in the UK), and we can't use the NYT source provided by Victoria, so a) what sources do we have to make a distinction without original research, and b) how would you word that? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The one thing I have done in draft 2 is bring in mention that a lot of the uproar started as a response to proposed changes in UK laws ... I am unclear on what else can be done. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Footnote b vis-a-vis this discussion
I'm having similar problems with Newimpartial's list at 29 March 19:07 as I had with footnote b. Could people please have a closer look, as I fear footnote b has not been scrutinized, and however we fix that will help me with the list of other critics. Many of the sources at the 19:07 list avoid being outright critical of Rowling; they're just affirming their stances on transgender issues in general, while avoiding saying anything specific about her. So I'm going to have to cover those with a broad generalization about debate or statements supporting transgender rights or some such. It's hard to come up with a general statement that relates to her on her bio when not all of them even mentioned her. I have the same issue at footnote b, and hope those more familiar will look more closely. I fudged the wording by saying first Fiennes supported [her], then added others that "did not". I'm not certain it's accurate they all didn't support her per se ... some may be just affirming their own stance on transgender issues rather than actually criticizing her. Please have a look and suggest wording. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ralph Fiennes supported Rowling;[50] Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint,[50] Eddie Redmayne[53] and others did not.[54]
 * Well, actually, Daniel Radcliffe, Evanna Lynch, Eddie Redmayne, and Noma Dumezweni all referred to Rowling in their comments (or addressed her directly). So I don't think we are limited to the whitewashing phrase "did not support" as long as we use source-based language and confine ourselves to actors who actually say something specific to/about Rowling - this could be "criticized" or "objected to" or "called out" (each of which has RS support), depending on the desired draft text.
 * Another option would be "expressed support for the trans community in reaction to Rowling's comments", or something similar - the sources directly support this statement in the case of Watson, Grint, Bonnie Wright and Katie Leung as well as Radcliffe, Lynch, Redmayne and Dumezweni. Newimpartial (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do I need to use both to cover all bases ? " ... objected to her comments or expressed support the trans community" ... or is there one simpler way to cover all ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is that it is an either/or editorial decision: either we say "objected to Rowling's comments" or "in reaction to Rowling's comments, (they) expressed support for the transgender community", and that decision determines what names, and which sources, to put in the footnote. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be able to keep all the sources that are there now, and add your newly found comprehensive list source to the end of the footnote sentence. Not all objected to her personally. Between the main text (LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments) and the footnote, I think we've covered both, so I'm leaning towards "expressed support for the transgender community" in the footnote. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be fine, but I would specify "expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments" in the note, so some well-intentioned editor doesn't mess with the text in the future, not knowing that the sources explicitly place these comments in reaction to Rowling's views. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I'm erring on the side of overciting everything in this section for two reasons: a) trying to respect the original source list, and b) trying to avoid future criticism re cherrypicking. When the day comes that we have good scholarly sources, a lot of the "recentism" sources will probably be trimmable. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While personally I am more interested in how specialist gender organisations (like Mermaids) reacted compared to individual actors, i do prefer Newimpartial's phrasing here "expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments" because it is clearer and accurate. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

New material
Re ... the reaction from the writing, publishing and bookselling communities is missing, and seems more germane than some of what is included and these sources from : and this followup: If the American literary-figure group letter is mentioned, the two UK ones should also be mentioned. First, just to make sure I have everything, what are the three different letters you mention, ? a personal viewpoint here. I came to this FAR knowing ZERO about Harry Potter or Rowling. I literally did not even know what the stories were about. After three months of being buried in Harry Potter sources, one thing I know loud and clear is that for her million-plus fan websites to turn on her is huge. They didn't make statements about transgender issues in general; they took actions related specifically to her. Similarly, for the leading actors, who owe her their careers, to speak out is huge. So we have groups of critics (leading actors, fan websites and LGBT+ charities) that can be defined in generalized terms, but no such generalization (other than feminists) for those supporting her. This means we end up with a section broadly focused on critics. The first paragraph says her comments provoked controversy and criticism; second paragraph defines the history; third paragraph is exclusively critical; fourth paragraph is all critical except the second half of one sentence, which says "some supported her". It's debatable whether we are borderline on due weight, but my instinct says we're OK, as all of paragraph 2 is devoted to her views. But when I look at adding even more criticism, I am unsure we don't already have the most important, for the reasoning I gave in my first paragraph. Looking at the new suggested sources, My concern is I can come up at best with one generalized clause about these three, and I'm not sure it's worth it, besides that I wonder how to phrase it. On the three letters, I need to make sure that I know exactly what the three are, but from the sources given so far, it appears (??? depending on what I'm missing ??) we would be adding a sentence about writers divided along freedom of speech lines ? If we can get this section wrapped up, we can move on to Draft 3 to focus on. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Canada's largest book retailer,
 * Rowling's major rights-holder in Hollywood,
 * the president of the relevant game studio
 * Indigo spoke specifically about her
 * Warner Bros avoided naming her, although clearly referring to the controversy her remarks generated ... looks like a good PR move.
 * Game studio seems to be similarly hedging their bets (PR)
 * I know my opinions on this lean towards being CRYSTAL, but I truly believe that the reactions from the publishing and rights-holding industries will have more long-term impact than those of the internautes and politicos, though perhaps less than those of the die-hard fan base. Only today I noticed RS reporting Rowling's US editor among the critics.
 * In any event, if only one thing can be added, for me it would he the letter signed by Margaret Atwood, Neil Gaiman, Stepehen King and more than 1,000 other literary figures. I can see the argument that mentioning the two UK-based letters as well, although they had far fewer literary signatures,  would allow more of a "both sides" presentation of the material (keeping in mind that the ratio of literary figures on the two sides is more than 20:1 in opposition to Rowling, if I am counting correctly). Postscript: apparently the ratio may have dropped as low as 12:1, based on Sideswipe9th's post below, though I'm not sure the quality of literary figures signing has been maintained. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC) postscript added by Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Independendent is paywalled : archive.org 1 and archive.org 2. The first one appears that the letter never mentioned Rowling, and the source says "The letters appear to have been sparked by a contrasting open letter expressing support for the Harry Potter novelist JK Rowling ... " emphasis mine. The second source seems to indicate the letters were explicitly about Rowling. Do you have sources that give the full letters so I can be sure of what I'm looking at?  This is similar to the problems throughout: how to choose words that reflect differences when some are just supporting transgender community, others are explicitly supporting or condemning Rowling, and everything in between (like the gaming co president). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Guardian gives lends WEIGHT to a statement by the originator of the Atwood/Gaiman/King-signed letter, who said “When JK got involved in [the debate in the UK over transgender rights] it gave a lot of legitimacy to something that before seemed fringey. It became more accepted, because people know JK from Harry Potter...Sometimes you need to put your name on the line and say, ‘I don’t agree with what’s going on.’” There shouldn't be any question about the connection between the North American letter and Rowling, in terms of DUE mention. Newimpartial (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning that. I am trying to vary the prose while remaining accurate while covering differences in specificity.  Can someone link to the exact three letters so I can check my wording? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined to facilitate OR paraphrases of primary material; that's why I linked a secondary source. The North American letter was explicitly about Rowling because its author stated explicitly that that's what it was about. The appear to have been qualification in the one Independent piece is superseded by the clear statement in The Guardian - this is the question you raised above. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've found the original text for two of the three letters, links below. I'll update this when I find the third. I've found the original text for all three letters. Links below.
 * www[dot]ipetitions[dot]com/petition/in-solidarity-with-jk-rowling 200+ signatory letter in support of Rowling
 * 200 signatory (since updated to 1521) UK and Irish publishing community letter
 * 1200 signatory US and Canadian publishing community letter
 * Note I couldn't directly link the letter on ipetitions as it's on either the Wikipedia blacklist or the Wikimedia global blacklist. Substitute [dot] with . in the url to access it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick analysis. Neither of the two letters opposing Rowling mention her by name. Only the letter in support of her does. The link to Rowling is established in secondary sources based upon comments made by the drafter of the two letters supporting the trans and non-binary comunity. All three letters were published in response to Rowling's "if sex isn't real" tweet, and the fallout from that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much User:Sideswipe9th. Just trying to get a handle on what's what. So, is it correct that we have (so we can all refer to them with the same terminology and help those of us who aren't following this day-to-day understand what letter is being referred to in different sources):
 * www[dot]ipetitions[dot]com/petition/in-solidarity-with-jk-rowling The #LetWomenSpeak letter that deals with freedom of speech, hate speech and misogyny. It says "Originally, the letter was restricted to creative professionals, but now anyone who wishes may sign" ... so it's not just North America or Europe and although started as "creative professionals" has since evolved.
 * UK and Irish "writers, editors, agents, journalists, and publishing professionals"
 * US and Canadian "literary community" which Newimpartial also calls the Atwood/Gaiman/King letter
 * Do I have the three letters correct? Should be fun trying to gel this down with accuracy and varied prose! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you do. I called it the Atwood/Gaiman/King letter after what some sources cited as the most prominent signatories (and because it isn't a "US latter", which is another way some have referred to it). Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. To my knowledge neither the subsequent widening of the ipetitions letter nor its move to that website were not picked up in media sources when it happened. Reporting on it was limited to the original signatories only. The UK and Irish, and the US and Canadian letters have more or less the same composition of writers, editors, publishers, journalists, and agents, just delineated by geographical area. The US/Canada letter gets attributed to Atwood, Gaiman, and King in RS mostly because they are among the biggest names signing it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both. Good to know some of this info; when sources haven't covered something, that helps me at least not write something now known to not be true. I think I know what's what now.  I'm aiming at one sentence, so the trick is in how to really gel it down while maintaining accuracy.  I don't expect to start on Draft 3 until after tomorrow, as I want to give time for others to weigh in. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Spanish-language coverage
Starting section to respond to Johnbod's question about coverage in Spanish. The es.wiki article is alarming, as a translation of a very old English version with very little activity (talk page is dead), and using basically all English-language sources. In more than a year, the talk page has had two edits, dealing with a vandalism question. It claims to be a Featured article. Here are the last 100 or so edits (all trivial, as anyone can see even if they don't speak Spanish), so there appears to be very little interest in or concern about the article there. THey're taking our word (en.wiki) for it, on an old version, that is at least a pat on the back for how much progress we've made over here towards what a featured article is supposed to look like. So, getting no useful sources from them, I'll next go looking myself. Back later, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Switching my google language to Spanish yields a lot of Spanish-language versions of English-language sources like the BBC, Huffington Post, LA Times, etc, so after looking at what google coughs up, I will have to individually go to each newspaper website.


 * El País
 * 8 June 2020 nothing local, nothing new, same ole same ole, "multitude of critics" on Twitter


 * La Vanguardia (Argentina)
 * 7 June 2020 byline from London so not really local, criticized on Twitter. After the Spanish versions of English-language sites and El Pais, this is the first hit on google, and it's a nothing burger.


 * Infobae
 * 22 Nov 2021 nothing new, nothing local; appears to mimic English-language coverage, samples:


 * La Nación
 * Mimicing English-language coverage, samples:  hit paywall.


 * La Prensa (Mexico City)
 * Same ole same old ... Search their website

I suspect I'm wasting my time and that they basically parrot English-language coverage. The main indicator is, I believe, the lack of interest or local coverage on es.wiki. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

French coverage
Setting aside sources from outside France, and concentrating on how Rowling's position has been characterized, Le Point refers to des propos considérés comme transphobes and un message jugé transphobe. Le Figaro refers to tweets jugés transphobes while l'Obs notes the repeated accusations of transphobia: Ce n’est pas la première fois que J. K. Rowling est taxée de transphobie. En juin, elle avait été accusée d’avoir tenu des propos jugés insultants pour les personnes transgenres dans un tweet.. People can read the sources for themselves, but the French coverage seems to align more with North American than with UK sources in its tone and substance. In the French sources, <> ("labelled transphobic", essentially) is occasionally attributed (to LGBTQ activists or to < >) but is usually left as a general statement in editorial voice. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nitpick from Guerillero
Since we don't use the term TERF later in the article, style guides normally dissuade this type of use of an acronym. I would either do TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) or just pipe the link full name to the article under the acronym. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, (since we appear not ready for Draft 3, doing the little stuff on this version). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Nitpick from Bodney
Sorry i have been in hospital and remain super tired, so mostly resting. The line she expressed concern that girls were transitioning in order to escape womanhood needs careful rewriting those wrongly described as 'girls' by JKR ought to be respectfully correctly addressed as Transmen. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this better? In that portion, she was actually speaking of herself, and I mangled it when trying to merge info from three different sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there's a better way to say it and maybe it's already implied, but her point in bringing that up is her belief that such a thing is actually happening today to many. Crossroads -talk- 04:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I aimed with this edit to reduce it to her own experiences, out of concern that if we go beyond that, we will be asked to add a "rebuttal", which will chunk up the size again. I am shifting my approach to a longer-term view, as I am more convinced we will need a full and better RFC down the road anyway. Publicity will happen when the film is released in April.  Publicity will happen when the Forstater decision comes in in May.  And within another six months, we'll have more scholarly sources.  I think we should just compromise now and plan a late summer/early fall well organized and planned RFC, where each "camp" puts their best suggestion forward:  375 words, 2 sentences in the lead, and a panel to close the RFC.  It is folly to think we can nail this down fully now, operating under the constraints of a the recent RFC, RECENTISM affecting the article, and knowing there will be better sources down the road. Out of respect for the three literary editors who wrote over 8.000 words of featured content, we shouldn't hold this up over 400 words that are pretty decent now.  We can have a qualified FAR close, with declarations clearly stating this version is not "cast in concrete", and it is expected that a new RFC will be needed, recognizing that now is too soon. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  06:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry late reply, for me it is better. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

First phrase tweak
I suggest changing Rowling's statements relating to transgender people have provoked controversy... to Rowling's statements about transgender-related issues have provoked controversy... Most sources don't frame it as about people because it wasn't directed at specific people or specifically at trans people as a group, but was largely about policies or understandings of gender and gender transition, and related terminology. Focusing on people could be argued to be biased in favor of the critics who rhetorically tend to equate comments on those matters with being against a group of people. While we can certainly believe that personally as editors, NPOV requires not using a biased framing. Additionally, transgender-related topics would also work, following the example of our article Feminist views on transgender topics. Crossroads -talk- 04:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Crossroads, I have heard you make this claim before, but do you have actual RS attributing the controversy to statements on "issues" or "topics" rather than "people"? I have at least a half-dozen high-quality sources saying in their own editorial voice that the issues concern "people" or "communities", etc. Newimpartial (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Any of those that are WP:BIASEDSOURCES need to have that accounted for.
 * Here's 10 of my own: BBC: JK Rowling has said she spoke out about transgender issues in part due to...In a lengthy blog, she wrote her interest in trans issues... SCMP: A British school has dropped J.K. Rowling’s name from one of its houses because of the “Harry Potter” author’s controversial views on transgender issues. Independent: JK Rowling has said she believes there will be a “medical scandal” over NHS identity clinics, in her latest post about transgender issues. abc.net.au: Harry Potter author JK Rowling says she is returning a human rights award after the president of the organisation who gave her the honour criticised comments she made about transgender issues. Irish Times: Daniel Radcliffe, the star of the Harry Potter film series, and Eddie Redmayne, who leads the cast of Fantastic Beasts, have both criticised Rowling for her comments about transgender issues. NBC Out reporting on an anti-Rowling letter: "This decision is not made lightly, and we are saddened and disappointed it has come to this," the statement read. "After J. K. Rowling's — who is also signed to the agency — public comments on transgender issues..." CBC: Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling says she is returning an award from a human rights group linked to the Kennedy family after the president of the organization criticized her comments about transgender issues. The Times: First, she commented on transgender issues... Reuters: Author J.K. Rowling has joined 150 high-profile figures on an open letter warning that free speech is under threat due an "intolerance of opposing views", after coming under attack for her comments about transgender issues. Herald Scotland: In the blog post, Rowling also said she was motivated to address transgender issues via her Twitter account because of what she sees as an increasingly misogynistic society.
 * 7 different countries represented, and I didn't even have to cite any tabloids or celeb gossip outlets for this! 😁 Crossroads -talk- 05:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources look sound. I have long held the same concern about our writing here but haven't raised it for not wanting to rock the boat on a topic where I'm less familiar than the rest of you; will read this more thoroughly tomorrow, and hope that Crossroads source list is as sound as this one. What recently drove home to me the fallacy in the people-centered wording here was that "innuendo" YouTube posted somewhere in this section: plenty of Mexican-Americans support border security, and they don't "hate Mexicans". Views on issues and views on people are not always the same thing.  Casting it in Wikivoice as if her comments were about people is exactly the same problem as raised vis-a-vis "women's rights"-- casting the issue in a light favorable to those who hold the view that anyone who speaks on trans issues hates trans people. I'm not fully up on the lingo, but I suspect this is what is meant when we call something a "dog whistle". Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, if that is what you think about the RS I provide below, all of which use "transgender people" or "transgender community", then I don't know what to tell you. I don't think Reuters, Associated Press, The Scotsman or cbc.ca are doing "dog whistles" of any kind. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandy, precisely. Even though the framing as "about people" exists in some RS, it's clear which of the two is the safer option per NPOV and BLP. Crossroads -talk- 06:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Crossroads. I'm afraid you are doing to have to do better if you intended to demonstrate your original claim, that Most sources don't frame it as about people. I can provide more, but here for a start are ten RS that do frame it as about "people" (and one about the "transgender community) from seven different national contexts. Several of these are sources you have shown using "issues" as well, but that doesn't mean you get to keep them because of "dibs".
 * Associated Press: a series of tweets about transgender people
 * Reuters: "transphobic" posts, which some said questioned trans people's identity and excluded them from public spaces
 * Time: Rowling’s previous comments on transgender people and gender identity
 * New York Times: after she expressed support for a British researcher whose views on transgender people...
 * The Scotsman (UK): her comments about transgender people
 * Sky News (UK): her tweets on transgender people
 * CBC.ca (Canada) a series of tweets about transgender people
 * Newshub (New Zealand) her commentary on transgender people
 * Deutsche Welle (Germany) her comments on transgender people
 * Le Figaro (France): une série de tweets, accusés d'aller à l'encontre des personnes transgenres (a series of tweets accused of being against transgender people).
 * Irish Mirror (Ireland): comments that she has made in relation to gender identity and the transgender community
 * So here are two major news agencies, plus the NYT and Time, plus broadsheets and authoritative news sources in the UK, Germany, France, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand, all comfortable framing the topic in relation to Rowling's "tweets about transgender people" or "comments in relation to the transgender community". These aren't all the available sources, but they should be enough for you to back away from your original claim that "most sources" don't frame it this way - at least when it comes to quality sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's also a good source list, so we are divided. (As I indicated in my earlier post, I don't actually know what a "dog whistle" is, and don't have much interest in learning :) Out for the day now, will check in this evening. Perhaps while I am out, a compromise will be found! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How about "transgender topics or people"? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Another compromise idea: change the section heading to topics or rights or issues; keep the people in the wording-- covers all bases. Or the reverse. Peeps, find a way to meet in the middle or to accommodate all sources and views. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps bucking some previous trends (pun intended), I favour the first-mentioned compromise: people in the body text and issues in the heading. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I apologise for coming late to this discussion. : Topic is a synonym to issue & problem, though a bit more neutral. I remain a strong supporter of the use of Transgender people as argued at here, i am not sure if i should bore folks again. The phrase "Transgender issues" especially has negative connotations, implying that the group in question may have issues, or are an issue. The Cambridge Dictionary Issue (noun) = a subject or problem that people are thinking and talking about. So the section title could clearly be reasonably read "Transgender issues" with negative connotations, implying that the group in question  are a problem.  When discussing a person's negative views on a minority in society, especially their civil and human rights it is probably not OK to use the wording gay issues, lesbian issues, black problem, Jewish problem,  in a section heading.  I do not think we can separate her numerous 'issues' with trans people - from transgender people as a whole, thus the all inclusive heading phrase 'Transgender people' remains correct.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the ones in Newimpartial's list don't support the phrase's use in Wikivoice as they do not even use it in their own voice. Reuters attributes it to "some said". Time says that as part of a claim attributed to one Mason Deaver in the context of the article. New York Times is talking about the "British researcher" (Forstater), and "support for" her legal case is not equivalent to Rowling herself making statements about trans people. The Scotsman only phrases it that way in a bolded, periodless bit of text above the byline, which could be considered a part of the WP:HEADLINE. Le Figaro attributes it as "accused of". Looks to be 10 to 6 in favor of "transgender issues", or "transgender topics" would be acceptable as equivalent in meaning if we avoid use of "issues" as Bodney suggests. Crossroads -talk- 06:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * i'm on board with Bodney's issues/topics distinction, with one caveat: will we encounter then someone down the road being misled when using the word topic as compared to people (in an analysis similar to the one Crossroads and Newimpartial just did) because sources used the word issues? Is Transgender rights movement an appropriate link for what we are referring to regardless of which word we use? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  09:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do still personally strongly prefer 'Transgender People' myself over 'Topic', but it is better than 'issues' (sorry I was not clear), thinking a bit more maybe Transgender topics sounds a bit vague, while Transgender people is more direct. The Transgender rights movement link seems good to me. ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bodney, you were clear; it appears I was not!  (Sorry I missed this earlier.) When I said I'm on board with Bodney's issues/topics distinction, I meant I would avoid the word issues henceforth in favor of topics.  On the topics v. people discussion, we are still divided, sources use both, so we need a creative way, thinking outside of this box, to resolve the dilemma ... arguing over sources, when they go both ways, won't get us to a point of compromise. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Crossroads, I am disappointed (though not surprised) by your nitpicking and misleading "10 to 6" swatting down of sources rather than engaging in compromise. I say "misleading" because you are not employing the same standards for your "issues" sources as for my "people" sources, since many of your own cited sources do not place "issues" in their own editorial voice. Your BBC source does not, for example, saying JK Rowling has said she spoke out about transgender issues... - that's attributed. So is the statement in The Harald Scotland - Rowling also said she was motivated to address transgender issues. Your NBC source is using "transgender issues" within a quoted statement by the authors leaving Rowling's agency. The cbc and abc sources aren't clear what part of the subordinate clause is attributed to Rowling - in both cases it would be reasonable to read "transgender issues" as not being in editorial voice.
 * Meanwhile, your dismissal of the reference to Forstater's comments on transgender people seems disingenuous to me, as the NYT is saying that the criticism of Rowling is about her support for Forstater on this same topic - the question is how the NYT chooses to label the topic, and they say it is about views on transgender people.
 * So my count is eight unambiguously using "transgender people" or "transgender community", presented thus far, and five for "transgender issues". Tempting as it might be to do so, Crossroads, you can't employ one set of standards to sources supporting you and an unrelated, tougher set of standards to sources disagreeing with you, and expect the resulting straw poll to mean anything relevant to content determination on Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We can say sources are divided. It doesn't appear that following this approach is going to lead to resolution.  Is it not possible to find an entirely new way to recast the whole thing, which either a) avoids either term or b) puts both terms on equal footing?Since consensus is not forming on this portion, could we wrap up the other remaining Draft 2 items so we can move forward to Draft 3 to focus on these remaining items without such a lengthy page?  I'll put a new summary below of what I still need clarified to put up Draft 3, leaving this pending. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The rationale provided by the editor when opening this section was, Most sources don't frame it as about people because it wasn't directed at specific people or specifically at trans people as a group, but was largely about policies or understandings of gender and gender transition, and related terminology (underlining added). The underlined portion of that claim has been effectively shown to be false, and the "because" clause has not been supported by any evidence. So while I understand that an editor feels that this language should be changed, no relevant support has been provided for this, so I think it would be best to drop this line of discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your point has been registered. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't remembered that three of my 10 (by my count) seem to say "transgender issues" in a way that moves it out of their own voice when making that comparison. I knew the NBC News one did not, but it is clearly her opponents who use that term, which seems significant. I don't agree with your interpretation of the ABC, CBC, and NYT sources. By my count, it is still 7 to 6 in my favor, unless I'm missing something. I await Sandy's draft 3 to move forward; I don't think debating this is fruitful anymore. Please assume good faith. This is a very long page and we're all tired to some extent working hard on such a fraught topic. Crossroads -talk- 04:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrapping up Draft 2
When discussions and pages grow too long, newcomers and latecomers are less likely to read them. We've reached an impasse on Draft 2, so I'd like to wrap it up and go to Draft 3 to focus on those areas in a cleaner page. Where I think things stand (please let me know if I've left out anything ... numbered so folks can use the numbers for reference in response): Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  is good to archive in my view.   was the only area that was unclear, but we have slight consensus not to include him, and that newsy-related issue seems to have subsided, with no one new to the discussion asking to include it.
 * 2)  (which includes a discussion of section heading) is unresolved: will focus in Draft 3.
 * 3) I want to doublecheck that we're done with .  Newimpartial, everyone so far has agreed to the compromise, but just to be sure, are we done with widely?  As I think about how the new text will look on the page, I feel like using the word would be redundant anyway, since our text is largely devoted to criticism which is broadly spelled out. I hope we can consider that one word resolved. In that vein, and in terms of overall weight in the section ...
 * 4) I am still unclear on how to resolve  for Draft 3, and need people to weigh in at  to make sure I have not introduced a problem of the same type I'm having with the list of new material to include at Newimpartial's 19:07 post. I will next continue that discussion above, as we need to solve that remaining issue along with taking a look at weight there.
 * Am I expected to reply to these questions here? The "widely" issue and the issue of balance regarding who what critics are mentioned and how their criticism is paraphrased are interrelated questions, and are not unrelated to the supposed "first phrase tweak". So I don't really see a way of evaluating those issues outside the context of a new draft. I am not proposing that everything in the section has to be resolved according to my detailed preferences, in case I gave that impression. But I can only assess NPOV and balance globally in the section as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just added above. What I'm seeking now is just a way to clear a lengthy page of that which is resolved, so we can focus better on that which is not-- the page is already large. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, re But I can only assess NPOV and balance globally in the section as a whole. I agree, which is why I prefer to start fresh with a new draft that at least includes what we have so far. Seeing the whole thing on a page is a better way to work.  I can't process in bits and pieces; want to see how everything we've got hangs together in a fresh-start Draft 3, where we can continue the points of difference. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Archive ?
Page size is growing, so I will archive Draft 2 tomorrow unless anyone objects; easy to provide links back to sections when/if needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of draft 3
I have tried to give everyone everything they asked for in Draft 2 discussions, although words had to be kept tight/limited (eg no expansion of film, bookselling, publishing et al rather referring to "entities") and I had to do some moving around of the pieces to avoid dreadfully repetitive ... this group criticized that group criticized the other group criticized prose ... as well as mixing up the support and opposition. Specifically, I brought the "other entities" and non-UK-centric in to the first para, as Newimpartial argues those were most important. Length is now above the 375 upper limit we aimed for, but not unreasonably so. My hope is that all the pieces are in, so we can focus on the unresolved (how to name the section). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy to report that I think it's really, really good, and I am pretty much neutral on the two suggestions below as they have developed so far (one minor aspect I will mention below). Crossroads -talk- 06:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Entities

 * Adjusted to "Rowling's statements have divided feminists;[37][38][39] fuelled freedom of speech[40][41] and academic freedom debates;[35] and prompted support for transgender people from individuals across America and Europe,[42] and companies connected to her work.[43]" Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Could we clarify what entities refers to? Perhaps by adding the word "literary"? I suspect adding that one word would avoid a lot of confusion, and roughly sums up the makeup of the folks who signed the respective open letters. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Or alternatively substitute "entities" for "her peers" or "her literary peers"? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was stymied there because it is more than literary ... we have film, video game, bookseller, publishing ... I couldn't figure out how to gel that down, but it was cumbersome to list everyone. Entities is admittedly a placeholder, for something I can't see how to fix without chunking up the text with TMI. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oooh, looking again more closely at the sources I can see why you've chosen entities. If that section was just referring to the three open letters, we could likely get away with adding "literary" because the big name author peers are what the media picked up on. But because Warner, Warner Interactive, and Indigo Books are included you need something broader.
 * Hmmm, I don't know if I can see another way to phrase that without adding maybe another ten or so words. Need time to consider. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I figured out something that may solve this ... give me 10 or 15 mins. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Better? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. Adding it to cite bundles doesn't really address the prose clarity issue.
 * Would it be SYNTHy to combine the statement by Indigo in with the open letters? The open letters themselves already contain a mixture of authors, publishers, and book retailers. We could also check if Indigo signed the US/Canadian open letter. That would then leave separate the two statements made by Warner, and Warner Interactive, which we may be able to address in a neater way if we don't need to include Indigo alongside them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Would a footnote (as in the actor list, footnote c) as opposed to a citation bundle do the job? On the open letters, we have to stick to what secondary sources give us, and starting to list out all of the signers would get out of hand. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be an improvement, though it would still leave confusion for editors who don't/won't click on a footnote.
 * I'll do a quick check of the media sources on the open letters. If there's any that state the groups other than authors who signed it, we might be able to use those and address it neatly in the prose. I don't think we need to list out all of the signers by the way, if we can find even one source that says the open letters were signed by groups other than authors then we could at least address those groups together as "literary entities" or some similar wordage. That would leave us with just needing to clarify separately the statements by Warner and Warner Interactive, as those aren't literary entities. If that makes sense? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the three most useful sources for this are:
 * The Guardian on the UK & Ireland letter - Days after a host of prominent literary names signed a letter defending JK Rowling “against hate”, more than 200 writers, publishers and journalists from the first paragraph, and While the new letter, published online on Wednesday, did not mention the Harry Potter author’s name, its signatories, who also include editors, agents, journalists and publishing professionals, said they recognised the importance of showing support for trans and non-binary people. from the last paragraph.
 * PinkNews on the UK & Ireland letter - Following the publication of the letter, hundreds of literary figures rushed forward to add their signatures. the second paragraph, and Culture is, and should always be, at the forefront of societal change, and as writers, editors, agents, journalists, and publishing professionals from the fifth paragraph.
 * The Guardian on the US & Canada letter - The message from writers and members of the US literary community follows a similar letter from authors in the UK and Ireland. from the second paragraph, and “We are writers, editors, journalists, agents, and professionals in multiple forms of publishing. from the fifth paragraph.
 * So while it's not headline, we do have sources that state that there were people other than authors signing the letters. I've also done a brief check through of the US and Canada signatories, and while Indigo isn't a signatory to it, there are a few booksellers listed.
 * In summary, if agreed to this would remove the "Quill and Quire" source from cite bundle 42 and add it to stand alongside (as a separate cite or a bundle) cite 43. The text supported by 43 could then read something like and literary professionals across America and Europe. We could then replace "entities" with something that closer matches the description of Warner and Warner Interactive, avoiding the need to use a footnote entirely and keeping the text largely self explanatory. Extra words added would be less than ten, maybe as low as five. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I need a comprehensive fix for this plus Bodney's point just below this ... if you can spell the whole sentence out, I can visualize better what the suggestion is. I was trying to avoid chunking up the word count by finding generalities ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick and dirty draft containing both Bodney and my suggestions. The dispute has divided feminists; fueled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from Warner Bros and Warner Interactive Entertainment  as well as literary professionals across America and Europe.
 * Total words before: 27
 * Total words after: 35
 * Word count delta: +7
 * There may be a more concise way to state both of the Warner support messages, which would bring the word count delta down. But at 3.30am my brain is not doing it's best on wordage! Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you wanted now ... will give some time for others to review, and install unless there is disagreement. What would you do then if more "entities" had views to avoid having that text grow? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good question. It would depend on whom is in the group of "entities". If it was more literary professionals, I'd add them to the cites at the end of the sentence. If it was a media conglomerate, like Warner, Disney, etc. I'd adjust "entities" to "media conglomerate". I'd need time to think, ideally with some idea of whom the others are, for something or someone else. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also take care that if we spell out a lot here, we have to do the same with the other letter in the final para, and we're long already. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Indigo really worth bothering with? It's a bookseller in one country, not even her own - and not a rights holder or actor in HP films. Much more relevant and bigger booksellers said nothing. Their connection seems really tenuous and I suggest dropping them. Crossroads -talk- 06:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Continued below (sorry I missed this comment). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a source we should be using, as it lists the major players and provides context (companies "in the Rowling business", which I stated as "ties to Rowling's work"). Adding it in to Draft 3 next. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a really good one, covers film (Warner), theme parks (Universal), and publishing (Scholastic) which are the main ways folks will interact with her works currently in one. Oh and nicely sidesteps entities as well. Great find! Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Found it over at the sub-article--solved everything :) Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: "media entities" - they're all in the publishing world, whether it be books, films, video games? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * So we have choices:
 * Companies connected to Rowling's work (supported by source)
 * Media companies connected to Rowling's work
 * Media entities
 * Could others weigh in with a choice? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I still prefer 1 because a) I like specifically tying it via the source to those companies in the Harry Potter business, as that defines the scope of the list and gives context, and b) Universal studios isn't a media company (them speaking up is more relevant than Indigo Books). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Among these choices, I support "Companies connected to Rowling's work". Newimpartial (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"and elicited support"
Thanks Sandy for working so hard and methodically on this. I am not sure if the following phrase is clear to the novice reader and elicited support for transgender people from entities and individuals across America and Europe. How was the support was elicited, was it due to positive or negative things she said. Yes the reader might delve deeper into the section and find out, but they might not. Maybe "and in response elicited defence of/for support for transgender people from entities and individuals across America and Europe". I am not sure if that makes it clearer or too wordy. Also not sure if for or of is better. ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Sorry ...Crossed out defence because my thesaurus says its a UK usage, back to support. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That's just me trying to vary the prose; open to suggestions and improvements, just trying to find a way to say all those people supported her. Prompted? Provoked?  Led to ??  I dunno ... couldn't hit on the right one, trust that someone can. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep I failed to find the right wording, i think your 'prompted', 'provoked' could replace 'elicited', but maybe someone else can word it better. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe "and in reaction prompted support for transgender people from entities and individuals across America and Europe". ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a few days to see if we can fix that, plus the "entities" together ... thx, Bodney! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Prompted" is better than "elicited", IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Second sentence
Combining the two sections above, I made this change. Just as we had complaints about lists of individuals and actors, and went to broader descriptions, starting a list of companies taking (or not) a position is likely to be problematic. Two years from now, when we have scholarly sources, we'll be replacing all of this NOTNEWS-y content with the broader concepts. Gender recognition, transgender rights, UK law, academic freedom, freedom of speech ... the big picture items ... not lists of actors, Putin, or companies. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Crossroads, I missed your two comments when making the change, so I imagine we'll continue tweaking this; just couldn't sleep having left "entities" and "elicited" in for the night! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Updated again with a new source that provides context. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Over doing the Empathy bit maybe
In this shorter version the are 4 mentions Rowling's questionable empathy towards transpeople is mentioned ~ i that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security, ii While expressing empathy with trans people, and iii While affirming that most trans people were "vulnerable" and "deserved protection", plus   iv would have led her to transition if she had been born later. Is that over stressing her debatable empathy a bit too much in a sub section about her mostly negative views towards both trans men and women and their civil rights.  ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 17:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Those sentences resulted from me trying to pick some pieces of her essay that were well covered in secondary sources to address Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3; pick an alternate, that has good secondary source coverage, and suggest wording ?? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All of these are attributed; we don't say whether or not it is valid. And per WP:BLP, we really do have to include those aspects of what she says. That 4th one isn't like the other 3, by the way - that's about how she wonders if that is a cause of transition rather than empathy. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Crossroads is totally correct in that Rowling's essay and tweets were not just about about security in bathrooms/changing rooms. And the passages are certainly correctly sourced. However the majority approach of the RS news sources listed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3 mostly concentrated her critical views on trans people and their rights, especially concerning women only spaces, rather than the few examples of her empathy. The fourth passage to me is about empathy too, she is saying that she feels would be persuaded the same as the young trans men today by 'trans activists' on social media, if she lived today. Not enough coverage was done in the RS news media about her belief in the questionable Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy theory that  misogyny and sexism, fuelled by social media, were reasons behind the increase (in the UK) in the number of transmen transitioning in the past decade.  I doubt that the RS would have published anything on her empathy without concentrating overwhelmingly on her critical views on trans peoples rights. If you actually want sources I will go through archive 3 to work out the percentage dedicated to her empathy compared to reporting of her critical views, i might take some time.   ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 11:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a different example I should use from the excerpts of her essay that was covered by sources? We have to say what caused the controversy, and in doing so, I have to present both sides of what she said.  I was also trying to avoid overquoting, but one solution may be to remove what was my attempt to do that via the words "while expressing empathy with trans people, Rowling was concerned" and anyplace similar and simply replace them with the exact quotes -- let the words speak for themselves.  I was only trying to avoid overquoting and keep the text trimmed; we can certainly go back to quotes and not try to put this in our own words. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think we need exact quotes or over quoting, especially when you and others have worked so hard to create a good synopsis of the coverage of this dispute, within a larger article. In reporting this controversy do we need to give equal weight to the both sides of what she said regarding trans people (the much longer criticism and the brief mentions of empathy) or do we concentrate on both sides the actual controversy itself her criticism plus its support and the reaction to it. Apologies if i am misunderstanding. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 14:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No apologies needed, but I am concerned with my word choice "empathy" (I think she actually said "know and love"?). Can someone suggest an improvement? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to put it simply, I do no think it is necessary to have four mentions of her empathy in a short sub section. I just checked through the News (broadsheet/agency), Online news/magazines and Journal sources listed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3 simply searching for 3 key words relating to her views on trans people 'Empathy', 'Vulnerable' and 'security' plus 'her to transition' (taken from the four passages, though the last might not be the correct wording in an article) and found most searches resulted in nothing, only a few sources mentioned one instance. This was unscientific approach etc but I think it shows that we might be over stressing her empathy in the short sub section  and maybe we should mention it just once at most.  ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 19:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we're (all ?) decided to remove my poor paraphrase via empathy, but unless someone gives me an alternate to use, I'll either have to just go back to the exact words quoted, or revisit all the sources to come up with something entirely new (which is what I have done in every instance where nobody tells me where to go ;) Will work on that later ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Empathy' is fine. Both cited sources quote Rowling as saying she's "been empathetic" toward trans people. I echo Bodney's overall point that we're overemphasizing that view. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes the word itself 'Empathy' is perfectly OK, my problem was having 4 versions mentioned in the Wikipedia synopsis of the matter, when most of the sources either do not mention any or only one. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 22:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"The dispute"

 * Installed, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have resurfaced and am just now looking at draft 3, which looks generally fantastic. Well done, everyone. A point of clarification: what does "the dispute" refer to in "The dispute has divided feminists; fueled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from individuals across America and Europe, and companies connected to Rowling's work." It seems like it is a synonym for "controversy"? Is that what's meant? To my ear, "dispute" implies a specific event with pro and con sides, whereas what we're talking about here is something more diffuse. Would it be better to say something like "Reactions to Rowling's statements have divided feminists ..." etc. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes to all; I was just looking at that myself, and realizing it resulted from my typical prose difficulties. Does anyone disagree with AP's rephrase? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed rephrasing. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was almost happy and agree with the general idea, but I would say that it is Rowling's statements that caused the division among feminists (and others) primarily, more so than the reactions to those statements that has divided feminists. Sandy your prose is a trillion times better than my linguistic fumbling. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 17:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then we're in trouble 'cuz my prose stinks :) Glad that AP is on the mend from COVID, as the help is needed. Reactions to her statements encompasses that the controversy spread to include hate speech in response, etc ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but the main primary controversy or dispute still remains primarily Rowling's Comments on Transgender people and their rights, that is what the the majority of the reliable news media reports concentrated on. Only later do we have the counter accusations of hate speech relating to criticisms of her negative views. ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 17:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we just remove "reactions" and say: "Rowling's statements have divided feminists; fueled freedom of speech and academic freedom debates; and prompted support for transgender people from individuals across America and Europe, and companies connected to Rowling's work"? I didn't quite get SG's point about why this would be inappropriate - is the idea that her statements didn't, in themselves, prompt the relevant free speech/academic freedom debates? Also a hopefully uncontroversial EngVar point: I think BritEng would use double Ls for "fuelled", as in "travelled". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Works better for me :) ~ BOD ~ <small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm down. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Oopsie
I don't like it; this is why I usually prefer to go away and come up with a whole new draft to work on the quibbles. We now have redundancy ... First sentence starts with "Rowling's responses" ... followed immediately by sentence starting with "Rowling's statements". We won't get that by FAR regulars. But if I change Rowling to her, that's too far away from the her work at the end of the sentence. So, I propose to rejig the sentences to flow better as ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That's ugly, too; going back to AP's version... oh, well, it flowed so much better in the original. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The new proposal looks good and flows well. It doesn't look ugly to me. But why did you change the order of the second sentence? I don't get why the two phrases beginning with "her" need to be closer together. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I undid that in sandbox ... I just felt like the whole thing hung together nicely when it had the word dispute, and can't find a way to get back to that nice flow ... doesn't matter, going with your version, but switching to her. Tired, will post new draft in am ... while I have your attention, do you think we still need any wordsmithing?  I feel like we've done that and the prose is there now.  (But what do I know? :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Some nitpicks (forgive me if these have been addressed above - I fully admit that I have not read the discussion so pls disregard if these are rehashes)
 * "While expressing empathy with trans people, Rowling was concerned that women's rights and reality were 'erased' if "sex isn't real"." "Were 'erased'" should be "would be 'erased'", I think? Also is "reality" modified by "women's" here? The parallelism is a little odd/hard to parse. I might say " … was concerned that women's rights and the reality of womanhood would be 'erased'" if that's what's meant.
 * "[S]he believed safety was at risk by allowing 'any man who believes or feels he's a woman' into bathrooms or changing rooms." Could we change to "she believed that it would be unsafe to allow 'any man who believes or feels he's a woman' into bathrooms or changing rooms labelled for women's use" or something similar? "Safety was at risk" makes it hard to see what the alleged safety problem is/where it allegedly arises.
 * "Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist); she rejects these characterisations." I think it would be more effective with a period instead of a semicolon.
 * The last graf looks overshort but that's not a big deal IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How much are you back in the saddle? I hesitate to ask if you are still feeling sluggish, but my husband has Mohs surgery tomorrow, and the length is unpredictable, depending on what they find.  If you have time, could you make your changes in my sandbox7?  Else I will get to them as soon as I can ... it is very hard to work on the draft in table form with so many citations, so I will understand if you can't get to it. I got rid of the empathy entirely as I just could not find any other way to address the issues raised about it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully recovered but sleepy - I can make the changes tomorrow EST? Will also leave some time for any interim comments. Best of luck to your husband on the surgery. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx! I will have iPad, long time in car and waiting room, and can edit from iPad, but hard to do complex edits. I'll see how much I can do in a.m. before we leave ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)