Line 452: | Line 452: | ||
:: Some editors may be under the impression that the [[LGB Alliance]] is in some sense an LGBT rights organization, in the sense of this paragraph. It is not. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
:: Some editors may be under the impression that the [[LGB Alliance]] is in some sense an LGBT rights organization, in the sense of this paragraph. It is not. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
::: Looking at the article as it stands, the only reference to the LGB Alliance is in a cite which makes it clear that they're a bunch of transphobes, so at least that's not a problem as it stands. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
::: Looking at the article as it stands, the only reference to the LGB Alliance is in a cite which makes it clear that they're a bunch of transphobes, so at least that's not a problem as it stands. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:As long as none of this topic is in the opening paragraph? I'm content. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Paragraphing in the lead == |
== Paragraphing in the lead == |
Revision as of 19:19, 28 June 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 | |
TFA reminder, June 26
@4meter4, A. C. Santacruz, Adam Cuerden, AleatoryPonderings, Aza24, Barkeep49, Bastun, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Czar, Ealdgyth, Endwise, Extraordinary Writ, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, Guerillero, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Innisfree987, Ipigott, Ixtal, Johnbod, LokiTheLiar, Newimpartial, Olivaw-Daneel, RandomCanadian, Sdkb, Sideswipe9th, Silver seren, SMcCandlish, Serial Number 54129, Vanamonde93, Victoriaearle, Xxanthippe, Zmbro, and Z1720: Pinging all involved in the FAR and TFAR for extra eyes on TFA day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll try to take as much of a look as possible, but I'll be asleep or at church for most of the first half of the run. Hog Farm Talk 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will be watching all except for two hours towards the end of the run, and when I try to sleep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Both articles have been on my watch-list for a long time. I'll definitely be keeping an eye out tomorrow whenever I'm online. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Will keep an eye on this when I can today. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will be watching all except for two hours towards the end of the run, and when I try to sleep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Won't be involved as I'm recovering from surgery but I'll respond to pings if urgent help or my opinion is needed. Enjoy your weekend everyone and be proud of the formidable work done by all of you to take this article back to FA quality and to curate its nomination for TFA. The work we do not only to cover notable topics well but to recognize and maintain quality articles is something you should congratulate yourself in the mirror for regularly. This is important work that y'all are doing and you should feel proud of your contributions. I am proud of you all :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Get well soon, and thanks for the kind words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm here (thanks for the ping, I'd lost track of the date), but not feeling great so will be in & out and not up to any great long discussions. Victoria (tk) 23:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- 35 minutes in, and three changes have been made. I've picked this revision from 16:57, 25 June 2022 to restore to, though I was tempted to pick one further back and closer to the FAR. Not sure if this is the right version to go back to, but the work from @Ham II: hasn't diverged too much from the FAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding relevant links:
- Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 April 2022
- including five talk archives at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 from December 2021
- TFA blurb Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/J. K. Rowling April 2022
- Lead RFC Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11 January 2022
- AN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Eyes on J. K. Rowling TFA June 2022
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Adding permadiffs:
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good luck. If my clearing of POTD/Unused was a bit controversial, this could be a powder keg. But, y'know, I can respect all the hard work you put in as editors without needing to respect the article's subject that much (her twitter is one of the biggest internet horrorshows at the moment, and not in the Nadsat meaning of "horrorshow". It's about 90% attacks on trans people, especially given she's pinned a bunch of her favourite attacks.) I'm a bit concerned for all of you (I don't want to see any of you hurt if this blows up) but, well, in the end, there's never going to be a good time to run it anymore, so, y'know, good luck. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am on a kinda Wiki break, plus currently I have Covid; not too bad but resting mostly and avoiding. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Get well soon ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Phew! That was busy. Thanks everyone, above all SG. I looked in a few times, but everything seemed covered. This is the cumulative diff for the day. It looks ok to me - a few more pesky Americanisms hunted down - but might be worth a check by others. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Amazing work everyone. I've kept half an eye over here, but it's gone well. Thanks to Sandy for her special brand of magic on the talk pages and keeping all the threads together and focused. Big pats on backs all around. Victoria (tk) 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
TFA post-mortem
At 99,066 , barely missed Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Without Telegraph, Sky News probably would have hit Most Viewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that additional protection was not needed, but suggest that having arb sanctions in place was a big help wrt TFA day, which was one of the smoothest I've been involved with, in spite of the controversial topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think the rather fast work done by ToBeFree at the start helped a lot. Not just for handling that early disruptive editor, but also for the copy/paste notice we could use on a new editor's talk page just to gently remind them not to edit war, was very helpful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
BLP vio allegation
JeffUK The well-vetted content you removed was not a BLP violation, nor was it thinly sourced. There are boatloads of mainstream sources discussing where JKR has been referred to as a TERF; here's but one easily found sample: [3]. Your edit also left a grammatical error in the article; please self-revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note I had already reverted this by the time you got this typed up and posted! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you may have reverted too far back; the edits before the article went live were not problematic, at least IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly, though I wasn't too sure about the edits by Wubslin and Kleinpecan, as they diverged pretty far from the FAR in some sections and I'd rather be overly cautious and re-do those after the TFA is finished. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note, per the section below the edits by Wubslin and Kleinpecan have both now been restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly, though I wasn't too sure about the edits by Wubslin and Kleinpecan, as they diverged pretty far from the FAR in some sections and I'd rather be overly cautious and re-do those after the TFA is finished. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you may have reverted too far back; the edits before the article went live were not problematic, at least IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The topic of this thread is also under discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Broader discussion of this text continues below at #"and she has been referred to as a TERF". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Casual Vacancy
Kbabej, the source you added here is not a high quality reliable source as required for Featured articles, and Casual Vacancy has its own article, where detail about it can be explored. Please review WP:FAOWN and the Featured article review linked above, and discuss further edits on talk. I suggest you self-revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note, I've also reverted this by the time you'd typed this up and posted. Sorry @SandyGeorgia:. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Slow and steady wins the race :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Done: Reverted SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
"and she has been referred to as a TERF"
I'm certainly not trying to upset the apple cart right before it's on the main page (it's already there), and I know it took a lot of discussion to get to where it's at now, but when the article says "...and she has been referred to as a TERF..." would it perhaps be beneficial to say who has referred to her as such? With the current wording it's not really clear if this is just something that Twitter users have called her, or if some expert in some social field or something had said? I know the source cited just mentions her responding to such accusations and not who was doing the accusations, but is this something that was previously discussed or that can be sourced to specific people or groups? - Aoidh (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh: this was discussed at length during the FAR at: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_5#Workshopping_the_transgender_section Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- For now, I have double-cited it: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- She has been called that by various groups as mentioned on several sources-- enough that further specificity might not be helpful. Have you a suggested wording change we might discuss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know I'm probably being less than helpful in even bringing it up, but I only saw this and this as far as sources. I wasn't able to identify sources showing who said it so I don't have any suggested wording change. I didn't see in the FAR where the attribution of the term was discussed, but if it's been said by enough people that attribution isn't really helpful I'm certainly not trying to press the issue, I just thought it might help, but if it doesn't then I'm happy to drop the suggestion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Give me a moment to work something up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know I'm probably being less than helpful in even bringing it up, but I only saw this and this as far as sources. I wasn't able to identify sources showing who said it so I don't have any suggested wording change. I didn't see in the FAR where the attribution of the term was discussed, but if it's been said by enough people that attribution isn't really helpful I'm certainly not trying to press the issue, I just thought it might help, but if it doesn't then I'm happy to drop the suggestion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking at just a few sources:
- This USA Today "splainer" refers to it generally, and indicates JKR herself suggested she had been called that: [5]
- NBC News says she referred to it herself: [6]
- Dave Chapelle says the "transgender community" call her a TERF. [7]
- The Independent refers to her reference to the term: [8]
- The Advocate outright calls her a TERF: [9]
- CNN says "critics" have called her a TERF: [10]
- The LA Times references her statement that she was called a TERF: [11]
- The Scotsman puts it on a Twitter trend: [12]
So just from that sampling, it seems widespread. Our text currently says:
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'm at a loss for how to improve that; suggestions welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for those sources, I didn't see those when I made this topic. But after reviewing the sources, it does look like it's not something that can be attributed to a person or group of people, the only suggestion I would make is possibly rewording it to
so that way both the transphobic part and the TERF part are both attributed to critics? That way there is that attribution and acknowledgement of who is making those assertions, even if it's just the broad "critics"? - Aoidh (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by critics. She rejects these characterisations.
- The sources don't restrict it to only critics: Dave Chapelle proclaims he is "team TERF". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, fair point. I really don't see anything I could suggest that would be an improvement then. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this; I've added now a scholarly source, and someone may come up with better wording because of your effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reading through that source, I don't believe it supports the line; it says that Alice Schwarzer was
branded a ’Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist’ (TERF)
, but it doesn't make such a statement about Rowling. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)- My apologies for the delay, BilledMammal; it took me some time to figure out where I had stored the source. You are correct, I misread, and I will shortly self-revert. Thank you for noticing my error. The direct statement about Rowling is "storm of insults and death wishes" (hence my offer above that one option is to broaden the statement beyond just TERF). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here are some other journal possibilities:
- Gulley " As a result, Rowling was called a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by many in the LGBTQIA+ community (Ivy 2019)."
- I do not have access to this one: Thomsen ... anyone?
- Vaitoska "Recently, the author of Harry Potter J. K. Rowling was called TERF – a mock- ing term meaning “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” She was proclaimed such for supporting the opinion that sex change is biologically impossible."
- I do not have access to this one: Schwirblat ... the preview shows it seems to support the text.
- There are quite a few others I do not have access to; I believe it apparent that the statement can be cited to a scholarly source, but we should discuss which to use after closer examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Thomsen, et al. paper doesn't have a single quote that supports it. Instead Rowling is mentioned as one of several anti-trans and TERF individuals named in a larger section titled "Kill the feminist, kill the lesbian".
- The Schwirblat, et al. paper does not appear to have been published yet, as the publication date is 27 June 2022. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- So ... the Thomsen paper directly calls her a TERF by including her there ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've emailed you a copy of the Thomsen paper now. By my reading it does support it, but unlike the Gulley and Vaitoska papers it does not do so in an easy to quote manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- So ... the Thomsen paper directly calls her a TERF by including her there ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm only able to see Gulley, who cites to this NBC News piece re TERF, [13] (not sure if we have this one?). Victoria (tk) 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Adding: in fact the NBC opinion piece does not even mention the term anywhere, so Gulley has miscited or misattributed. I wouldn't use it. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thx, and I have now viewed Thomsen, which I think not sufficient, so those two are out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Had a closer look at the Vaitoska paper. It cites a Forbes piece from December 2019 for it, though upon closer inspection of the Forbes piece it seems to be from a Forbes contributor which we generally consider to be unreliable and a self published source, unless the contributor is a subject matter expert. I don't know enough about the author, Dawn Ennis, to tell if they are such an expert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thx, and I have now viewed Thomsen, which I think not sufficient, so those two are out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reading through that source, I don't believe it supports the line; it says that Alice Schwarzer was
- Thanks for raising this; I've added now a scholarly source, and someone may come up with better wording because of your effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, fair point. I really don't see anything I could suggest that would be an improvement then. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sources don't restrict it to only critics: Dave Chapelle proclaims he is "team TERF". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I think this should be removed. it's not appropriate for an article to list all of the slurs and insults that have been made about someone, even if it is proven that those slurs and insults have been made. Rowling's own essay is the ultimate source of many of those articles, where she says in full " I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, " Should we add 'She has been referred to has a cunt, a bitch, and a TERF, characterisations she denies'? I don't think we should be using terms like 'TERF' in articles unless it's a label they accept for themselves; even if we try and weasel out of it by not using wiki-voice. JeffUK (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of numerous sources listing the other things she has been called, although if they do, an option is to replace TERF with something more general about the speech and threats directed at her, which scholarly sources do cover. I am satisfied with the use of TERF only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My concern is not verifiability. Reporting that an offensive slur has been used against someone is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia biography article without a very good reason to explore it in detail, more than anything it's WP:Undue Especially when the subject has vehemently denied the claim, and spoken out specifically about the chilling effects of that label. JeffUK (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The "very good reason' is that a noted and so-called feminist turned out to hold views that are widely considered to be bigoted. Similarly, white supremacists don't like to be called white supremacists, they prefer identitarian. Personal opinions of the subjects in these cases is not relevant. Zaathras (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My concern is not verifiability. Reporting that an offensive slur has been used against someone is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia biography article without a very good reason to explore it in detail, more than anything it's WP:Undue Especially when the subject has vehemently denied the claim, and spoken out specifically about the chilling effects of that label. JeffUK (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see that what TERF stand for is spelled-out, but is there a reason why it isn't linked to TERF? Was this a conscious decision made? Zaathras (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Confused ... ?? ... it is linked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can confirm it is wikilinked. I've also checked the revisions shortly before the time Zaathras made their reply, and it seems to be linked in all of them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Confused ... ?? ... it is linked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The current wording seems ideal. Certainly no convincing arguments to change it here. ––FormalDude talk 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As long as we're linking to the TERF article which explains the larger issues around the recently coined term I don't see the slur issue... Its common for an objective description to be described as a slur by those its directed against. If a white supremacist is adequately described as such by WP:RS but considers white supremacist to be a slur (most of them do) and instead wants to be called a "white identity activist" we're not going to honor their wishes. Not sure why we would treat this differently from any other form of bigotry. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Options on "referred to as a TERF"
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.
Per the discussion above, we have several options:
- Leave well enough alone based on source list above
- Add a scholarly source to the general statement
- Broaden the statement to encompass "storm of insults and death threats"
- Qualify the statement somehow (wording would be tricky)
Please suggest ideas and preferences .... NOT A VOTE ! If we get sufficient or diverging opinions, then we can consider a survey. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you feel 'Removing the phrase 'TERF' from the article is not even an option? JeffUK (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Removing it entirely leaves the content without context for her essay rebuttal, in which she clearly outlines that issue ... that is, IMO the best option should we opt to remove the term entirely is to replace it with something about the general insults aimed at her, so that context is supplied. That said, if others support it, we could certainly consider going that direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- But the context about her essay is already there, "LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with an essay on her website" that paragraph stands alone perfectly fine without the subsequent paragraph. It would be even more inappropriate to just include a list of other insults that have been used against her. It is undue weight and (again) in violation of WP:BLP specifically "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. " . JeffUK (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am, for now, refraining from offering my own preference re how to address this, as I don't want to stifle further discussion. But the highest quality (scholarly) sources are what we should be basing text on in a featured article, and I've listed the wording used by several scholarly sources; you can deduce where I will likely come out based on that. Rowling has been broadly subject to insults and death threats; working that in would be non-trivial, and in the collaborative spirit in which this article's content has evolved, would likely involve discussions through several proposal iterations. The method has served us well so far ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- But the context about her essay is already there, "LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments; GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate". Rowling responded with an essay on her website" that paragraph stands alone perfectly fine without the subsequent paragraph. It would be even more inappropriate to just include a list of other insults that have been used against her. It is undue weight and (again) in violation of WP:BLP specifically "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. " . JeffUK (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Including the phrase TERF was discussed at length during the FAR. Also I'd point out that consensus at the BLPN thread that you opened @JeffUK: seems to be that including the term as used is not a BLP violation. Update The BLPN discussion has been closed stating
There is reasonable consensus both here and at the article that there is no BLPvio that would necessitate invoking WP:BLPRESTORE, so in the interest of not splitting discussion, I'm closing this to keep discussion on the talk page.
Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC) updated with closure of BLPN discussion Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)- Where should I be looking for the extensive discussion? TERF is mentioned 5 times on that page, 3 of which are quotes from the same snippet of text, There is exactly zero discussion about the appropriateness of the term. JeffUK (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that we, and the article, are better served by looking forward rather than backwards. There are multiple ways to address this concern, and we have found on this page that collaborative discussion works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I just keep being clobbered with 'This has been discussed', 'the wording was agreed already'' and 'familiarize themselves with the history of the article wording to avoid rereading old ground'. If this has been discussed at length in the past, I would like to read the arguments to save time. JeffUK (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, yes, agree with this. Re your list above, per number 4 - would it work to simply say she has been called a radical feminist and leave out the acronym? That gives context that I do think is needed. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is an option, but I am unsure it will gain consensus. My sense early on (could be wrong???) is that plenty of people would object to removing TERF and its link. Also, we still have Wagner and Schwirblat; I wonder if anyone can decipher if Schwirblat will become available tomorrow? Wagner's wording is "storm of insults and death wishes". Scholar.google coughs up many other sources I cannot access; perhaps someone with better access can, and we can initiate a discussion focused on scholarly sources? I need to go out for about an hour and a half, but can iPad edit from the car hotspot ... slow and steady wins the race. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle: I don't think we can leave out the trans-exclusionary part. It would be changing what our sources are saying, as Rowling is not being criticised for being a radical feminist. She's being criticsed for being a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. By dropping the acronym and trans-exclusionary, you're changing the group to which others are describing her being a part of.
- @SandyGeorgia: if you want to email me the URLs to the other sources or link them here, I should be able to access most. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gotta dash out or will be late ... just scholar.google TERF Rowling ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Will do, I'll get the relevant ones linked here shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Take note that several were resoundingly rejected back during the discussion of sources on the FAR ... you may need to look that up first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eg, Hotine comes to mind as one that resulted in heated discussion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, already come across Hotine's piece. I'll filter the list against the past discussion, plus the other four you linked earlier, once I find the most relevant ones. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. See #Scholarly sources section below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Will do, I'll get the relevant ones linked here shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The sources do not say that "Rowling is being criticised for being a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. " they say 'She's been called a TERF', I think there is a subtle but important difference between the two, and that the reported name-calling is just not due weight for the section on Rowling's views (or anywhere on her article). That her views have been criticised for being transphobic is not in any doubt, so 'transphobic' seems entirely appropriate. JeffUK (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Gotta dash out or will be late ... just scholar.google TERF Rowling ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that we, and the article, are better served by looking forward rather than backwards. There are multiple ways to address this concern, and we have found on this page that collaborative discussion works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where should I be looking for the extensive discussion? TERF is mentioned 5 times on that page, 3 of which are quotes from the same snippet of text, There is exactly zero discussion about the appropriateness of the term. JeffUK (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Removing it entirely leaves the content without context for her essay rebuttal, in which she clearly outlines that issue ... that is, IMO the best option should we opt to remove the term entirely is to replace it with something about the general insults aimed at her, so that context is supplied. That said, if others support it, we could certainly consider going that direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My current preference is first 1, leaving it alone, followed by 2 adding a scholarly source to the existing set of citations.
- I do not think broadening it to include "storm of insults and death threats" is due as that doesn't seem to be reflected in the weight our sources give to that. I also don't think there's a way to succinctly qualify the statement, without repeating much of the content at Political views of J. K. Rowling. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please try to avoid early !voting, which never leads anywhere good :) As soon as I return from a quick errand, we should set up proposals in the same format that served us so well during the FAR (see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5). But we should first and foremost engage in broad-based discussion to be sure we all understand each other's concerns. Mine now is that we re-focus away from news sources, and on to scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I was simply brainstorming. I agree w/ Sideswipe's comments. Discussion is always valuable and I think we've articulated why the entire acronym is needed. Victoria (tk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am on my way home, and will set up some structured proposals per Ss source list as soon as I get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I was simply brainstorming. I agree w/ Sideswipe's comments. Discussion is always valuable and I think we've articulated why the entire acronym is needed. Victoria (tk) 18:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please try to avoid early !voting, which never leads anywhere good :) As soon as I return from a quick errand, we should set up proposals in the same format that served us so well during the FAR (see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5). But we should first and foremost engage in broad-based discussion to be sure we all understand each other's concerns. Mine now is that we re-focus away from news sources, and on to scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd rather have the entire thing deleted. IMHO, it belongs in the Political views of J. K. Rowling page. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- She's being put on the main page in the middle of Pride. Not addressing her transphobic views at all is far, far worse. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
My preference is to leave it how it is. The statement is adequately sourced and neutrally worded. We aren't referring to Rowling as a TERF, merely remarking that she has been called one, which is hardly news to anyone. The main question I think is whether there is adequate weight to justify including the statement given that it is a negative characterization in a BLP. Sandy's list of sources makes me inclined to believe that there is adequate weight. Nosferattus (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Scholarly sources
A list of relevant scholarly sources describing Rowling as a TERF
- They would have transitioned me: third conditional TERF grammar of trans childhood, Jacob Breslow, open access
- Note: source states why it calls Rowling an TERF in footnote 1.
- Note: Source was discussed but not rejected during the FAR
- This is my TERF! Lesbian Feminists and the Stigmatization of Trans Women, Meredith Worthen, closed access but available through WP:LIB
- Quote:
Relatively recently, social media has exploded with conversations about Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) who are opposed to the recognition of trans women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnormativity (Williams, 2014; Zanghellini, 2020). British author J.K. Rowling has been at the center of recent pop culture (and sometimes academic) discussions about trans exclusion due to her own comments and blog/essay in which she defends her stance on sex essentialism (Rowling, 2020).
- Quote:
- Mainland China's TERFs' Misogyny under JK Rowling's Anti-trans Incident, Leshui Qiao, open access
- Quote:
JK Rowling's anti-trans incident has brought the existence of TERF (anti-trans radical feminists) to the surface again, and indeed in 2008 TERF sprouted on the internet [1] and further developed in 2014 [2].
- Quote:
This shows that Chinese netizens display an anti-political correctness stance when viewing the JK Rowling case, which makes the TERF ideology more convincing (they are more supportive of JK Rowling's views),
- Quote:
- Transformative Readings: Harry Potter Fan Fiction, Trans/Queer Reader Response, and J. K. Rowling, Jennifer Duggan, open access
- Note: while this source discusses extensively Rowling's transphobic views, it does not explicitly call her a TERF, and only mentions TERF as part of Rowling's June 2021 open letter.
- Note: Source was discussed during the FAR, and is currently in use in the article
- On J. K. Rowling's Discourse on Transsexual Issues, An Analysis of the Language Used on Rowling's Twitter and the Sociolinguistic Implication of Hate Speech, Amergio Quatrini
- Note: this source is a linguistic analysis of statements made by and to Rowling, and does not seem to make any meta commentary on the comments themselves.
- Toward a historiography of the lesbian transsexual, or the TERF’s nightmare, Jules Gill-Peterson, closed access, not in WP:LIB
- Note: I'm unable to access this paper either through LIB or other means.
- The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing, book, partial preview available on Google Books, relevant page 125-126
- Quote:
One of these is the TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) lable, originating from the belief of radical feminists that the problems of women can only be experienced by those who are born biologically as women. Thus, prominent figures such as J. K. Rowling and Germain Greer have argued for the exclusion of trans women from women's movements and networks (Brown, 2018; Ennis, 2019).
- Quote:
- Not my turf: Helen Lewis argues that vitriol around the trans debate means only extreme voices are being heard, Jemimah Steinfeld, open access
- Quote:
The term Terf, first coined in 2008, has taken on a life of its own in recent years. Like a heat-seeking missile, it races through the internet at breakneck speed, ready to smash into anyone who says the “wrong” thing in reference to trans people. Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs.
- Note: this seems to be an interview published in the April 2020 issue of Index on Censorship's quarterly publication
- Quote:
- Empire and Eugenics: Trans studies in the United Kingdom, Ezra Horbury, Christine "Xine" Yao, closed access, not in WP:LIB
- Note: I'm unable to access this paper either through LIB or other means.
I've included a couple of sources that look like they might be relevant, but I was unable to access via LIB or other means in the hopes that someone else may have access. I've also included some inline notes and quotes, but I'd suggest that any further discussion should occur below the list to prevent issues of having to add my signature to every line. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As per previous section above, I've excluded any sources that were discussed during the FAR (see Archive 3 and Archive 5 for past analysis), but I've included two that were discussed and not excluded. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding on: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wagner, Wolfgang; Hayes, Nicky (2022). "Repressive moralism: world making and petty fascism in transgender politics" (PDF). Springer Publishing: Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:10.1007/s12124-021-09670-4. PMID 34988872. S2CID 245709011.
- Quote: Her celebrity didn't spare her being vilified on Twitter for these remarks. It earned Rowling a storm of insults and death wishes, and resulted in her books being cleared from stock in several feminist bookstores.
- Schwirblat
- Note: not yet available (? publication date listed as June 27 ?) but Google excerpt is suggestive it could be useful: "… The purpose of this chapter is to explore three case studies (JK Rowling, Shane Gillis, and… -exclusionary radical feminist (TERF). During this time, Rowling was a trending hashtag with … "
- Suissa & Sullivan
- Note: in use now in article
- Quote: Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’ (see Cameron, 2016). The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020).
Discussion of scholarly sources
Opening this section for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sideswipe9th were you able to access the Palgrave source that I remember seeing on my searches? From other Featured articles, I was given the impression that is a high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't recall seeing that one. But I'm also awful with names. I'll check my browser history when back at my pc. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here is what I can see on the scholar.google preview:
- Harry Potter as Philosophy: Five Types of Friendship JM Okapal - The Palgrave Handbook of Popular Culture as …, 2020 - Springer … Potter, a controversy arose regarding JK Rowling. This controversy was about her support … of her idols appeared to align with [TERF] ideology.” (Rosenblatt). Rowling’s views seem to be … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Back at my PC now. That one did not show up in my search. I don't seem to be able to access the full text of that one, but I can see its citations. The Rosenblatt source is an article on NBC News. The other citations do not seem useful, aside from the 8 Potter films, only two are related to either the Potter works or Rowling; one is Rowling's 2020 open letter, and the other is a book titled "Harry potter and philosophy: If Aristotle ran Hogwarts" by David Baggett and Shawn E. Klein. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here is what I can see on the scholar.google preview:
- I can't recall seeing that one. But I'm also awful with names. I'll check my browser history when back at my pc. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note, a Goole Book preview of the Schwirblat paper appeared shortly after midnight UK time. For me the preview included the entire paper by Schwirblat, and I've managed to grab a copy of it. As with the Quatrini source linked above, it does not seem to have much if any meta commentary on Rowling's comments, though from some subtle choice of words (particularly using transwomen instead of trans women) and the omission of the US/UK author/publisher open letters that were circulated around the same time as the 150 open letter signature open letter in support of Rowling leads me to suspect that the author is somewhat sympathetic to Rowling's commentary.
- Most relevant quote is:
This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF).
Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)- Another that attributes the charge to Twitter ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ss9th, thank you for all the research you did yesterday. I am also able to access the full preview now, and have read it. I'm not certain that the omission of other letters has any underlying meaning, as the article's focus is very specific. Likewise, I'm not sure certain subtle word usage has any meaning, as those (like me) who aren't In The Know necessarily may inadvertently make such choices. There is a lot in this source that could be used to replace some of our newsy sources, without necessarily changing content, so I hope everyone will grab a look while the preview is available. I'll start a new section below; still catching up today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's fair, and it's possible I'm seeing something that is unintentional. It can be hard to tell at times, particularly in media and/or scholarly pieces about culture war topics as there are folks who'll use that language unintentionally. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Had a thought last night, though haven't had time to investigate it further yet. If we're wanting meta-commentary on Rowling's tweets and open letters, contextualising it as part of broader anti-trans commentary from other prolific/prominent individuals, instead of reporting on it, we're probably best looking for research published in journals that have more of a focus on feminist issues.
- If instead we're wanting research papers that are reporting on it, without making meta-commentary and judgements of the content, then journals similar to those that published the Quatrini and Schwirblat papers may be better.
- That all said however, I'm not sure how many other sources exist that we haven't either already listed here, or discussed and dismissed previously during the FAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless, a few months down the road, when we all have more energy, a new comprehensive survey of scholarly sources will probably be in order. We left several items on the FAR pending such a review, once there is more scholarly literature available, so for now, I am just looking at immediate needs and catching up on what was raised during the TFA. Will get on Draft B after breakfast ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Other discussion
Oddly (???) I have just now been pointed to a discussion that was started at BLPN hours ago: see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Notes on methodology
What worked well, I think, in the FAR discussions was that we avoided !voting on proposals, and focused on coming to consensus via discussion, expressing our concerns, additions, deletions, suggested edits without personalizing discussions. Nothing went in to the article until we had consensus. For those who weren't part of the FAR, that meant that we worked together through a series of proposals, systematically, to come to consensus: often it would take up to six draft proposals before we came to agreement on wording and sources, and it quite often was very hard and focused work.
On that note, I will put up a first draft soon, but I suggest we are still working on the source discussion above, so the first draft will be very drafty. That is, if you don't like it, there is no need for alarm :)
We are still missing some scholarly sources, and there is one that may be available tomorrow. My sense of the discussions so far is that some insist that the term TERF stays, while others think it should go. Most of the non-scholarly sources reference her use of the TERM, as do some of the scholarly sources, so I will attempt to account for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Edited: I think we have most of the sources listed above now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft A
Current (diff, 24 words) | Idea (31 words) |
---|---|
Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics[1] and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).[2][1] She rejects these characterisations.[3][4] | Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics[1] and she has received insults[5] and references to her fueled by Twitter discussions[6][7] as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).[2][4][8] She rejects these characterisations.[3][4] |
Sources
|
---|
References
|
Discussion of Draft A
A start. I've worked in several of the new scholarly sources. And multiple sources refer to the TERF term and others as being fueled by Twitter discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- No issues with working in Twitter, but Breslow says that "the status of TERF as a slur is itself highly contested" and cites other papers. So we might want to avoid framing it as an insult in wikivoice. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Better? [14] Separating the TERF from the insults? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it still implies that TERF is an insult. And why are we including the Twitter bit at all? Name a celebrity that hasn't received insults fueled by Twitter. ––FormalDude talk 01:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because the original concern was that we needed to somehow attribute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not really. As a sentence it flows worse to me. What if instead we append the new content on "insults" and "references to her" as a separate sentence? In situ this would read
Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). She has received insults and references to her fuelled by Twitter discussions. She rejects these characterisations?
- As an aside, I'm not fully sold on "references to her" as I'm not quite sure what those references are. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a bit too tired to pull together the next version; let's see what others might add ? Agree it's awkward ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's been a long day. I'll have a ponder on some alternatives, though I'm a better copy-editor than I am a wordsmith. Go get some rest and we can come at this afresh over the next few days. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- But if I were to work on Draft B, it might go like ...
- Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics. She has received Twitter-fueled insults and threats. She rejects characterisations that she is transphobic and a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).
- With all the citations stuck in the right places ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like that one! There's a small amount of repetition as "transphobic" is mentioned twice, but it seems unavoidable in order to keep the second sentence stand alone. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Glad you like it. Let's wake up tomorrow to find the good wordsmiths at work on Draft B; I am Just Too Tired (and not because of JKR, which has been a pleasurable experience-- way better than the uproar that occurred at WP:ERRORS over the lead image at Buruli ulcer <which still bugs me ... > ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- G'morning! Draft A was pretty poor; I was just too tired. I will dig in on Draft B in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like that one! There's a small amount of repetition as "transphobic" is mentioned twice, but it seems unavoidable in order to keep the second sentence stand alone. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a bit too tired to pull together the next version; let's see what others might add ? Agree it's awkward ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Better? [14] Separating the TERF from the insults? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft B
Current (diff 2022-06-27, 156 words) | Idea (176 words) |
---|---|
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,[1][2][a] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy.[5] Her statements have divided feminists;[6][7][8] fuelled debates on freedom of speech[9][10] and academic freedom;[4] and prompted support for transgender people from the literary,[11] arts[12] and culture sectors.[13]
... Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics[14] and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).[15][14] She rejects these characterisations.[16][17] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[18] and the charities Mermaids,[15] Stonewall,[19] and Human Rights Campaign.[20] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[21] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people have come under fire,[4] some performers and feminists have supported her.[22] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[17] |
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,[1][2][b] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy.[5] Her statements have divided feminists;[6][7][23] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[9][24] academic freedom,[4] and cancel culture;[25] and prompted support for transgender people from the literary,[26] arts[27] and culture sectors.[28]
... Rowling's statements have been deemed transphobic by critics[14] and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist)[15][14][29] in response to her Twitter comments.[30] She rejects these characterisations.[16][17] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[18] and the charities Mermaids,[15] Stonewall,[31] and Human Rights Campaign.[32] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[21] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[4] she received insults and death threats[33][34] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[35] Some performers and feminists have supported her.[35][36] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[17] |
Discussion of Draft B
I've worked in the new scholarly sources. Concerns were that we provide some context/attribution for the TERF term. Some wanted to completely drop the TERF reference, but I don't see consensus for that. I've added Twitter-fueled for context, but then later, mentioned that the controversy moved beyond Twitter, so as to separate the "insults" to a different paragraph, and not imply that TERF is necessarily a slur. I believe we have enough scholarly sources to warrant due weight on inclusion of the TERF discussion, but had to also work in that the whole issue has contributed to debate around cancel culture. Proposed changes are highlighted in yellow; have at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like the additions of cancel culture, due to the Schwirblat paper's release, and the rephrasing of "under fire" to the expanded "under scrutiny". I'm still not entirely convinced we need "in Twitter-fuelled discussions", but I'm not overtly opposed to it either. Definitely an improvement on Draft A! Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wow this talk page section exploded, and I think the changes and discussion here have been excellent, and the in-text attribution of who is making those TERF statements is a wonderful addition and exactly what I was looking for but didn't have the context or sources to express. Regarding the highlighted draft above I think those are great improvements with the exception of the "in Twitter-fueled discussions" wording; it seems like that kind of downplays the critics and their complaints as just being limited to upset Twitter users, which arguably dismisses the concerns as you can find Twitter users decrying almost every celebrity about all sorts of things. - Aoidh (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Aoidh your comment confuses me. On the one hand, you laud "in-text attribution of who is making these statements", yet at the same time, you want that same text (Twitter-fueled discussions) taken out ... it started on Twitter, which fueled discussion that, as stated in the next paragraph, moved beyond Twitter. Multiple sources inidicate the controversy started on Twitter; I don't how else to provide the in-text attribution you seek. Twitter-fueled only means it started and was fueled there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think maybe something like "and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in response to her comments on Twitter" or something might be an improvement, since the catalyst there is what she herself said/retweeted on Twitter, not necessarily any Twitter-based response. Specifying that it was her comments on Twitter seems more clear as to what on Twitter fueled the discussion rather than simply saying Twitter-fueled. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see; yes, I think that will work. Will see what others say. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note to self: if that change is made, page range on Schwirblat source becomes 367 to 368 ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I like that. Rowling's commentary is almost always on Twitter, but the response to it isn't. That change better represents the dichotomy between Rowling's commentary and the responses to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Will move that in to the Draft now then for others to comment. [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Draft B looks good, SandyGeorgia. I've read Swirblat. Interesting. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Will move that in to the Draft now then for others to comment. [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think maybe something like "and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in response to her comments on Twitter" or something might be an improvement, since the catalyst there is what she herself said/retweeted on Twitter, not necessarily any Twitter-based response. Specifying that it was her comments on Twitter seems more clear as to what on Twitter fueled the discussion rather than simply saying Twitter-fueled. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Aoidh your comment confuses me. On the one hand, you laud "in-text attribution of who is making these statements", yet at the same time, you want that same text (Twitter-fueled discussions) taken out ... it started on Twitter, which fueled discussion that, as stated in the next paragraph, moved beyond Twitter. Multiple sources inidicate the controversy started on Twitter; I don't how else to provide the in-text attribution you seek. Twitter-fueled only means it started and was fueled there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I will install this after breakfast in the a.m. unless someone has an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Installed, cumulative diff, pls check! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks great! Thank you so much for your hard work! - Aoidh (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Very nice. Huge thanks to everyone for all the hard work. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seeing as the topic wasn't put in the opening paragraph? I'm quite content. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Wubslin edits
@Wubslin: Per the request made at my talk page, could you elaborate on what the outright errors are please? For convenience here is a diff of all of your edits made that were rolled back. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not have an issue with any of those edits; how to reinstate them now, though ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be too difficult to do. Give me ten minutes and I should have em restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- apartment --> flat
- British Royal Navy --> Royal Navy
were the two outright errors. The rest were just minor copyedits which I thought made the flow better. Thanks for your prompt attention, both of you. --Wubslin (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've restored all edits made by Wubslin except for one that I wanted to query first. In this edit @Wubslin: you removed a sentence about Rowling's relationship with her father. Could you explain why? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ha ... I had forgotten ... I also did not understand that one, except that the flow is a bit off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note. I've also now restored the changes made by Kleinpecan after getting a chance to look at it in closer detail, and offered apologies over at her talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As regards this, I was basing the removal on the fact that we have "Rowling's home life was complicated by her mother's illness and a strained relationship with her father" in the section just before, so there is probably no need to say "She had a difficult relationship with her father..." just a few lines later. Worth saying once, but not twice in quick succession. Does that make sense? Sorry, I should have done a better edit summary. --Wubslin (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, and do not disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll restore that bit now then too. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- All good now, I think ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Content restored. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll restore that bit now then too. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, and do not disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As regards this, I was basing the removal on the fact that we have "Rowling's home life was complicated by her mother's illness and a strained relationship with her father" in the section just before, so there is probably no need to say "She had a difficult relationship with her father..." just a few lines later. Worth saying once, but not twice in quick succession. Does that make sense? Sorry, I should have done a better edit summary. --Wubslin (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Wubslin you can check Kirk out for free from archive.org by registering an account there ... the source does not say they changed their wedding venue to Mauritius ... they postponed their wedding, and changed their holiday plan. Your copyedit leaves the impression they changed the wedding venue to Mauritius. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I was trying to avoid "vacation", which sounds very odd in British English. Could we say "honeymoon"? Wubslin (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't their honeymoon ... it was just a trip before their later wedding in Scotland. In the US, holiday is ... a holiday (like Fourth of July, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc), not a vacation (which does not have to occur over a holiday), so I am at a loss for how to fix this. My best suggestion, though, is that you begin by reading the source (p. 113 and a few pages before and after for context), as that may give you some ideas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's a good way to resolve this. The source uses "holiday", which works in British English, even if it may prove slightly confusing for American readers. (I lived in the States for a few years, so I know this slightly confusing diversion between the two dialects. Hey, it's not as bad as fanny!) Part of the problem is there is no tradition in either culture of making a recreational journey as a couple prior to a marriage. Many would assume (as I did) that it would have been a honeymoon journey. Let me think about it some more. --Wubslin (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wubslin in trying to avoid the redundancy of replacing the first vacation with holiday (which would result in two usages of holiday in two sentences), how about this:
- Current: Rowling married Neil Murray, a doctor, in 2001.[5] The couple intended to marry that July in the Galapagos; after a leak to the press, they delayed their wedding plans and changed their vacation destination to Mauritius.[164] After the UK Press Complaints Commission ruled that a magazine had breached Jessica's privacy when the eight-year-old was included in a photograph of the family on holiday together,[165][166]
- Suggestion: Rowling married Neil Murray, a doctor, in 2001.[5] The couple intended to marry that July in the Galapagos; after a leak to the press, they delayed their wedding plans and changed their holiday destination to Mauritius.[164] After the UK Press Complaints Commission ruled that a magazine had breached Jessica's privacy when the eight-year-old was included in a photograph of the family during that trip,[165][166]
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perfect! I'd add "taken" before the "during" just to make it clearer. --Wubslin (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wubslin Sounds good. I'll leave that edit to you, then, as my edit count on this article already overstates my participation! Better to let you do the fix ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perfect! I'd add "taken" before the "during" just to make it clearer. --Wubslin (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wubslin in trying to avoid the redundancy of replacing the first vacation with holiday (which would result in two usages of holiday in two sentences), how about this:
- Thank you, that's a good way to resolve this. The source uses "holiday", which works in British English, even if it may prove slightly confusing for American readers. (I lived in the States for a few years, so I know this slightly confusing diversion between the two dialects. Hey, it's not as bad as fanny!) Part of the problem is there is no tradition in either culture of making a recreational journey as a couple prior to a marriage. Many would assume (as I did) that it would have been a honeymoon journey. Let me think about it some more. --Wubslin (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't their honeymoon ... it was just a trip before their later wedding in Scotland. In the US, holiday is ... a holiday (like Fourth of July, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc), not a vacation (which does not have to occur over a holiday), so I am at a loss for how to fix this. My best suggestion, though, is that you begin by reading the source (p. 113 and a few pages before and after for context), as that may give you some ideas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Done [16] looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
British English
Zmbro regarding this edit (from a boy called Harry to a boy named Harry), Ham II had earlier changed that per British English. I don't speak British English; could others sort this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh is it? My bad. To me that sounds odd but then again I'm not British so.... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 04:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent time in England, which I know is very weak supporting evidence, but it is my understanding that called is more commonly used there. I tried to find evidence online supporting this, but outside of forum posts, I could find nothing. However, Collins dictionary (which is a British English dictionary) and theFreeDictionary both state that called is the more commonly used word in this instance. With that in mind I think keeping it as called would be the best option. - Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent 66 years in England, except for the years I didn't, and called is used more often than named, though either is acceptable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am thinking of turning in for the night now; it sounds like we should go back to called, but not urgent, so we can wait for more opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As a Brit, I would use "called" in speaking, not quite sure about in writing. PamD 06:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent 66 years in England, except for the years I didn't, and called is used more often than named, though either is acceptable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent time in England, which I know is very weak supporting evidence, but it is my understanding that called is more commonly used there. I tried to find evidence online supporting this, but outside of forum posts, I could find nothing. However, Collins dictionary (which is a British English dictionary) and theFreeDictionary both state that called is the more commonly used word in this instance. With that in mind I think keeping it as called would be the best option. - Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, [17] (awake now and following). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Last sentence of the lead
It currently reads: These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.
I propose changing to: These have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.
The current wording implies "LGBT rights organisations" as a group condemn Rowling's comments. Surely we would need a very good source for such strong wording. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is adequately sourced in the body text, and not required to be cited in the lead, which is a summary of the body. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, none of the sources say she has been called transphobic by a majority of "LGBT rights organisations". This is why I want to qualify the statement with "some". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The WP:WEASEL word "some" is used in the transgender section of the article, and I personally would not support using it in the lead, which is well crafted. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the qualification is included in the body, why is it not appropriate in the lead? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- because it is a summary. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed my point. The current wording gives a misleading impression of a consensus against Rowling from "LGBT rights organisations". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see what others say, shall we. I have addressed your point though. Things will be omitted from a summary, that is the point of summarising. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 14:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't addressed my point. The current wording gives a misleading impression of a consensus against Rowling from "LGBT rights organisations". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- because it is a summary. - Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the qualification is included in the body, why is it not appropriate in the lead? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The WP:WEASEL word "some" is used in the transgender section of the article, and I personally would not support using it in the lead, which is well crafted. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 13:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, none of the sources say she has been called transphobic by a majority of "LGBT rights organisations". This is why I want to qualify the statement with "some". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Another possibility: These have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. -- Just as concise as the current wording, and it more accurately summarises the body 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do we need a headcount of how many LGBT rights organizations have condemned Rowling's transphobia? What number is the tipping point, where you'd drop the call for "some" ? Zaathras (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- We'd need sources saying something along the lines of: "a majority of LGBT rights organisations have condemned R's comments" or "LGBT rights organisations have banded together in condemning R's comments -- some kind of collective language which suggests there is a consensus or majority opinion among "LGBT rights organizations". It's not up to us to make a headcount. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are you aware of a recognized or major LGBT org that did not condemn Rowling? At any rate, considering the lead was subjected to a recent and extremely well attended RFC, it is unlikely that sentence will be changed without very strong consensus, or possibly a new RFC which should only be launched after carefully crafting the wording, as discussed on the FAR, to avoid another no consensus outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some editors may be under the impression that the LGB Alliance is in some sense an LGBT rights organization, in the sense of this paragraph. It is not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the article as it stands, the only reference to the LGB Alliance is in a cite which makes it clear that they're a bunch of transphobes, so at least that's not a problem as it stands. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some editors may be under the impression that the LGB Alliance is in some sense an LGBT rights organization, in the sense of this paragraph. It is not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As long as none of this topic is in the opening paragraph? I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Paragraphing in the lead
While this edit introduced only a paragraph break, such an edit can be construed as POV by breaching the WP:LEAD guideline to create a separate (short and stubby) paragraph to highlight one issue. Considerable consensus went in to building the lead; I have reverted that edit and left a message to lettherebedarklight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Done: reverted SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- ? lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい 00:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Lettherebedarklight, re your query on user talk, here is a list of all of the archived discussions from the Featured article review. The lead was the subject of a very well attended RFC, and was discussed on the FAR in talk archives 3 (items 5 and 6), 4 (item 16), and general discussion of the gender material is in archive 5. Not only was the RFC very well attended; the Featured article review for JKR was the best attended I have ever seen. Consensus on this article is very strong, and the person seeking to change it would need to make their case on talk. Also, WP:LEAD discusses paragraphing, and short stubby paras (particularly to set up a WP:STRUCTURE that is POV) are not good practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: ok, fair. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい 00:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Overlinking
Neveselbert in this edit, why did you delink fantasy literature (directly relevant in a literature article)? Also, could others opine on the delinking of pen name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- While I could somewhat see value in delinking Gloustershire per OVERLINK, I don't agree with delinking fantasy in the infobox, fantasy literature, or pen name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Sideswipe. "Fantasy" and "pen name" are directly relevant to the subject and should be linked imho. Victoria (tk) 16:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with Ss and Victoria; unless neveselbert weighs in shortly with a good reason, I suggest we restore the links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, I see no issue in restoring those links in lack of a response by Neveselbert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Links restored, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"temp jobs"
Is there a reason this article uses an abbreviation of "temporary"? Is that consistently reflected in the literature? Otherwise, I am inclined to expand it for the sake of formal writing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- To describe succinctly, it's a British English thing. Describing oneself as a "temp" or in a "temp job" was until recently, when it was replaced with zero hour contracts, just how we used the term here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- We discussed this at length somewhere; give me a moment to find that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Have a look here: Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 12#Not an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- PS, thanks for asking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, we also use "temp work(er)" in American English; it's just not an abbreviation I had assumed would be appropriate in formal written English. Interesting that there's some controversy over whether the abbreviation is itself meaningful; I agree you made the right choice, then. Thank you both, God bless. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, too ... so glad you asked before editing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Yeah, I've learned that wording choices that strike me as "obviously" wrong in TFAs have usually been discussed before. I always ask instead of being bold now. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, we also use "temp work(er)" in American English; it's just not an abbreviation I had assumed would be appropriate in formal written English. Interesting that there's some controversy over whether the abbreviation is itself meaningful; I agree you made the right choice, then. Thank you both, God bless. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Who’s idea was it to have this be the featured article during pride month?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies to the people in charge of the featured articles, but this is not good optics 50.29.253.217 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think I agree. It would be hard for me to identify anyone else who has so successfully mobilized queer people (and others) in support of trans rights in online spaces - albeit as an unintended reaction. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Besides agreeing with Newimpartial's point, TFA is scheduled based on community consensus, and those who take difference with the scheduling are well advised to start following WP:TFAR. The 25th anniversary of Harry Potter was raised for TFA last February, and there has been considerable discussion of the blurb since (see links at the top of the page), with narry a soul raising an issue about pride month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- June as pride month isn't an international occurrence — different countries celebrate it at different times. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant, whether anybody is upset or not about the timing. The project doesn't run on a 'Don't offend anyone' basis, nor should it. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Our goal is to educate, and harm needs balanced with education. There are several Featured pictures that can't possibly run on the main page due to potential harms. See Wikipedia:POTD/Unused#Could cause harm. So it's not irrelevant. The relevant question is whether educational value outweighs potential harms. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- We shall have to disagree, on the 'It offends people, so we can't do that' topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we should never do it. I'm saying we have a duty to make sure educational value outweighs risk of harm. There are always potential harms. But trivial or unlikely harms are easily outweighed by the value of education. And not being overly conscious is a benefit too. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 20:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Merely mentioning Rowling is not 'harming' anyone in even the loosest possible sense of that word. Melmann 23:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- We shall have to disagree, on the 'It offends people, so we can't do that' topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Our goal is to educate, and harm needs balanced with education. There are several Featured pictures that can't possibly run on the main page due to potential harms. See Wikipedia:POTD/Unused#Could cause harm. So it's not irrelevant. The relevant question is whether educational value outweighs potential harms. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"better known as"
Re this edit, pet peeve alert. We frequently see the phrase "best known for" in the leads of Wikipedia articles, and that can almost never be sourced. Yes, we may all know it, but it's not sourced and rarely can be. Why do we need this change? Even if we can source it in this case, it leaves a bad example for other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, she is better known by her pen name. Thus the name of the bio article itself. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it. She is better known as JK Rowling. I don't think a source is required per WP:BLUESKY. — Czello 19:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
AleatoryPonderings, unsure if this should have been reverted ?? See discussion above, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I share your pet peeve so it's two pro, two against, for
better known as
. A third option is simplyknown as
, withoutbetter
. Fwiw WP:BLUESKY is an essay. My view is that anyone who wants to change anything in the lede has a strong WP:BURDEN to justify the change since it's been worked over in such minute detail. I don't see that burden satisfied here. But of course the sky will not fall if the text readsbetter known as
, or whatever. So: I prefer the status quo, don't see a great argument to change it, and think the burden lies with those who want to—but will not make any further fuss if others prefer something else. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)- I wouldn't object to the "known as" option in this case ... that's meeting halfway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Abbr template
Melmann in this edit, you introduced a template that removes the description of the acronym from the text. It is my understanding that this will leave text without a definition on sites that mirror Wikipedia content. It is also not available on all browsers. Also, we should never force a reader to click to understand a term. How to define the term was specially discussed in the FAR; I suggest restoring the original. I would understand using the Abbr template when acronyms are repeated throughout articles, but this is the first and only place where the acronym is used, so it should be defined in text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Template:Abbr is intended for this exact usage, please see its documentation. Clicking through is not required, as hovering over the abbreviation will show a tooltip clarifying the full meaning of the abbreviation. If the user is using a screen reader, this template wraps the acronym in accessible tags, clarifying the acronym for the screen reading software. Melmann 23:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, this is about tech rather than the article subject, so I'll provide some information. HTML abbreviations are (currently?) not expanded in print. Hovering a mouse cursor is not a thing on mobile devices. The mere existence of a template for a specific intended purpose is not by itself an argument for using it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because the {{abbr}} template is being used for text that is also a wikilink, even on desktop hovering the mouse pointer over it is problematic as Wikipedia by default provides a page preview for wikilinks for non-logged in readers. The template documentation states that this the template is
not so useful on linked text, because the same tap that brings up the tooltip also follows the hyperlink to the destination page.
As such, I think we're better off without it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because the {{abbr}} template is being used for text that is also a wikilink, even on desktop hovering the mouse pointer over it is problematic as Wikipedia by default provides a page preview for wikilinks for non-logged in readers. The template documentation states that this the template is
- Repeating myself and expanding: it is not viewable on all browsers which (if we are to believe the WMF data, means up to or more than half of our readers), and it won't mirror on sites that include Wikipedia content, which are many. It would make sense for repeated use of acronyms that are already spelled out on first occurrence; it is doing a disservice here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, this is about tech rather than the article subject, so I'll provide some information. HTML abbreviations are (currently?) not expanded in print. Hovering a mouse cursor is not a thing on mobile devices. The mere existence of a template for a specific intended purpose is not by itself an argument for using it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Done reverted, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Changing her to she, in sentence about Rowling's sister
@HowardMorland: in this edit, you swapped the word "her" for "she" in the sentence about Rowling's younger sister. As someone whose native English variant is British English, I do not think this is correct. Ordinarily we would write "X is younger than him/her/them" rather than "X is younger than he/she/they". Could I convince you to self-revert this change? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- "I am younger than she <is>"
- "I am younger than her <is>"
- I've never heard of the grammatically awkward latter formation being a particular Britishism. Zaathras (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- True. But that sentence isn't in that first person descriptive form. The sentence is third person descriptive. Prior to the edit it read
Joanne has a sister, Dianne, two years younger than her.
, now it readsJoanne has a sister, Dianne, two years younger than she.
The former reads naturally to me, as it imparts that Joanne has a sister called Dianne, and that Dianne is two years younger than Joanne. The later does not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC) - Than can be used as either a conjunction or preposition. AFAIK both are correct. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- True. But that sentence isn't in that first person descriptive form. The sentence is third person descriptive. Prior to the edit it read
- Recast: [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The recast works for me. HowardMorland (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Social influencer, cancel culture
I was also able to access the (brand new, published yesterday) Google Book preview of the Schwirblat paper. Its focus is exclusively on influencers and cancel culture, and in her case, JKR's influence on social media. Its text could be useful in improving or replacing less scholarly sources at the introduction to the Views section, where we discuss how she uses social media to connect with fans. It might also be useful in upgrading some of our other less scholarly sources in the gender section, while saying the same things. I am hoping everyone will be able to access the article, and will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Replaced CNN with Schwirblat: [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Not an improvement ( "famous for" )
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1095320292 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, original text restored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)