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 | |
Neutrality
I think this page should be reviewed for neutrality. I sense many of her political defenders have recently contributed to this page in ways that don't seem to support a neutral tone.
Examples include: "Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common. She has at times used Twitter unreservedly to reach her Harry Potter fans and followers. She often tweets about her political opinions using wit and sarcasm, sometimes generating controversy."
"Aware of the good fortune that led to her wealth and fame, Rowling wanted to use her public image to help others despite her concerns about publicity and the press; she became, in the words of Smith, "emboldened ... to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her". Rowling's charitable donations before 2012 were estimated by Forbes at $160 million. She was the second most generous UK donor in 2015 (following the singer Elton John), giving about $14 million."
"Some performers and feminists have supported her. Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her"." (I feel the lack of specifics here also detract from the neutrality of the article) Tordenofitami (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Here is the four-month-long (January to April 2022) Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, which was to my knowledge the FAR with the highest participation ever (at least two dozen editors); it included editors of all stripes, colors and persuasions, and expertise and experience on Wikipedia, who worked collegially to come to consensus on text based on the highest quality sources. The FAR contains five pages of talk archives, and involved considerable work towards quality sourcing, prose, and obviously, neutrality.
- Re your statement that you
sense many of her political defenders have recently contributed to this page in ways that don't seem to support a neutral tone
, this is the diff showing all changes since the FAR passed. To save you some time, anyone who has regularly followed this article during and since its FAR (which is dozens of editors) can tell you that your "sense" is incorrect. - You have provided no source or policy-based reason for tagging the article; that is, you have tagged it based on your sense. And you offered examples of text that is well supported by the sources cited.
- The Neutrality tag is unwarranted and should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Providing specific examples of allegedly non-neutral content makes this a better NPOV complaint than 90% of the ones I come across, so thank you. That said, the missing piece is an analysis of the article text compared to the sources. For example, you object to "Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common", but this is explicit in the cited reliable source. I join with SandyGeorgia in thinking the tag should be removed. To put it in WP:WTRMT terms, I think we're at #3:
"it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed"
. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)- Real4jyy just removed the tag. Pinging them here in case they'd like to say something. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above responses. Crossroads -talk- 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
UNDUE and low-quality source on Galbraith name
Outnproud, please see the message on your talk page regarding this edit warring on a contentious topic. Featured articles must use high quality sources, Rowling has explained her choice of the name, the addition is WP:UNDUE, and this article was the subject of a deep and broad recent Featured article review. You should gain consensus before reinstating text removed once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- The article, published by Time, doesn't strike me as particularly low-quality. Is there a specific problem with it? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not a particular problem; do a preponderance of highest quality sources (translation: scholarly) raise this issue ? Rowling chose the name before 2013; it stretches credibility to think her reasons were anything other than what she stated. If the consensus is to add text about this issue, it needs to be decided a) whether it is added here or the sub-article Political views of J. K. Rowling; b) a comprehensive survey of highest quality (scholarly) sources undertaken to assess due weight; and c) prose issues. Regardless of that outcome, edit warring on a contentious topic is a problem. Discuss first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm trying to remember who has the full Pugh article (I have only the first chapter); @Victoriaearle: I believe you do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't describe Time as "low-quality", but it isn't high quality. The mention of the Robert Galbraith Heath controversy gets a passing mention in the Time article, and it goes on to restate Rowling's method of formulating the name.
- From a process perspective, both inclusion and exclusion of the content are not so drastically problematic that this is worth editing over. I urge Outnproud to self-revert. We're likely to reach rough consensus soonish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Correct; taking the time to get it right is the fastest and best approach. My scholarly source search is only turning up masters theses, and quite a few articles that mention Galbraith without mentioning this controversy, but I don't have full journal access (hence my ping to Victoria, as google search reveals that Pugh does mention Galbraith). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of that outcome, edit warring on a contentious topic is a problem. Discuss first.
– Mind you, I'm not the same person as Outnproud.I couldn't find any online news sources by websearch, but it didn't turn up the Time article or the one I'm about to mention either, so it might be a search term problem. The Time article links to this article in Them (which we AFAIK haven't had any problems with as a source) which does focus on this. This is still not that much, so might not be worth including, but I'd like to note that we haveAfter the revelation of her identity, sales of Cuckoo's Calling escalated.
in there, seemingly based on a two-sentence mention in the Guardian. The bar for including critical content shouldn't be higher than for content of laudatory nature. If we do include it, I think it'd be sensible to have it here where the pseudonym is also otherwise discussed, but Political views of J. K. Rowling does have a paragraph on Troubled Blood, so it could fit in there, too. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)- I'm unclear why you view that content as "laudatory"; it gives context for her donation of all of the proceeds to a charity (if I recall the story correctly, it's pretty astounding for a paralegal at a law firm to leak client-privileged information such that the law firm then has to make a charitable donation to avoid a malpractice suit ... as well as Rowling giving all proceeds to charity ... I could be misremembering, though, since I read all of these sources a year ago). Those are plain vanilla facts verifiable to many sources (that is, due weight; that only one source is listed does not mean only one source exists). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, I sent the Pugh chapter that discusses her adult fiction. See page 116 for an explanation of the name. In my view what we had here is fine for this article; anything else can go to a subarticle. Apols for short reply; will try to look over it later.
I had a bit about this in a sandbox that might need to can be undeleted if we know an admin willing to do so.Victoria (tk) 16:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) - Struck re sandbox. It's still there. Will trawl through as soon as a I can. Victoria (tk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, I sent the Pugh chapter that discusses her adult fiction. See page 116 for an explanation of the name. In my view what we had here is fine for this article; anything else can go to a subarticle. Apols for short reply; will try to look over it later.
- I'm unclear why you view that content as "laudatory"; it gives context for her donation of all of the proceeds to a charity (if I recall the story correctly, it's pretty astounding for a paralegal at a law firm to leak client-privileged information such that the law firm then has to make a charitable donation to avoid a malpractice suit ... as well as Rowling giving all proceeds to charity ... I could be misremembering, though, since I read all of these sources a year ago). Those are plain vanilla facts verifiable to many sources (that is, due weight; that only one source is listed does not mean only one source exists). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Correct; taking the time to get it right is the fastest and best approach. My scholarly source search is only turning up masters theses, and quite a few articles that mention Galbraith without mentioning this controversy, but I don't have full journal access (hence my ping to Victoria, as google search reveals that Pugh does mention Galbraith). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not a particular problem; do a preponderance of highest quality sources (translation: scholarly) raise this issue ? Rowling chose the name before 2013; it stretches credibility to think her reasons were anything other than what she stated. If the consensus is to add text about this issue, it needs to be decided a) whether it is added here or the sub-article Political views of J. K. Rowling; b) a comprehensive survey of highest quality (scholarly) sources undertaken to assess due weight; and c) prose issues. Regardless of that outcome, edit warring on a contentious topic is a problem. Discuss first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not a problem with using Time as a source. Insisting on "scholarly sources" seems to be an unreasonably high and arbitrary bar. Also a single reversion is not an "edit war", so let's tamp down on that particular unfounded accusation./ Zaathras (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you want to test that (1RR) on a contentious topic ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Giving due weight to scholarly sources is not unreasonable on a Featured article (that's part of what an FA is). If we've got one or a few mid-rate reliable sources mentioning something that scholarly sources don't even consider, that's a WP:DUE consideration. But let's wait and see what others come up with from scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings, and Olivaw-Daneel: re other sources (I've found two-- please number sources below for discussion purposes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
1. (Ravell): I have found this 2023 source:
Could others give opinions on the quality of this source? Next, if it's a good source, how much weight (if any) do we want to give to what some fans think based on a tweet (notice the careful wording and attribution in the source):
Nonetheless, a tweet from the theme ‘transphobia’ brought to light that this pen name Rowling chose is the same name as an American psychiatrist who ‘experimented on a gay individual through the process of gay conversion theory ... [claiming] that homosexuality could be “cured”’ (see Figure 21). Rowling is yet to comment on this correlation, however according to tweets from this hashtag fans appear to not believe this name similarity was mere coincidence.
That's one source so far, making it clear it's an opinion based on a tweet. If we're going to start introducing opinions from one source based on one tweet, that's a floodgate. (Keeping discussion focused on sources has been the way we've resolved all content matters for two years now; there's no rush, and I also recommend that Outnproud self-revert and collaborate on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
2. Pugh: I now have Chapter 7 of Pugh (the chapter devoted to Galbraith) and while it mentions how Rowling benefitted from the name, there is no mention whatsoever of this controversy, as far as I can tell from skimming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
3. New York Times, 2013, [1].
The name she chose, Ms. Rowling explained, is a mash-up of that of one of her heroes, Robert F. Kennedy, and Ella Galbraith, a fantasy name she chose for herself as a girl.
Ms. Rowling wrote the book under a man’s name, she said, to take her writing persona “as far away as possible” from herself. She said she remembered too late that the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who died in 2006, shared her first two initials, and feared that might be a clue to her identity.
Victoria (tk) 19:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
That's one source so far
– The relevant section already cites popular sources liberally. Is there a good reason to insist on only academic sources here? As for the source itself, well. It's in a real journal. The author is a PhD student with an h-index of 0. The article itself has not been cited anywhere, though it is only a little over a week old. If we're just talking reliability, I'd say it's good enough to say that some people on Twitter think the name's an intentional reference. For considering weight, I did a little review of a few queer news sources/magazines (off the top of my head) to see what they have to say on this. Them has the article I mentioned above, plus two more that mention it ([2],[3]). Them seems like an okay source to me. I can't tell if it's been on RSN before as the title makes it very hard to search for. LGBTQ Nation mentions it ([4]). According to this RSN discussion, LGBTQ Nation has a tabloidical bent, and might be WP:MREL. PinkNews and The Advocate did not make the connection when discussing Rowling's work under the pseudonym. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)