2601:648:8201:5e50::dd22 (talk) →Politico article: new section Tag: New topic |
2601:648:8201:5e50::dd22 (talk) |
||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
{{reftalk}} |
{{reftalk}} |
||
That quote and citation should be included imho. It's current and it's a viewpoint she decided to put out under her own name, using space she got in another publication, so I don't see how to call it unrepresentative or unDUE unless someone is saying she had a hangover or smething when she wrote the piece. We're in more danger of misrepresenting her if we leave it out than if we keep it in. It's a viewpoint that might be unpopular in some circles but she has decided to own it and stand up for it. It seems completely relevant for any readers trying to make sense of her public positions over the past few years. [[Special:Contributions/2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22|2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22]] ([[User talk:2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22|talk]]) 00:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== “Death threats” claim cites biased article of extremely questionable reliability == |
== “Death threats” claim cites biased article of extremely questionable reliability == |
Revision as of 00:11, 1 November 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, and on June 26, 2022. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
Other talk page banners | |
Morgan
This edit by WhatamIdoing creates a conundrum as there are multiple teachers (vague), and Pugh specifically mentions Morgan (see footnote f). At minimum, since Morgan is no longer named in the article, footnote f needs adjustment if we leave Morgan out of the body. With something as widely known and published as the Morgan connection, I am unsure if BLPNAME applies ... but heading out for the day, no time to further address just now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- I see the conundrum. Perhaps label her as "her primary school teacher"? Maybe "Her teacher at the Tutshill Church of England School" and then "her stern teacher there"?
- I'm looking at this through a Wikipedia:Don't be evil lens. I'd like the family and friends of this teacher to be able to read this article, which mentions the teacher putting Rowling in the dunce's row (but doesn't mention moving her back...) and feel like it wasn't a public pillorying.
- BTW, Tutshill#J. K. Rowling says that the character was partly inspired by two teachers (and names them both). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- That article is poorly sourced (http://www.half-bloodprince.org/snape_nettleship.php); we're sourcing to Kirk and the scholarly Pugh, who explicitly names Morgan. Kirk and Smith go into long analyses as I recall. I am fairly certain (but others like AP and O-D know better) that the Morgan issue is so well established that it's not a BLP issue, but I won't have time to investigate for the rest of the week ... hoping that AP or O-D will weigh in before the weekend, when I may have more free time to follow up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- PS, from my memory of reading all of Kirk and Smith, Morgan was described as quite the battle axe, so we're not likely in BLP territory. If I get a free moment this week between tests at clinic, will re-read Kirk and Smith to check, but real life got real complicated suddenly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Update: I found time to read through the main sources used in the biography last night. We have used four sources that cover Morgan (and there are many other lower-quality sources we didn't use). We have two full-length bios (old, but the best available, Smith and Kirk); one scholarly source (recent, thorough, Pugh); and one extensive news report (The Scotsman). All coverage says the same thing, which is basically that Rowling has discussed Morgan relative to Hogwarts. From my re-read, I conclude the WP:BLPNAME is not in play here, and the introduction of vague text when the subject is well covered in reliable sources is less than desirable, and we're not publishing anything that isn't already widely reported in reliable sources. My suggestion is that we re-instate the Morgan text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that it's really vague, and I agree that it can be sourced. My main concern is that this is unnecessary trivia – the sort of thing I'd expect to find in the Harry Potter Trivial Pursuit game. Does it actually matter what her name is? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Agree that it's too trivial for this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC).
I have adjusted the footnote, which left vague Morgan, who was cited to all four main bio sources (Pugh, Kirk, Smith and https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/jk-rowling-story-2478095 . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Rowling's treatment of Native American topics and fans
Right. It wasn't covered in higher profile sources because she's higher profile than the minorities who took issue with her treatment. Do you realize how rare it is for Native American issues to be covered in the mainstream press and, even more rare, for them to be covered accurately? I'll see if more sources came out since then. Elizabeth Warren lauded her for the misrepresentation, as she was doing the same sort of thing, and wanted in on it. But actual Natives were protesting. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Notified: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd support the edit if you could source the criticism to something better than a single Salon article. (I don't support the notification: AFAICT this article is not under 1RR and so CorbieVreccan's edits don't IMO rise to the level of edit warring.) Loki (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would be concerned, even if a stronger source is supplied, that we must factor in due weight. We've got a couple dozen editors here who spent months immersed in all the highest quality sources, and I don't recall having ever seen this come up, so while it might belong at the Politics of sub-article, I don't see it having a due weight fit here. Re the notification, I'm not an admin so the nuance is lost on me; the gist is that edit warring on any article is not good, and we should strive to keep the collaborative spirit that developed during the FAR on this page. I believe CorbieVreccan might agree, now that we've discussed a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I've seen this issue pop up in the sources, but without anywhere near the frequency of either scholarly critique of her books, or the transgender issues. Two rather obvious reasons for this; she's vocal on twitter about transgender issues, and the material touching on Native Americans is not in an actual publication, but "bonus material", as it were, on Pottermore, which gets very little attention. I don't see how it meets the due weight threshold at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Re. the move to a sub-article: doesn't this belong on Politics of Harry Potter rather than Politics of J. K. Rowling? It's about how Rowling treats Native Americans in her fiction, not on her social media (unlike the TG issues). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Could be, but it doesn't belong where it has again been moved; it is not a matter of International politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- It does have a social media component, and an international one. Native fans raised the issue with her on twitter and other platforms where she was usually very interactive. She responded once and then went silent. Then came harassment and even death threats from her fans. Rowling stayed silent on these as well. Around that time there was also other material online about her treatment of other races in her writing, Cho Chang, Irish stereotypes, etc. But like the Native American material, as I recall coverage was mostly in small publications online in Scotland and the US, and in social media, all of it international. But again, when minority populations are involved, the mainstream press often won't bother. Hence, discussions like this one. This is an ongoing issue with covering bias and prejudice, as well as protests. Up until relatively recently, LGBT concerns and even in-person protests and marches were disappeared in the same way in mainstream media. Older editors remember. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar:, @Kmhkmh:, it was also covered in The Guardian: JK Rowling under fire for writing about 'Native American wizards'- History of Magic in North America, being serialised on Rowling’s Pottermore website, attacked for using an ancient culture ‘as a convenient prop’, The Washington Post: J.K. Rowling borrowed a Navajo legend for her new story. Is that okay?, and (paywall) National Geographic: Native Americans to J.K. Rowling - We’re Not Magical -The author has come under fire for equating Navajo religious beliefs with the world of her fictional Harry Potter characters among other places. I can find more, as well. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I admit that this might be a bit more main reporting that I originally expected. However those basically just mirroring/superficially reporting on the twitter dispute with that some people have with Rowling. I still don't think this is really worth mentiong in this article (or due). There is imho a really unfortunate tendency in current media of turning any disagreement or differing point of into a social media event and a scandal of sorts. Wikipedia should stay away from those in doubt as long as possible. Of course if a certain threshold is passed it needs to be included in a biography, but i rather see that threshold set rather high. After all we're writing an encyclopedic biography of a person and not a yellow press biography.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nah, I think this is enough for a short mention in the article. If WaPo has covered an event, it's usually enough WP:WEIGHT to at least mention it. Loki (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Given that WaPo covered it, I would not object to one sentence in the Politics section, but a) it's not going to be as verbose as what was here originally, and b) I strongly suggest that we work together to craft one sentence (as we did to develop consensus on the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Reminding CV that we worked very hard during the FAR to keep the article to a reasonable size and accord due weight, and almost every political topic was tightly summarized; we should hold this one to same, and one well-crafted sentence ought to cover it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nah, I think this is enough for a short mention in the article. If WaPo has covered an event, it's usually enough WP:WEIGHT to at least mention it. Loki (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- "disappeared in the same way in mainstream media" I once encountered an Italian comic book story which satirized how the press works.: Significant political events and international news being mostly ignored, because they don't sell enough copies of a newspaper. A rock star dyes his hair with a new color, it becomes front-page news and the copies are sold out. I consider it a painfully accurate depiction of what passes for newsworthy items. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Dimadick, a mention in the WAPO does not pass the weight test, but I do agree with SandyGeorgia, this topic may merit a well crafted summarization. Crescent77 (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
JK/J.K.
As the article uses British English, should it use 'JK' throughout it?Halbared (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Here's her website; seems she uses J. K. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
English
Name the characters and object in JK Rowling books that exist inspired by real life 2409:4063:4082:7151:19B8:9FA:624B:FA58 (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- During the FAR, it was decided to only (or mostly anyway) mention such items in footnotes (eg Sylvia Morgan/Snape). An entire article could be created about such instances.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally, this request has a whiff of WP:HOMEWORK about it... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Times Article
The following edit I made was reverted:
On October 15, 2022, Rowling wrote a commentary piece for The Times regarding her stance on the Scottish government's proposal to make it bureaucratically easier for trans people to update their legal documents, in which she said that "there is no evidence to show that trans women don’t retain male patterns of criminality" and that "it is dangerous to assert that any category of people deserves a blanket presumption of innocence".[1]
I believe it should be restored, for the reason that Joanne's previous words on trans rights have been used to articulate her beliefs, and the above shows a significant shift in what she has stated her beliefs to be. Given that, and the fact that it's in her own words, there is no reason *not* to include it
@Vanamonde93 Snokalok (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- There's two issues here. First, this is a piece by Rowling; we generally need independent sources to analyze this before we attribute anything like a shift in perspective. Second, I can't read the piece, but from what's been said about it I don't see how this is in any way different from what's already in the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Fair enough, but notice the edit itself does not attribute that, that's merely my own statement for the purpose of including it.
- 2. Well for starters she made the very strong implication that trans people don't deserve the presumption of innocence, which is a significant step above "I just have concerns about women's rights" Snokalok (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- The comment on presumption of innocence could represent a significant change in her stance, and certainly it's one many have found disturbing based on commentary on social media. However without reliable secondary sources discussing the significance of this change, it would be WP:OR to state as much. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- This lacks WP:Secondary coverage and for that reason does not belong in any article, any more than any random tweet of hers does. Even if secondary coverage existed, it still would not belong in this article as it is WP:UNDUE; we summarize her view on gender self-identification and the reactions to it here, but not every single episode of 'she writes this, people react like that'. This has all been worked out over the WP:FAR. That this specific piece shows a "significant shift" in her beliefs appears to be WP:OR; from my perspective this looks much like the same view she's spoken about for years now. Crossroads -talk- 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It amazes me how any time I make an edit to anything, you're there within minutes. Truly a remarkable superpower.Snokalok (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)- Special:Watchlist. Those of us who contributed to the FAR have (almost all) kept the page in our watchlists, so as soon as we see an edit to the article or the talk page, it shows up there instantly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Snokalok please strike your unnecessary personalization. The article stats here will show you how long both Crossroads and Sideswipe9th have been involved at this article, which had a strenuous, collaborative and consensual Featured article review, almost entirely avoiding personalization of the type you just posted. I agree the content, at this point, is UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Special:Watchlist. Those of us who contributed to the FAR have (almost all) kept the page in our watchlists, so as soon as we see an edit to the article or the talk page, it shows up there instantly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- WP:DUE is a pretty good reason not to include content. In terms of the content we already have, this doesn't really add anything new, as Rowling's perspective on trans related issues is already pretty well covered via secondary sources. I would also be concerned that including the quotations that were selected without secondary coverage into why they were of importance would be verging into WP:SOAPBOX territory.
- Commentary on this showing
a significant shift in what she has stated her beliefs to be
needs to be demonstrated via secondary sourcing, otherwise we're engaging in WP:NOR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC) - I agree with Snokalok that we should add some information on this to the article even in the absence of secondary sources. (Just a sentence though, not a paragraph: something like
On October 15, 2022, Rowling wrote a commentary piece for The Times opposing the Scottish government's proposal to make it bureaucratically easier for trans people to update their legal documents.
) My reasoning here is that Rowling's comments on trans issues are a pretty big and increasing source of her notability now, which to me suggests that further info on that topic has sufficient WP:WEIGHT to get into the article by itself. - Think of it this way: right now we have a short summary of the timeline of Rowling's major comments on trans issues. But without this, we're omitting the whole existence of an op-ed she wrote for a major paper. Such an op ed is a big deal by itself, and omitting it would deceptively imply it wasn't actually a part of the timeline we're already laying out. It's not new information regarding what Rowling's views are, but it is new information regarding when she held those views and how committed she is to them, and not including it implies false information about those aspects of the situation. Loki (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rowling, JK (October 15, 2022). "JK Rowling: Sturgeon is deaf to women's concerns over gender ID". Archived from the original on October 17, 2022. Retrieved October 19, 2022.
That quote and citation should be included imho. It's current and it's a viewpoint she decided to put out under her own name, using space she got in another publication, so I don't see how to call it unrepresentative or unDUE unless someone is saying she had a hangover or smething when she wrote the piece. We're in more danger of misrepresenting her if we leave it out than if we keep it in. It's a viewpoint that might be unpopular in some circles but she has decided to own it and stand up for it. It seems completely relevant for any readers trying to make sense of her public positions over the past few years. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
“Death threats” claim cites biased article of extremely questionable reliability
The claim made in this article that Rowling has received death threats for her stances on trans rights issues cites a journal article I’m linking here below:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12124-021-09670-4.pdf
The article’s title is “Repressive Moralism: World Making and Petty Fascism in Transgender Politics.” If this does not seem suspect enough, its abstract straightfacedly states that groups “promoting” “transgender issues” “have much in common with the oppressive politics of fascist rule.” It should be embarrassing for any scientific journal to have published anything so clearly unserious and rooted in bad faith to begin with, but should be doubly so that anyone would think that this could be compatible with WP:NPOV.
While I’m sure Rowling has received blowback from her public stances of late, Wikipedia should not implicitly endorse garbage like this source in supporting this claim. Let’s remove this source and replace it with another that is less clearly biased. 2600:1000:B03E:1B2F:85BA:ADD4:DA9A:24D8 (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- I definitely missed this one when sources were being given in the past. I'm reading the full paper now and, first thing to note, is that a large amount of news articles and personal websites are used as references. I don't think this is standard for this journal, from the spot-checks I'm doing on other papers in this issue. Secondly, um...the writing style reads...very unprofessional. In both directions on the topic. Like, this is the second paragraph:
Transgender individuals, particularly men who transmute to a female identity and appearance are often the target of attacks by trans-intolerant hooligans (Phillips, 2013; Stelloh, 2019), of mobbing in schools (Norris & Orchowski, 2020), and of other forms of discrimination (Haines et al., 2018; Miller & Grollman, 2015). At the same time, one must not forget the outrageously high number of ciswomen - that is, women whose female identity is congruent with their biological sex, being battered and killed the world over (World Health Organisation, 2021). The authors wish to make clear that they condemn any violence, prejudice, and discrimination against women, transgender persons, and any other human being.
- This...doesn't sound like any form of academic article I've ever read. It's as if a high schooler wrote it. Like, this entire paper sounds like an assignment turned in by a student. SilverserenC 07:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- There's also random digressions that happen for a paragraph and are then moved on from. Like here:
A clear example of this is revealed in a "meta-empirical" study of the structure and development of events in Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible", in which the authors analysed the emergence and characteristics of a reified institutional discourse following some unusual events involving girls from the village of Salem in the 17th century (Wagner et al., 2008). Due to a psychological shock, two girls fell in a day-long stupor that some villagers explained by natural causes. Others resorted to the magical explanation of witchcraft, which was a serious offence in this pious Quaker community. Once an official court was called to investigate the accusations of witchcraft and devil's work, the to and fro of freely exchanged opinions during the first day of consensual conversations vanished, and was swiftly replaced by stiff and reserved utterances. As a high-level religious institution the court had the right and duty to execute any person found to be affiliated with the devil, which resulted in more than a dozen executions.
- Like, I get that they're trying to relate this to communication and discourse, but the connection is so oblique as to just make the comparison confounding. Again, as if a student is just pulling in any reference they find that relates to the subject at hand and then trying to make it fit the theme of the overall topic. SilverserenC 07:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for having the bravery to venture into the full text. It is astounding to me that otherwise respected peer-reviewed journals would print this. If you look at the "scientific" articles that have cited this one, you find another barely-cited article with the astounding title "Involvement in LGBQ Activism is Related to Pathological Narcissistic Grandiosity and Virtue Signaling." Note the omission of the letter "T" there in that previous sentence. A strange, barely-seen black hole of thinly veiled bigotry indeed. 24.147.9.178 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'm reading through this now and several alarm bells are ringing. Leaving aside the prose issues Silverseren has identified, there's factual content in the article that I would dispute.
- In particular, the way that the article dismisses the scientific criticism of the work of J. Michael Bailey (a controversial name in trans research) as purely activist driven is concerning. To quote from the paper,
Activists deemed the scientists' finding of being transgender because of sexual preferences unacceptable and initiated an aggressive campaign against Michael Bailey.
While there are certainly activists who have made vitriolic comments about Bailey, a significant proportion of the criticism of Bailey's work is in peer reviewed literature. And as forIn other words, activists intended to assassinate Bailey's character and reputation, undo any positive praise his book received
, that is a reference to The Man Who Would Be Queen, which had a large negative reaction beyond that of just "activists". Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
That JKR has received death threats is entirely uncontroversial, and Springer is recognized as a high-quality publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- OP here; IP is different. I agree with both of your statements here, though not the implied conclusion. Springer is such a large publisher of journals that at some point a bad article or two is bound to sneak in somewhere. Indeed, it took The Lancet years to retract Andrew Wakefield's "autistic enterocolitis" paper even after it was in very large part disproven, yet during that time I'm sure an argument for citing an uncontroversial claim made in the article in a neutral fashion (based solely upon its inclusion in The Lancet) would not have flown with Wikipedia editors.
- I'm not contesting or expressing skepticism at the idea that Rowling has received death threats for her publicly expressed views. I'm merely suggesting that if that is the case, it should be easier to find a less biased source making this claim that is less likely to mislead readers looking for unbiased further reading. That it is "uncontroversial" that "JKR has received death threats" follows from what you and I have been told by other sources, not this one in question. Were I to have come across this claim in this article first, I would be highly skeptical of it due to the fact that the authors clearly have an axe to grind with the entire trans rights movement.
- I propose that this article does not follow WP:SCHOLARSHIP guidelines based on its low citation count (only two citations per Google Scholar, one by one of the authors themselves), its status as a primary and very editorial research paper, and the fact that one of the authors, Nicky Hayes, appears to have claimed a current affiliation with a university by whom she is not in fact employed as an academic. Clearly the peer review was not thorough if it did not catch the latter. Furthermore, the article's bias is strong and pervasive enough that I'd stipulate that if it continues to be included in the article it would merit in-text attribution, per WP:BIASED. 24.147.9.178 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- IP24, are you suggesting we need intext attribution to cite the uncontroversial fact that JKR has received death threats? That is what the particular journal article is citing, so I must not be understanding what you are suggesting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- They're saying that we should be using a stronger source for the reference than one that is poorly written and unprofessionally worded. Since there are plenty of other reliable sources available for covering that statement, what's wrong with swapping for a different one? SilverserenC 04:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing (for now) ... I didn't understand the suggestion that intext attribution was needed for an uncontroversial statement. But we should also keep in mind that over the longer term, we should (eventually) be moving as much as possible towards scholarly sources (like Springer, etc). For now, it is hard to avoid recentism, but in a year or two, a survey of scholarly sources will be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- If I'm interpreting the IP editor correctly, they think that it would require in-text attribution only if we kept the questionable source. This stems from the overt biases of the authors, which I can see and agree with, and the textual prose issues discussed by Silverseren above. However were we to swap that for another less questionable source, there's no need for attribution. In this case, we have another research paper, that was published 6 months after the questionable one, so we don't need to worry about reducing the number of scholarly sources we currently use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; I am not seeing any circumstances under which the statement that Rowling has received death threats can ever be considered POV, so I am still confused by the suggestion; it is not a "biased statement of opinion", and attributing it would give the false impression that it is. At any rate, the source (criticized for its writing) has now been replaced by a source with writing so tortured that the meaning of the abstract is difficult to decipher (and the article isn't much better); I'm not sure it's an improvement. That is, we went from something criticized for its writing and cited by 2 to something with worse writing cited by zero; what's the improvement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think that might be a misreading of BIASED/ATTRIBUTEPOV by the IP editor. The issue isn't that "Rowing has received death threats" is POV, it's that using a heavily biased source (Wagner) for otherwise uncontroversial material makes it seem as though it's POV. The IP editor's suggestion that we attribute was only if we continue to use the Wagner source, and that if we replace Wagner with another source that does not have the same issues that Silverseren and myself have discussed, then we would not need attribute it.
- The Qiao abstract makes sense to me. I'd re-summarise it as:
The paper investigates comments made on Weibo (a set of Chinese microblogging platforms), between June 2020 and February 2022, that were related comments made by JK Rowling on Twitter in the same time period. The comments from Weibo formed a corpus (body of text), that was analysed through a word cloud and related frequency graph. The paper discusses the definition of the terms "radical feminism" and "TERF", and its development both in China and elsewhere. The paper preforms a psychological analysis on Rowling's anti-transgender comments made between June 2020 and February 2022, and contrasts that against the comments made on Weibo. In doing so, it was found that TERF sentiment in China was a hybrid of biological essentialism and individuality in identity*. And ends with a generic comment on TERFs
. - * Note that this is something specific to Chinese social media that doesn't seem to translate well to Western social media, as Chinese social media (or at least Weibo) is not pseudonymous.
- Hope that helps. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; I am not seeing any circumstances under which the statement that Rowling has received death threats can ever be considered POV, so I am still confused by the suggestion; it is not a "biased statement of opinion", and attributing it would give the false impression that it is. At any rate, the source (criticized for its writing) has now been replaced by a source with writing so tortured that the meaning of the abstract is difficult to decipher (and the article isn't much better); I'm not sure it's an improvement. That is, we went from something criticized for its writing and cited by 2 to something with worse writing cited by zero; what's the improvement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- If I'm interpreting the IP editor correctly, they think that it would require in-text attribution only if we kept the questionable source. This stems from the overt biases of the authors, which I can see and agree with, and the textual prose issues discussed by Silverseren above. However were we to swap that for another less questionable source, there's no need for attribution. In this case, we have another research paper, that was published 6 months after the questionable one, so we don't need to worry about reducing the number of scholarly sources we currently use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing (for now) ... I didn't understand the suggestion that intext attribution was needed for an uncontroversial statement. But we should also keep in mind that over the longer term, we should (eventually) be moving as much as possible towards scholarly sources (like Springer, etc). For now, it is hard to avoid recentism, but in a year or two, a survey of scholarly sources will be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- They're saying that we should be using a stronger source for the reference than one that is poorly written and unprofessionally worded. Since there are plenty of other reliable sources available for covering that statement, what's wrong with swapping for a different one? SilverserenC 04:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- IP24, are you suggesting we need intext attribution to cite the uncontroversial fact that JKR has received death threats? That is what the particular journal article is citing, so I must not be understanding what you are suggesting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- I dunno Sandy. While I think that Rowling receiving death threats is largely uncontroversial, having read the paper I think that there has to be stronger sources we can cite for this. While scholarship is preferable, I honestly think that one or two strong reliable media sources would be significantly stronger and more reliable than this specific paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Though the primary focus of the paper is on transphobia in Chinese social media, this paper published in June 2022 seems on the surface to be reasonable. While I can't attest to the accuracy of how it describes content specific to Weibo, the content it discusses that was published on Twitter does seem accurate. If there's no objections, I think this paper could replace the Wagner and Hayes citation without needing any other textual changes to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with replacing the source. The claim in our article is correct but replacing a source with one that's less controversial and weird is generally good practice IMO. Crossroads -talk- 21:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sources swapped these three edits. If I've done anything wrong, feel free to clean up or undo. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Though the primary focus of the paper is on transphobia in Chinese social media, this paper published in June 2022 seems on the surface to be reasonable. While I can't attest to the accuracy of how it describes content specific to Weibo, the content it discusses that was published on Twitter does seem accurate. If there's no objections, I think this paper could replace the Wagner and Hayes citation without needing any other textual changes to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- The version in the article now received consensus after workshopping here and we shouldn't swap out good sources before going back to the drawing board if that's what's needed. The workshopping for the consensus version during the FAR can be found here (note: the FAR version doesn't mention death threats). It's better to discuss and get it right rather than quickly finding a source to replace. The only secondary source I can access easily is Pugh, who doesn't mention death threats. A quick google search returns pages of results; here are two I've chosen at random, this from The Scotsman and this from Newsweek. But if I remember correctly we compiled a long list of sources during the FAR, so it might be best to revisit those. Or perhaps even remove the death threat sentences? Victoria (tk) 19:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- The objection seems to be that Wagner is not a good source, and not that the content it was supporting was wrong. If I'm reading the archive histories correctly, the sentence on death threats was added while the article was featured on TFA. We could remove it, but I don't think that it's wrong per-say, and with a less objectionable source it's probably fine to stay. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- While I agree the death threats sentence is very likely true, Wikipedia isn't just a collection of facts. Rowling is, notably, by no means the only public figure to have received death threats. But we don't mention that about any given public figure unless that fact has been covered in reliable sources. It's pretty likely that we have RSes for this somewhere, but if we don't we should remove that sentence. Loki (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- The objection seems to be that Wagner is not a good source, and not that the content it was supporting was wrong. If I'm reading the archive histories correctly, the sentence on death threats was added while the article was featured on TFA. We could remove it, but I don't think that it's wrong per-say, and with a less objectionable source it's probably fine to stay. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- The Chinese conference paper suffers from a lack of editing. For example:
In June 2020 Rowling retweeted an op-ed discussing "menstruating people," apparently with the fact that the story in question did not use the word female. "Menstruating man.
(p. 1323)And this exposes the misogyny of the Chinese TERF community: And this exposes the misogyny of the TERF community in China:
(p.1325)
- Some portions appear to have been machine-translated, like
Extract: "If a male pervert disguises himself as a gender perception is female and goes to the women's bathroom, then the girls in the women's bathroom are not very dangerous?"
(p. 1324)
- As far as I can tell, Leshui Qiao has only ever published two conference papers. I couldn't find out anything more about the author. gnu57 20:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Politico article
[2] "The metamorphosis of J. K. Rowling", about some controversies she has been in. I don't have much interest in the topic but am posting the link here in case anyone wants to use it in the awiki rticle. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)