Talk:J. K. Rowling

FAR notice

An editor has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Status update at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Update 8 Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about converting the Awards and honours section to prose on the Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft of new section on comments re transgender people

As part of the ongoing featured article review, I have prepared an entirely new draft of the section on Rowling's comments regarding transgender people. The current version of the section is at Special:PermaLink/1065510593#Transgender people. The draft is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft. Feel free to make copyedits or other minor changes on that page, but more major discussion should happen at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft so that we can reach consensus on any content issues.

If this draft, or something close to it, is eventually added to J. K. Rowling, we will need to modify the lede accordingly. The recent RfC, currently at Special:PermaLink/1065356439#RFC_on_how_to_include_her_trans-related_views_(and_backlash)_in_the_lead, closed as no consensus at 15:42 on 1 January 2022. That meant there was no consensus to change to change the relevant text in the lede of Special:PermaLink/1063145723. If my draft is adopted, we will need to change the lede in some parts. In particular, we will need to remove the word transphobic—since, to my knowledge, none of the academic sources cited in Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft use that word to refer to Rowling's comments.

Pinging, in no particular order, @Firefangledfeathers, Newimpartial, Victoriaearle, Olivaw-Daneel, SandyGeorgia, Vanamonde93, Barkeep49, and A. C. Santacruz, as users interested in this article, the FAR, or both. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noting previous discussions at the FAR talk page (although new comments should now go to the talk page of the draft, as AP indicates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The focus on secondary sources in the rewrite of the section is good and this is a definite improvement on the current writing. My only comment is that I think the Comoran Strike sentences seem to be intentionally vague while still hoping I reach some sort of conclusion on them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Crossroads and I agree that the Cormoran Strike bit should come out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies to my fellow editors I am not sure where to write this, it is a repeat of my comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft#The Current Draft is appallingly One Sided ...but the process is being split over several pages so I do not know what is the best place to add this.

The current draft regarding her views is extremely (add missing words) one sided and I do mean have been seriously extremely rewritten to be WP:UNDUE & WP:POV in favour of Rowling's fringe views, despite these being a minority view. Tthe current balance has been removed entirely. Why do we mention the support of a single trans entertainer but hide the criticism of several national and international trans specialist organisation including Mermaids, GLAAD and Stonewall that represent the views of 1000's of trans persons and whose views are far more notable. Why do we mention Bindel whose trans critical views are a minority amongst feminists, not mention it is a minority opinion and not balance it with views of more mainstream and qualified Judith Butler. What is the relevance of her domestic violence and sexual assault, does it have any relevance or why is the empty detail that she might have been tricked into becoming a man. Why are we including the Reuters report of her unsupported claim that the is a threat that people who she claims are men (questionable) are a danger to women in bathrooms as reported in reuters article of which the is no evidence with out balancing with the numerous UK and USA articles that report the is no such threat including Reuters which reported Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? the next day that, in the United States, women's rights groups said in 2016 that 200 municipalities which allowed trans people to use women's shelters reported no rise in any violence as a result; they also said that excluding transgender people from facilities consistent with their gender makes them vulnerable to assault.

Sorry this is a copy paste of my comment on the draft page, but I am not sure how to challenge this white wash of a rewrite. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure if implemented it will be immediately challenged here and end up going straight to the BLP noticeboard with an another huge RfC. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not even remotely close to being implemented, and there is still much work to be done on the rest of the article—work which needs at least a couple more weeks—before full attention can be given to this one section. Patience, and keeping discussion in one place would be helpful in the meantime. It is unfortunate that the discussion is now forked to three places, when we had barely begun to discuss sources at the FAR talk page; the draft was premature. I hope it is OK if I merge your comments on the FAR page to the section where we can keep everything in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I am far less experienced or skilled in writing or knowledge of processes than some editors and I apologise I am not at my best atm. Thank you for being helpful. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize; concern that the FAR had progressed further than it has is understandable. I merged your section at the FAR talk page, so that it can be considered before drafting based on a consensus of sources can begin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Sorry could you give me a link to where correct FAR place is, I admit I am lost ? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is where we had begun gathering sources on the FAR. I moved your comment to there, after the first draft was launched in user space, and then moved to Wikipedia space before it had broad consensus. Most of the people working on the article are quite busy and hard at work on other sections, so brevity is a virtue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of possible sources for Transgender people section

On the talk page of the Featured article review, please discuss best sources per WP:WIAFA at the Discussion of source list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Interim lead proposal

The Featured article review has resulted in considerable improvements, with early life and literary analysis beefed up, WP:ELNEVER sourcing removed, and prose bloat addressed throughout. Work on the Transgender people section has been delayed, but should start next.

Meanwhile an interim lead is proposed on FAR talk. Please join the discussion. (Interim because this lead proposal leaves the Transgender section wording in the lead unchanged; the intent is to put a better lead in place for now, while work progresses on the Transgender people section.)

The work so far is mostly the fruit of the efforts of AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel, with literary analysis work from Vanamonde93 and early life bio work from me. (The tools show an unrepresentative amount of contributions from me, because I copied in most of the lengthy chapter sources at works cited when we split chapters out of books.) In examining the authorship stats, I noticed two FA stalwarts involved early on in this article: Rodw and Slp1, might you want to review the work so far, and participate in the FAR? Serendipodous I see some recent activity from you; might you be enticed to join the effort? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been deliberately staying out of this; as a former Potterhead with a trans brother in law, it's just too personal. I can't be objective. Serendi^podous 20:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear from you anyway; hope you're well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead installed, archived discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Keir Starmer content moved

14Jenna7Caesura, I have moved this addition to Politics of J. K. Rowling and trimmed it to reflect what the source says (while also removing the citation template error in the date ... dates in citation templates should not contain the day of the week, which generates a citation error). Please be aware of the following:

1. The lead is a summary of content in the body of the article. Please refrain from adding content directly to the lead, and examine the body of the article for where content may be a better fit.
2. When examining the body, one finds there is a subarticle covering the transgender issues at Politics of J. K. Rowling. This (already long) article uses summary style; in the future, consider adding content first to a sub-article and then examining whether or how it might be merged into the main topic.
3. Please read WP:FAOWN. This article is a Featured article and its lead has been very recently rewritten with consensus of multiple editors. Please discuss suggested improvements on talk and gain consensus for changes.
4. This article uses British English (that is, criticised rather than criticized).
5. The source does not say she is "vocal on 'misgendering'"; it says she accused Starmer of misrepresenting the law. Please take greater care not to insert original research into a BLP under double discretionary sanctions.
6. You have previously received discretionary alerts for both sexuality issues and BLPs; this article is covered under both. When inserting content about a living person, please be absolutely certain that the source supports the wording you choose to insert into a very highly visible article that affects a living person. If you breach discretionary sanctions again, you are likely to be blocked.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Charitable giving before 2011

Rajan51 you have twice introduced the statement that Rowling's charitable giving in 2011 was $160 million.

• Your first addition used this source which says New information about Rowlings' estimated $160 million in charitable giving combined with Britain's high tax rates bumped the Harry Potter scribe from our list this year.
• Your second addition uses this source which has the same wording as the first.

Neither source states that the 160 was her giving in 2011; the implication (particularly based on her other comments when she denied that she was ever a billionaire) is that Forbes got a better estimate of her charitable giving, but without specifying to which year it applied. It is also incorrect to say she lost a billionaire status that she denies ever having because of charitable donations; it was also because of high UK taxes. At any rate, we don't know what time period is covered by the statement about the 160M.

I have adjusted your entry because you have now made it twice, [1] but don't believe this information belongs in the article because of this problem with its vagueness. Could you please have a look at WP:FAOWN and gain consensus on edits before re-adding something twice? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I had assumed that the reports meant the donations were made in 2011 because Forbes' lists are annual. Sorry about that. I think we should keep the information in the article because of the significant size of the donation. This report from Politifact references the donation as well. Not sure if it helps with the vagueness. From what I understand, it also seems to imply that the donation was made after her net worth reached $1 billion in 2011, but I may be wrong. -Rajan51 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that they first identified her as a billionaire in 2004, which she denied in 2005. (Reading this may help). Forbes is based on estimates, and they had, among other things, probably mis-estimated her charitable giving. So the 160 million could be going all the way back to 2004, or even earlier ... we really don't have sources that clarify. They seem to have caught up with the problems in their estimates in 2012, and never explicitly said their adjustment was because of 2011 donations; it could have been cumulative. The problem with keeping it in the article is whether what I have changed it to (before 2011) is accurate, since we don't have good sourcing on the exact timeframe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4, this featured article has recently undergone a rigorous review involving about a dozen editors. Please have a look at WP:FAOWN, and discuss proposed changes on talk to gain consensus. It is also under discretionary sanctions, so if you have been reverted once, you should not re-install changes without gaining consensus. It is important that additions are supported by the cited sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, and Vanamonde93: are these edits supported by the sources? (I see at least one grammatical error, but this has already been reverted once, so awaiting feedback.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking more closely now, I would say (based on what I know of the reception sources) that the content is not supported by sources, as there has been criticism of plot, themes and characters. So my recommendation would be to remove this series of edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

These edits are not supported by the sources and should be reverted. We do not edit this encyclopedia to add "balance" or portray people in a more positive light than that in which reliable sources portray them. We show what the sources say, which is what this article did before this series of edits. This also goes for the string of edits to the lede which I didn't notice until after posting this. The lede has been extensively edited recently to clearly and fairly represent the sources. This string of edits undoes all that work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the ongoing edits, I am likely to revert (unless someone else does first), as the edits have deteriorated the article in several ways. Hpdh4 could be proceeding in a more collaborative way, considering the consensus and months of work that has involved many editors so far. But I will first type up an explanation of the problems with the edits, and suggestions of a better way to proceed, including discussion (with sources) of the changes Hpdh4 suggests. Along with doublechecking to see if any of the changes can be kept. Need an hour or so, and to get to a real computer rather than iPad to type up list of problems with all new edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Following these comments, I have restored (what I take to be) the last good version. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I will type up a summary as soon as I get on a real computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

All that talk about sources is good and all . Then explain why majority of the article reads like an anti Rowling manifesto . Look Rowling's books are both bestsellers and each has been positively reviewed with some detractors. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. I'm not saying her books are perfection of biblical proportions but they do well and are recieved well irrespective of Rowling's politics and this should and will be reflected in this article, futher more individual articles for most of Rowling's books have more positive reviews than mixed ones. I will try to cite more sources . If you were to look at the Ickabog, Christmas pig - I put some citations regarding their sales/reception. Hpdh4 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Please confine your commentary on talk pages to discussion of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If you remove praise for the novels then remove critique has well . I didn't remove critique and try to make her look perfect but nor have I tried to make her books look like critical flops. Neutrality is in dispute here. Hpdh4 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? Do you have a comment on them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe: you have reinserted (part of) this content stating that it is supported by sources. Care to elaborate? That is not my impression. Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of revert

Regarding this revert of content added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4, I will list below some of the issues for discussion.

My first suggestion to Hpdh4 is to read WP:FAOWN, WP:WIAFA, Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, taking note of the talk page archives and the considerable consensus-building that has taken place over several months in the rewrite of all of this article (with work on the transgender issues pending). Many editors have worked collaboratively, in spite of differences that were all resolved amicably. Please avoid edit warring and discuss issues and proposed changes on talk.

The problems in the reverted edits are listed below, and numbered for reference in subsequent discussion.

1. Please see WP:SIZE. All sections in the article (except the section on her views on gender identity) have been trimmed considerably to reflect summary style, while overall article size was maintained even as the missing literary analysis, about a fifth of the article now, was added. Before Hpdh4's edits, the article was at 8,865 words of readable prose; those edits added 200 words to an already large article. When working on a featured article, it is important to gain consensus and to keep wording a trim, succinct, and concise reflection of the highest quality sources, and using summary style where called for. Two hundred words is a lot to add to this article without having developed consensus. Whether some of the additions are warranted could be discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
2. The edits also added several grammatical and spelling errors like received, has-->have. They also introduced a citation style that is not in accordance with the style established in the article; Featured articles must maintain a consistent citation style. These are not of major significance, as others can correct such issues. It is, though, something to be aware of going forward; if changes are first proposed on talk and gain consensus, they can be worked in with proper grammar and citation style, with less consternation and time misspent for all editors involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
3. See WP:LEAD; leads summarize what is in the article. The edits introduced a topic to the lead (theme parks) that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Whether they should be discussed in the article depends on what high quality sources cover. I personally find it interesting that they aren't included, but the person who wants to include them should make the argument based on due weight in high quality sources. The most recent broad scholarly overview of Rowling and her work is Pugh, 2020; he does not mention theme parks. He says:

   Yet by whichever name one calls her, Rowling has skyrocketed into the popular consciousness as the author of the phenomenally successful Harry Potter series. In the process, she has sold hundreds of millions of copies of her novels, launched two blockbuster film series, inspired a seemingly endless array of merchandise, including games, toys, clothes, and school supplies, and sparked an online fan community both enthusiastically passionate as well as sharply critical in their responses to her creations and achievements. Rowling’s impact on contemporary popular culture is unparalleled, with her Harry Potter novels transcending the realm of children’s fiction—an oft-contested categorization—to reveal both her engagement with a wide range of literary traditions and her reformulation of these fields.

   I find it odd that we haven't mentioned more about the merchandising, and if someone has an equivalent high quality source that covers theme parks, these two items could be added with a minimum impact on word count. When proposing additions or changes to the article, please base those on analysis of high quality sources.
   Do other editors believe we should work in theme parks or merchandise? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Prose redundancies. The edits introduced "best sellers" (both in the lead and in the body) when that content was already in the article, and indeed, in the same paragraphs where they were again added. If there is a concern that something is not adequately conveyed or covered in the article, please discuss how to better work that in. In the case of "best sellers", these additions only added to the readable prose size, and deteriorated the writing with redundancies.
5. Looking at the text about Lint and King that was inserted mid-paragraph: However the series was well received by acclaimed writers such has Charles de Lint and Stephen King Thus, some critics argue, Harry Potter does not innovate on established literary forms; nor does it challenge readers' preconceived ideas. See overuse of however and User:John/however. Vanamonde93 might comment on this source; I am not familiar. The word acclaimed is WP:PUFFERY. The insertion was made with citevar, prose, flow and punctuation errors. And, inserting it mid-sentence rendered the word thus out of place and the next sentence as poor flow.
   Do other editors agree that we should work in something about Lint and King? If so, it should be done in a way that is consistent with WP:WIAFA. Hpdh4, Harold Bloom, for example, is cited because secondary sources mention his review. Do secondary sources cover Lint and King and have we given them due weight in this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
6. Reception section overall. This section was crafted with paragraph one about commercial success, paragraph 2 about critical reception, and paragraph 3 about her other (non-Harry book) works, moving then into two sub-sections on Gender and social division and Religious debates. If the coverage here amounts to an WP:UNDUE amount of criticism, sources that have been omitted or not covered should be provided, and corrections discussed.

Still working, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This must be a joke . First editors asked about citations now you've got those citations and it's not enough

Here's my problem new impartial and sandy and the rest

This entire section of reception is not impartial and neutral. Rowling's books don't have mixed reception and you lot trying to make it look like that.

Consensus will never be achieved as long as you lot have their way.

Anyways I give up Go on try and make her look like a critical flop entirely

Remember I never removed the critique of her work. I only want to add the fact that her work has a higher critical success ratio than mixed reception. I never hid behind Weasley worded arguements.

Anyways....Continue ruining Wikipedia. Hpdh4 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

A minor suggestion

I imagine this has been debated at length and consensus is somewhat entrenched, but I would suggest changing criticised as transphobic [...] by some feminists, but have received support from other feminists to criticised as transphobic [...] by some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists. This is a minor nitpick, and I could see why some might think this is unimportant or irrelevant, but I think it would be good for balance to add the "some" qualifier to both of the mentions of feminists' opinions. It's not impossible to read what's currently there as something like "some feminists criticise her but others largely support her", even though that's not really what the sentence actually means and nor is it what it was intended to mean. Just to make it abundantly clear to readers that Wikipedia is not trying to take sides I think it would be better to add the word "some" to both instances. Endwise (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Endwise have you accessed the Featured article review (listed at the top of this page)? The entire article has been reworked over many months, involving many editors, but we have not yet tackled the section on Rowling's views on transgender issues. It is the only section that has not yet been brought to WP:WIAFA standards, and that is the next order of business on the FAR. What form that sentence or those sentences will take is to be determined. Here is the FAR discussion of the work remaining (which is ongoing at the talk page of the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, no, I hadn't seen that. My comment is probably not all that relevant then. Endwise (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Will keep in mind as we move forward; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

After the mammoth RfC last year on the lead, I don't envy that task. I look forward to what is proposed though, and I'm more than happy to receive a notification when those talks begin if you feel my input may be helpful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th please watchlist the FAR page, and read the latest section at the FAR; we don't anticipate considerable changes-- more like trimming. I will try to remember to add you to the ping list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I've had it on my watchlist since the process started, but haven't felt able to contribute thus far. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)