SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
# Please read [[WP:FAOWN]]. This article is a [[WP:FA|Featured article]] and its lead has been very recently rewritten with consensus of multiple editors. Please discuss suggested improvements on talk and gain consensus for changes. |
# Please read [[WP:FAOWN]]. This article is a [[WP:FA|Featured article]] and its lead has been very recently rewritten with consensus of multiple editors. Please discuss suggested improvements on talk and gain consensus for changes. |
||
# This article uses [[WP:ENGVAR|British English]] (that is, criticised rather than criticized). |
# This article uses [[WP:ENGVAR|British English]] (that is, criticised rather than criticized). |
||
# The source does not say she is "vocal on 'misgendering'"; it says she accused Starmer of misrepresenting the law. Please take greater care not to insert [[WP:OR|original research]] into a BLP under double discretionary sanctions. |
# The [https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-accuses-keir-starmer-of-misrepresenting-equalities-law-on-trans-women-12564477 source] does not say she is "vocal on 'misgendering'"; it says she accused Starmer of misrepresenting the law. Please take greater care not to insert [[WP:OR|original research]] into a BLP under double discretionary sanctions. |
||
# You have previously received discretionary alerts for ''both'' sexuality issues and BLPs; this article is covered under both. When inserting content about a living person, please be absolutely certain that the source supports the wording you choose to insert into a very highly visible article that affects a living person. If you breach discretionary sanctions again, you are likely to be blocked. |
# You have previously received discretionary alerts for ''both'' sexuality issues and BLPs; this article is covered under both. When inserting content about a living person, please be absolutely certain that the source supports the wording you choose to insert into a very highly visible article that affects a living person. If you breach discretionary sanctions again, you are likely to be blocked. |
||
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC) |
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:33, 13 March 2022
J. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
Other talk page banners | |
FAR notice
An editor has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Status update at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Update 8 Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion about converting the Awards and honours section to prose on the Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Draft of new section on comments re transgender people
As part of the ongoing featured article review, I have prepared an entirely new draft of the section on Rowling's comments regarding transgender people. The current version of the section is at Special:PermaLink/1065510593#Transgender people. The draft is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft. Feel free to make copyedits or other minor changes on that page, but more major discussion should happen at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft so that we can reach consensus on any content issues.
If this draft, or something close to it, is eventually added to J. K. Rowling, we will need to modify the lede accordingly. The recent RfC, currently at Special:PermaLink/1065356439#RFC_on_how_to_include_her_trans-related_views_(and_backlash)_in_the_lead, closed as no consensus at 15:42 on 1 January 2022. That meant there was no consensus to change to change the relevant text in the lede of Special:PermaLink/1063145723. If my draft is adopted, we will need to change the lede in some parts. In particular, we will need to remove the word transphobic—since, to my knowledge, none of the academic sources cited in Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft use that word to refer to Rowling's comments.
Pinging, in no particular order, @Firefangledfeathers, Newimpartial, Victoriaearle, Olivaw-Daneel, SandyGeorgia, Vanamonde93, Barkeep49, and A. C. Santacruz, as users interested in this article, the FAR, or both. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting previous discussions at the FAR talk page (although new comments should now go to the talk page of the draft, as AP indicates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- The focus on secondary sources in the rewrite of the section is good and this is a definite improvement on the current writing. My only comment is that I think the Comoran Strike sentences seem to be intentionally vague while still hoping I reach some sort of conclusion on them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Crossroads and I agree that the Cormoran Strike bit should come out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Apologies to my fellow editors I am not sure where to write this, it is a repeat of my comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft#The Current Draft is appallingly One Sided ...but the process is being split over several pages so I do not know what is the best place to add this.
The current draft regarding her views is extremely (add missing words) one sided and I do mean have been seriously extremely rewritten to be WP:UNDUE & WP:POV in favour of Rowling's fringe views, despite these being a minority view. Tthe current balance has been removed entirely. Why do we mention the support of a single trans entertainer but hide the criticism of several national and international trans specialist organisation including Mermaids, GLAAD and Stonewall that represent the views of 1000's of trans persons and whose views are far more notable. Why do we mention Bindel whose trans critical views are a minority amongst feminists, not mention it is a minority opinion and not balance it with views of more mainstream and qualified Judith Butler. What is the relevance of her domestic violence and sexual assault, does it have any relevance or why is the empty detail that she might have been tricked into becoming a man. Why are we including the Reuters report of her unsupported claim that the is a threat that people who she claims are men (questionable) are a danger to women in bathrooms as reported in reuters article of which the is no evidence with out balancing with the numerous UK and USA articles that report the is no such threat including Reuters which reported Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? the next day that, in the United States, women's rights groups said in 2016 that 200 municipalities which allowed trans people to use women's shelters reported no rise in any violence as a result; they also said that excluding transgender people from facilities consistent with their gender makes them vulnerable to assault.
Sorry this is a copy paste of my comment on the draft page, but I am not sure how to challenge this white wash of a rewrite. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty sure if implemented it will be immediately challenged here and end up going straight to the BLP noticeboard with an another huge RfC. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is not even remotely close to being implemented, and there is still much work to be done on the rest of the article—work which needs at least a couple more weeks—before full attention can be given to this one section. Patience, and keeping discussion in one place would be helpful in the meantime. It is unfortunate that the discussion is now forked to three places, when we had barely begun to discuss sources at the FAR talk page; the draft was premature. I hope it is OK if I merge your comments on the FAR page to the section where we can keep everything in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry I am far less experienced or skilled in writing or knowledge of processes than some editors and I apologise I am not at my best atm. Thank you for being helpful. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is no need to apologize; concern that the FAR had progressed further than it has is understandable. I merged your section at the FAR talk page, so that it can be considered before drafting based on a consensus of sources can begin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia Sorry could you give me a link to where correct FAR place is, I admit I am lost ? ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here is where we had begun gathering sources on the FAR. I moved your comment to there, after the first draft was launched in user space, and then moved to Wikipedia space before it had broad consensus. Most of the people working on the article are quite busy and hard at work on other sections, so brevity is a virtue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia Sorry could you give me a link to where correct FAR place is, I admit I am lost ? ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is no need to apologize; concern that the FAR had progressed further than it has is understandable. I merged your section at the FAR talk page, so that it can be considered before drafting based on a consensus of sources can begin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry I am far less experienced or skilled in writing or knowledge of processes than some editors and I apologise I am not at my best atm. Thank you for being helpful. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussion of possible sources for Transgender people section
On the talk page of the Featured article review, please discuss best sources per WP:WIAFA at the Discussion of source list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Interim lead proposal
The Featured article review has resulted in considerable improvements, with early life and literary analysis beefed up, WP:ELNEVER sourcing removed, and prose bloat addressed throughout. Work on the Transgender people section has been delayed, but should start next.
Meanwhile an interim lead is proposed on FAR talk. Please join the discussion. (Interim because this lead proposal leaves the Transgender section wording in the lead unchanged; the intent is to put a better lead in place for now, while work progresses on the Transgender people section.)
The work so far is mostly the fruit of the efforts of AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel, with literary analysis work from Vanamonde93 and early life bio work from me. (The tools show an unrepresentative amount of contributions from me, because I copied in most of the lengthy chapter sources at works cited when we split chapters out of books.) In examining the authorship stats, I noticed two FA stalwarts involved early on in this article: Rodw and Slp1, might you want to review the work so far, and participate in the FAR? Serendipodous I see some recent activity from you; might you be enticed to join the effort? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've been deliberately staying out of this; as a former Potterhead with a trans brother in law, it's just too personal. I can't be objective. Serendipodous 20:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good to hear from you anyway; hope you're well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Lead installed, archived discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Keir Starmer content moved
14Jenna7Caesura, I have moved this addition to Politics of J. K. Rowling and trimmed it to reflect what the source says (while also removing the citation template error in the date ... dates in citation templates should not contain the day of the week, which generates a citation error). Please be aware of the following:
- The lead is a summary of content in the body of the article. Please refrain from adding content directly to the lead, and examine the body of the article for where content may be a better fit.
- When examining the body, one finds there is a subarticle covering the transgender issues at Politics of J. K. Rowling. This (already long) article uses summary style; in the future, consider adding content first to a sub-article and then examining whether or how it might be merged into the main topic.
- Please read WP:FAOWN. This article is a Featured article and its lead has been very recently rewritten with consensus of multiple editors. Please discuss suggested improvements on talk and gain consensus for changes.
- This article uses British English (that is, criticised rather than criticized).
- The source does not say she is "vocal on 'misgendering'"; it says she accused Starmer of misrepresenting the law. Please take greater care not to insert original research into a BLP under double discretionary sanctions.
- You have previously received discretionary alerts for both sexuality issues and BLPs; this article is covered under both. When inserting content about a living person, please be absolutely certain that the source supports the wording you choose to insert into a very highly visible article that affects a living person. If you breach discretionary sanctions again, you are likely to be blocked.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)