Jump to content

Talk:J. K. Rowling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Olivaw-Daneel (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 13 January 2022 (→Splitting off list of awards: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Featured articleJ. 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 8, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 31, 2017, and July 31, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

RFC on lead sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result was overwhelmingly (re: SNOW) in favor of option A. Thus, Rowling's stance on trans issues should not be mentioned in the lead sentence. See below for an ongoing RfC about how to mention this topic within the lead as a whole. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lead sentence of this article mention Rowling's involvement in controversies about trans issues (roughly defined) and if so, how should it be mentioned?

Option A: Do not mention them in the lead sentence.

Option B: Mention them as a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g., "anti-transgender activist".

Option C: Mention the controversy without making a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g. "who has received criticism for statements that have widely been considered transphobic".

Hopefully specific options help clear up the disorganized discussion above. As I see it, there is consensus to keep mention of her other activities (e.g. producer) in the lead sentence, and only notable disagreement about the trans part. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 15:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the question, "anti-transgender activist" is just an example for Option B. It would be entirely in-process to !vote for B but propose other terminology, such as "anti-transgender commentator". Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Rowling's primary notability was without doubt established as an author, however this does not exclude/blank out the fact that over the last few years she has now also become widely known (in the reliable media) as a prominent anti-trans commentator, I believe this is undisputable based on dozens of articles in numerous international high quality reliable sources (some of which are listed in bold above). One thing does not necessarily exclude the other, someone can become notable for more than one thing. Three years can be a long time in civil and human rights. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. Notified to this discussion by bot. Mentioning the trans statements in the lead sentence is a gross overweighting, and even in the lead is questionable given her longstanding notability as an author and not as a political activist. Referring to her even by implication as "anti-trans" or as an "acitivist" on this subject is in my view an overstatement. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. It seems to me that putting Rowling's views on trans issues in the first sentence is indeed lending undue weight, per the comments of Crossroads above with regards to NPOV and lead follows body. That said, I also don't think that the way her trans views are currently incorporated into the lede is very effective. The list of feminists who have supported Rowling's views on trans people is very short and is basically limited to gender-critical people/TERFs (the claims above that Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not fall under that category are erroneous, she has repeatedly promoted the work of noted anti-trans activist Helen Joyce).
My opinion here is that the following actions should be taken:
1. Keep the first sentence as it currently is written.
2. Reword the claim at the end of the lede that Rowling's views have received support from "some other feminists." It seems to indicate that feminists are evenly divided over support of Rowling when this is entirely false and is thus a violation of WP:UNDUE.
I am not entirely sure off the top of my head how a rewording of the last sentence of the lede would look, however at the least I think it should somehow be noted that Rowling's supporters are gender-crit/terf. This would almost certainly provide a more accurate description than just saying feminists, in any case. always forever (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[notified by bot][reply]
  • Option A Her attitudes/opinion on transgender issues belong in the lead due to its coverage in the press and for the lead to provide an accurate summary of the article. However pushing in the first sentence strikes me as a ridiculous undue hype.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. Totally WP:UNDUE for the lead sentence, and absolutely a PoV suggestion to include it. I'm actually kind of amazed this has been proposed, it's rather egregious. It's already mentioned within the lead itself, which is entirely appropriate. As a rule of thumb, don't try to fix what's not broken. — Czello 20:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. C. Santacruz, I'd respectfully suggest that you start a new discussion or RfC, whatever you prefer. As soon this discussion is closed one way or another it will be shelved and untouchable. Any discussion started under your comment would have a very short life, if at all. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting the weekend is probably good enough, I'd say, but it does seem headed towards a snow close. Most definitely a SNOW, am requesting closure now. In any case, it seems that year-on-year she's becoming more notable for her views so editors are highly encouraged to start a new RfC on this topic in the future if she continues to receive coverage about it in major publications. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 05:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC) (Appended 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Option A. The opening, lead section is fairly long but quite adequate on account of the size of the main text. And, since the subject (controversial statements by Rowling regarding trans persons) is evidently notable, it deserves a place in the opening section. But not in the lead sentence! That would be a violation of the due weighting policy. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. she is notable for her books. Thincat (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - Rowling is notable primarily for her creation and continued management of the Wizarding World IP. No prejudice in this !vote against certain changes to the lead sentence, such as removal of the reference to her (largely non-notable) role in television production. Rowling's interventions in trans-related controversies are certainly notable, though less prominent than the IP she created, and do justify mention later in the lead section, as in the present article version. Also, the language used to refer to these should be tightened up in line with what the sources actually say - I value BLP principles rather than FALSEBALANCE and whitewashing. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

FA review?

Article was nominated in 2008. I believe there's a couple problems that prevent this article from meeting the WP:FACR. First, the article is not stable. The length of the article may be an issue too, going into unnecessary detail that is not always summary style. I think a FA review may be in order. ––FormalDude talk 07:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, FormalDude. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2007. The article is now more than twice the readable prose size as the version that passed FA, so there is a lot of unvetted content. It is still within WP:SIZE guidelines, though, so examples of what content needs trimming to meet WP:SS should be given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this BLP is going to be suitable for FA for a long time. It is currently contentious with POV warriors fighting backwards and forwards over it. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Please remember that WP:FAR is not dispute resolution, so if someone submits this article to FAR based on 1e stable, they should be prepared to demonstrate lack of stability with specific diffs, specific issues where WP:SS is not adequately used, or specific problems with prose, neutrality, comprehensiveness, sourcing or MOS compliance. Since the original (and competent FA) nominator, Serendipodous, has not touched the article in over a year, I would not be surprised to find that the prose or sourcing has deteriorated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrating those things should not be difficult, and this article hasn't been FA material for quite some time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likely, but if the article goes to FAR (after the two-week wait period from notification), I hope the nominator recognizes that dispute resolution does not continue to FAR, the issue there is only whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, and that is the case to be made. The case probably can be made, but I haven’t seen that addressed yet here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: proceed to WP:FAR?

  • Yes. Seeing as there are significant problems with the article's ability to meet FACR, I think we should proceed with FA review. ––FormalDude talk 04:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FormalDude do you see in this discussion, including in the next post, requests that you read the instructions at WP:FAR? Please a) describe exactly what the issues are, and b) complete the notifications at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. As you knew of these procedures in advance, someone else should not have to do the work for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a procedural question, because I'm not familiar with how FAR works. Can a FAR even occur while an RfC is still in progress? Is it not horrendously premature, as there are also some editors in the discussion below who might nominate Politics of J. K. Rowling for deletion/merge with this one, which could result in a significant increase in this article's length. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot proposal, not how it works. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR. After a two-week wait period from notification on talk, anyone can submit to FAR. A survey, or consensus, is not needed. Please review other articles at FAR to understand that the only concern there is WP:WIAFA, not dispute resolution. Further, the notification (above) did not do a very good job of describing exactly what needs to be addressed for the article to meet WIAFA (as I’ve mentioned a few times). An honest talk effort to describe and resolve issues is expected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Just from the stability point, if 16 out of the last 50 edits (per time and date of this comment) have been reverted, I'd expect an in-depth analysis of the last half a year would probably find a trend of instability. However, when moving on to the actual FAR step of the process (with its appropriate subpage) a stronger case would probably be needed. I'm not particularly experienced with FAs, though (much more with GAs and the step between them is a significant one), so I'd recommend someone else start this. I'd have to do a close reading as well to determine whether the article is a good summary or not. In any case, reviewing FAs every so often is good practice to keep sure they are "the very best of Wikipedia". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The stability criterion at WP:WIAFA was never intended to account for normal editing, even when that occurs at a very fast pace to keep the article updated, so yes, the case for ongoing edit warring and disruption would have to be made. But you can probably save yourself(ves) some effort and make a stronger case re WIAFA based on the other criteria. I haven't looked, so am just guessing, but unstable articles are usually failing in other areas as well; I am intentionally not looking, rather just responding about how the WP:FAR process works, so as to be a neutral reviewer should the article appear at FAR. I hope the person who said the article was too long will lay out where the content needs trimming to meet WP:SS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly honest I agree with your reasoning. However, I don't have much intention to dedicate more time to J.K. Rowling than I already have as I am currently focusing on getting the Bank of North Dakota and the First Carlist War articles to GA and responding to RfC bots from time to time. Would be nice for there to be some kind of "FA articles identified as good candidates for review" noticeboard or something along those lines for cases like these. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in my case, the time spent here making sure a potential FAR nom is done correctly saves time later! A._C._Santacruz in fact, there is such a place and we would love to have more hands helping at WP:URFA/2020 (I saw the news of this article where I check all new additions at WP:FARGIVEN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe a thank you for both your time here and the link is in order, SandyGeorgia :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And thank you for the interest! My verbosity pays off for once :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NO CONSENSUS
This discussion has received a large attendance and requests for panel closes at WP:AN and WP:Close request - but apparently nobody volunteered and there was no consensus that the close must be a panel close -, so I'll go into more than usual detail here. Numerically, we are at about 95 !votes, with the following distribution:
  • 46 are for Option A (Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists and individuals., which is the current one)
  • 23 are for Option B (Since 2019, Rowling has received significant attention for her views on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been widely criticized as transphobic in mainstream media and mainstream feminism, yet has received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists, some artists, and a few conservative politicians.)
  • 22 are for Option C (Since 2019, coverage of Rowling's views on transgender people and related civil rights has gained increasing prominence in the media. Her views, published on social media and her personal website, have been widely criticized as transphobic in mainstream media and mainstream feminism, yet have received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists, some artists, and a few conservative politicians.)
  • 42 are for Option D (remove completely)
  • 18 are for Option E (Include, but determine exact text later)
  • 3+1 are for Option F (something else altogether)
Do note that many editors specified more than one option, or had an order of preference; for the purpose of this tally I am counting an editor supporting more than one option as multiple editors and am comparing the tally for each against the total number of !votes. On average, Options A, B and C were used about half-a-dozen times as second, third etc. preference, while D and E were so used only twice and thrice.

On the include-or-not side of the discussion, the key point of contention is whether Rowling's views on transgender issues are important/widespread enough to her notability to warrant inclusion (or not). The main argument proffered in favour is that it is frequently covered in sources and that it is already covered in adjunct articles and the main article to a large degree and thus should be included in the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. The main argument proffered against is that the coverage does not amount to proof of WP:WEIGHT and that much of the coverage appears to be a recent (social) media flap (WP:RECENTISM) and unrepresentative of what actually makes her notable (Harry Potter books and films), and that putting it in the lead would be undue relative to her notability/the prominence of other sections in the article. There are some polemic statements, but most arguments in general are along the lines of "(not) important part of her career/notability and (not) widely covered"; most editors don't specify how they measured this. Some editors used academic search engines or specific search engines to find out how proportionate the coverage is, but this approach didn't get much support. I see that not all sources provided by the include camp - in particular Aquillion's - were explicitly contested by the remove camp although one concern is that just listing a bunch of sources, many of which have been contested on grounds of unreliability, may not establish WP:WEIGHT.

On the how-to-write-it side of the discussion, a main concern is how to attribute the statements on Rowling's views: There are many concerns that Options B and C are improperly attributing viewpoints and labelling these expressing them ("mainstream media" is one that has raised many concerns) when such attribution is not properly supported by the sources/implausible, sometimes nationality-dependent and is often WP:BLP-sensitive. Some people worry about the current lead text implying a false equivalence, that it is not representative of how the rest of the article discusses her views and that many of the proposed writeups are too focused on how other people view her views.

There are some discussion threads that deal with Politics of J. K. Rowling, whether it should exist and whether its content should influence that of the lead here and how. It became a sort-of merge discussion but didn't have a clear consensus.

Overall, it seems like slightly less than half of the editors accept a complete removal, slightly more than that want to keep the same text as currently is on the page and again about the same want a different writeup. On the "include or not" question, it seems like people agree that her views are covered in the article, that both WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD apply and that there is real world coverage of her views, but not on whether all these points warrant a mention in the lead. Excluding a few polemic arguments and those not backed by policy, it seems like opinions are quite split and no side clearly out-argues the other, thus there is no consensus on whether to rewrite or remove the current lead section. A number of people have concerns about the various writeups and how they attribute the views on Rowling's views, though, not all of which were refuted and some of which are WP:BLP-sensitive.

Also, a few comments on procedural matters. I see that some people in November argued that the RfC was malformed should be closed, but most people evidently didn't agree and the RfC continued, and some people eventually retracted this procedural objection. The "D-option" originally was "something else" but was changed to "Remove from the lead completely" since almost all editors who used it specified they wanted to use it in this manner, and the one editor who didn't, changed their !vote to clarify. There are a few concerns about WP:BLUDGEONing of editors, personalized comments and about editors putting up selective and non-neutral notices on talk pages and noticeboards, and some others took actions to correct that. Behavioural issues are not, however, in the remit of my close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add per a request on my talk page: I know that per WP:NOCON a lack of consensus on contentious content on living people often results in removal; but the concerns here are mainly about due and undue weight, not about the content being made-up, unsourced or libellous, and there is no such presumption for removal in these cases. And I don't see many people asking for a summary removal. Thus the section is kept by default, for lack of a consensus to remove or alter it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Hi! I'm making a second RfC as it seems the first one has resulted in clear consensus that her trans-related views deserve mention in the lead, but not the lead sentence. Below I have written a few possible ways to do so (in vague terms). Feel free to suggest other ways as well.

A: Leave as is. Namely: Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists and individuals.
B: Since 2019, Rowling has received significant attention for her views on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been widely criticized as transphobic in mainstream media and mainstream feminism, yet has received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists, some artists, and a few conservative politicians.
C: Since 2019, coverage of Rowling's views on transgender people and related civil rights has gained increasing prominence in the media. Her views, published on social media and her personal website, have been widely criticized as transphobic in mainstream media and mainstream feminism, yet have received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists, some artists, and a few conservative politicians.
D: Leave it out of the lead completely.
E: Include in the lead section, with other language to be determined later.
F: Other. Please propose an alternative if you do vote this option.

A. C. Santacruz (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option D (This was originally the 'Other' option, but has become a de facto 'exclude from the lead' choice. I moved 'Other' to option F.) added by Firefangledfeathers 03:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC); option E added by Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying for closer(s): Option E added 28 Nov. (diff); option D wording changed and option F added 30 Nov. (diff), after discussion here. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Option A. I see nothing wrong with the current wording, and I feel this is a case of "don't try to fix what's not broken". — Czello 18:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. It is the most accurate and was agreed on after much discussion already in the archives. Strongly oppose B and C per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. "Widely criticized" is either WP:Original research (OR) or based on cherry-picking sources; most do not use such WP:Puffery. "Mainstream media" is OR and false; the vast majority of the mainstream media does not call her transphobic or anything like that in its own voice and instead remains neutral on the allegations. "Mainstream feminism" is OR. "Trans-exclusionary radical feminists" is a BLP violation of the people mentioned in the body of the article per consensus from an RfC at the BLP noticeboard. All these phrases are massive problems regarding NPOV. Crossroads -talk- 20:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Later addendum: Option D is superior to B and C because not mentioning something is better than doing so in a way riddled with errors, POV, OR, and BLP violations. Crossroads -talk- 05:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was indeed questioning whether or not it's true whether mainstream media has "widely criticised" her as being transphobic, because I'm sure that's not true. — Czello 20:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Entertainment Weekly has said so in almost exactly those words; I'm sure other sources agree. Would it help if I dug them up for you? Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cherry-picking a few examples isn't going to make "widely" any less of a WP:WEASEL problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is it cherry-picked, but that source doesn't say anything about "mainstream media"; it just itself asserts "widely criticized". As I've said before, entertainment magazines make no pretense of sociopolitical objectivity in reporting, nor would we expect them to be particularly good at reporting on that topic. Its actual point, with no sources stating otherwise, is that genderfluid person Eddie Izzard defended Rowling. This is absent from either of the articles on the topic, so thanks for the source so I can fix that. Crossroads -talk- 06:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what the article is about, thanks. For convenience, I have linked a representative sample of other sources for "widely criticized" below. I am not trying to find sources for by mainstream media, because that isn't language I support for this article - I understood Czello to be saying, essentially, "mainstream media doesn't say she's been widely criticized", not "mainstream media doesn't say mainstream media says she's been widely criticied", since that last point seems silly to me. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A I think that sums it up better than the other options. Masterhatch (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to D as well with A as second choice. Masterhatch (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Perfect the way it is; the most objective wording IMO, and perfect position currently as well. When it was mentioned that it should be in the lead, I thought that meant the first paragraph, not simply before the subsections start. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Option D: Now that I know leaving it out completely is an accepted option, that's preferable imo. If people are really insistent about keeping it, option A is still the best in both its location and wording, but I'd prefer if such social media buzz that is primarily only supported by opinion sources is out of the lead completely. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D- Leave it out completely. She's most notable as an author, not as a trans hater. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to a point. I think it needs very little weight in the article. Definately shouldn't be in the opening paragraph, never mind the lead sentence.Masterhatch (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D- Leave it out completely, for reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Immediate procedural close – this Rfc is tainted; it was opened (in good faith) by a user who prematurely self-closed a related rfc (see #RFC on lead sentence above) in violation of closure guidelines. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Clearly never went anywhere, so updated !vote below; Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: What supposed guidelines did they violate? There's no rules against self-closures of an RfC when consensus is obvious. ––FormalDude talk 04:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D: Leave it out. It's not pertinent to why she's notable; it's just a post-notability media and social-media flap. I completely agree with JBullock83's previous comments on this overall question. Failing that, then option A as second choice, for reasons others have already given more concisely than I would. PS: I don't agree with the procedural close idea. We have WP:SNOW for a reason; cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.  — SMcCandlish ☏¢ 😼  03:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current version of the lead section consists of four long paragraphs; the current mention of these issues is two short sentences. The discussion in the lead of the subject's pseudonymous publications, of the extent of her wealth, and of her philanthropy are in each case longer than the discussion of these controversies, although the latter have received more RS (and specifically scholarly) attention. So this whole post-notability business seems to be a pure canard - this RfC is about the lead section, not the lead sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D per SMcCandlish. The true primary thing Rowling is known for is the Potter books. That is what should be the focus of the lead. Certainly this content is due in the body but I would leave it out of the lead entirely. Absent that, option A as it is the most impartial in it's telling. Springee (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lede is literally meant to be a summary of the body. That is its purpose. You already acknowledged the section in the body, so it should be included as a sentence in the lede. The "primary thing" someone is known for has...literally nothing to do with a discussion on writing a lede. That primary thing is already in the lede, obviously. SilverserenC 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The purpose of the lead section is the summary the most encyclopedic key facts, not present every fact in short form. The very fact that the bulk of this stuff has been shunted off into a side article is a strong argument against it being lead-worthy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Springee, the inclusion of two sentences to deal with current controversies, at the end of a four paragraph lead section, doesn't impact the focus of the lead on the Harry Potter/Wizarding World IP. That's true in Option A (the status quo) and in any of the other options as well. So your!vote doesn't seem to apply for this RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C. First off, the justifications for removing it entirely are weak. Content in the lead does not soely have to be mainstream views, nor does it have to be related to the subject's main reason for notability. The lead is supposed to represent the body (WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), and the body goes into great depth about Rowling's views, specifically transgender views, which has a full section. Option C seems to be the best as it is the most neutrally worded SUMMARY of the content that already exists in the body. ––FormalDude talk 05:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E. I agree with Option C for the most part per FormalDude, but I do not like the "in mainstream media" or "conservative politicians" clauses of that option since neither are really discussed in the article section (and also because I'm not entirely sure that the former is true, British media isn't exactly known for its standard-bearing support of trans people but that's a whole other can of worms), so I think they're best removed. Other than those two clauses, C seems pretty neutral and certainly avoids subtle misrepresentations present in the current version. Also this is barely relevant but it should say "on social media" not "in social media". always forever (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Always forever, they are mentioned in Politics of J. K. Rowling so I assumed they'd be mentioned in the main article as well. I personally think that's more an issue of bringing it into main rather than finding it to be not discussed in the article, as U.S. senators referencing her when blocking the Equality Act is quite notable in my eyes. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, should've checked the other article. I withdraw my previous comment about the clause referencing conservative politicians. always forever (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Widely criticized by mainstream feminism" is still original research, and "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" is still a BLP violation of the persons so described. Crossroads -talk- 17:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads "If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." from WP:PUBLICFIGURE so I'm not sure what violation you're referring to (especially when the media uses that term as well). Additionally, when Dave Chappelle gets attention in the media from saying he's "Team TERF" to indicate his support of Rowling means that some of her supporters even like the term. In regards to the OR, modern (fourth-wave) feminism is trans-inclusionary so I ask you to please include sources that say that modern feminists are mostly in agreement with TERF ideology. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion Crossroads linked above was closed with the conclusion, There is consensus that we should generally provide in text attribution when using the term "TERF" in BLP. Given that the arguments in support of that conclusion were mostly on WP:BLP grounds, I assume that is what he is referring to here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The summary of that discussion indicates in-text attribution (which seems fair) not that they cannot be called TERFs. Even if the way to word that (e.g. "has received support from a movement within fourth-wave feminism referred to as TERF") might be hard, I don't think that calls for removing the whole paragraph from the lead. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D: Remove from the lede entirely. Perhaps in ten years' time things will be different, but right now it isn't why she is notable. Many other equally (by article coverage and additional metrics) notable views of hers (eg against press intrusion, which nobody seems bothered about) are not included in the lede, and rightly so. Furthermore, the issue is controversial, and so not easily covered in the lede, as illustrated by the current terrible lede wording on this topic. Tewdar (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC) modified by Tewdar (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Trans section was kept short in this article simply because it is more fully covered in the Politics of J. K. Rowling article were it accounts to close to half of its content. ~ BOD ~ TALK 10:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trans section in the Politics of J. K. Rowling article (which shouldn't exist at all, IMO) is ludicrously over-detailed. Tewdar (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tewdar your personal opinion does not change the fact that keeping the trans section in the main article short per WP:SPLIT was the correct thing to do, and so saying using article coverage as a metric for judgement (as your vote reasoning would suggest) might not be accurate in this case if one does not consider pages split off due to length. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tewdar, are you suggesting that most of the RS coverage of Rowling for several years now is *not* about her statements on transgender issues? If so, I'd like to see some evidence for that EXTRAORDINARY claim. If not, how is the section over-detailed? Did history end in 2016, or something? Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am suggesting that what you might describe as "the very utmost highest quality, absolutely bloody top-notch beyond reproach reliable sourcing" is usually just sleazy click-bait. Show me any other encyclopedia general-purpose encyclopedia article about Rowling with a specific entry for Rowling that covers this subject at all. Tewdar (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic discussion that produced the bold clarification of the immediately preceding comment - darkly hilarious
            • Try looking in here. And if you think academic journals are usually just sleazy click-bait, perhaps you would be happier contributing to some other "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • That encyclopedia does not appear to have an individual entry on J. K. Rowling. Also it's a rather specific encyclopedia, not general-purpose. Perhaps I should have been more specific, to avoid those famous Newimpartial Gotcha® replies. Tewdar (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't know why you are looking to other general-purpose encyclopedia articles about Rowling for guidance - we are not writing a quadrenary encyclopaedia here, and I don't know how many other encyclopaedias have been revised over the last couple of years, anyway. Your argument is akin to suggesting that we shouldn't cover Covid-19 because it isn't in older encyclopaedias...Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tewdar and Newimpartial: I suggest that the discussion here guide itself by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia without copying from other encyclopedias. That is neither our purpose nor our role in WP. The guidelines are based on decades of consensus and reinforced by thousands of discussions. Our guidelines on the lead section are clear in their wording, so appealing to other general purpose encyclopedias is unnecessary for the purpose of this discussion, and drives the discussion off-topic. Tewdar if your issue is that her trans-related views are not commented on in RS, the large amount of RSs that have been provided should dispel that. If your issue is that it is not the most notable thing about her, then you are misreading the guidelines on lead which suggest that the lead follows the body. If your issue is that the matter is controversial and therefore should not be in the lead because it is hard to write about, then you are ignoring the fact that this RfC is in fact to get community input on how to improve that wording, and I suggest you propose some ideas on addressing the issues you find in the current wording rather than removing it altogether. If your issue is that other notable views of her that are covered extensively in the article aren't in the lead and therefore the trans views should also not be covered, I'd argue that's a stronger argument for including them all rather than removing the trans views. I expect another RfC to happen after this about how to do so if the consensus is to keep the trans views in the lead, and would warmly invited you to join that discussion as well. If your argument is that the controversy is too recent that is much more defendable and you can certainly make that argument, but that's a much weaker argument for removal than the others. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned below I (too) believe this RFC is ill-prepared, premature and unnecessary, and I oppose making any changes to the paragraph in question based on it. I believe it should be closed for the reasons pointed out by others. I support the status quo agreed on after extensive debate. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option E. Per Newimpartial's reasoning below. If E fails, then B followed by A.Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC) tweaked on Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, then E, then either B or C' Option A, per Czello, but really - wait, what? What's happening here? Why is a relatively new user who I've rarely seen on this article jumping in to one of the more controversial areas on WP, proposing RFCs with their own multiple alternative wordings (thereby splitting a vote)? Has anybody actually been looking for this? The current version is actually relatively stable, as these things go. Why fix something that isn't broken?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC) [Changing to add Option E. Lead follows body. Wikipedia is not censored, and we cover Rowling's recent controversies in this article and the subject's political views receive enough coverage that they also warrant their own full article. Excluding this from mention in the lede would be bizarre]. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bastun I got summoned by bot to the discussion above my first RfC and saw that perhaps the discussion that was happening (which I saw as disorganized and unfocused) could be benefited by 2 RfCs with clear options that could guide discussion (e.g. should it be in the lead sentence and if so how, and should it be in the lead and if so how). I understand now that the similarities between B and C are muddling this discussion and that is my error. However, I reasoned that having 3 options (status quo, a small addition, and a small addition with more description of how the views are made public, and other choices) would be helpful as clear options that guide discussion. The state of the discussion above my RfCs indicates that if not broken, it might still benefit from recent, specific community consensus on the lead. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New user A._C._Santacruz is clearly here for the right reasons, has navigated complex guidelines as best they could, and acquits themself well. That said (and this is getting o/t here), Bastun's point makes me wonder if the FRS bot should be adjusted to retrieve a topic's ArbCom D/s status, as well as a user's WP:XC and Arb D/s warning status, and react in some t.b.d. way. If there's interest, we should move this aside to User talk:Yapperbot. Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot this seems like quite the interesting proposal, I'd support starting the discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!
  • Option A Lede follows body. It is a section in the body, it should have at least a sentence in the lede. To do otherwise is trying to purposefully hide content in the body. Anyone arguing otherwise is going directly against policy. SilverserenC 01:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E (which I added above) - I have never done this before, but I cannot !vote for any of the options given. A is mealy-mouthed and promotes FALSEBALANCE; B and C are flawed in almost identical ways, and by now any !vote for D could be mistaken as a !vote to leave this material out. As borne out by the body of this article, by Politics of J. K. Rowling, and by previous discussions at this very Talk page, issues arising from Rowling's statements on transgender issues are more than DUE for inclusion in what is a longish (lead section). The material should be included by policy, in a neutral way that meets BLP and DUE requirements without succumbing to whitewashing or deviating from what the sources actually say. I'm confident that the discussion to discern what this language is simply hasn't started yet in earnest - the stable version can stay as a placeholder until we have something better. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer B, would be okay with A. As Silver seren says, lead follows body, and so it bears mentioning; B feels the option that offers the most context but the simpler reading in A is not a bad option either. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B As a billionaire, Rowling is one of the most powerful people in the world and of all the ways she has used her power and influence, in terms of count and depth of media coverage she is most known for her hatemongering against the trans community. This is not an area where she has casual opinions; the media she sought and acquired has made her a thought leader for oppression of trans people. Based on my experience editing Wikipedia, seeing this kind of media coverage makes me think her actions in the trans movement are defining features of her biography, public image, and historical record. Option B could be reworded, but in any case, I choose it because I support communicating that many sources - including LGBT+ organizations, mainstream media, and most of her prominent colleagues in performing her works - all see fit to report her hostility to one of the most vulnerable, attacked, and underprivileged demographics of society. The weight of the sources merits including this prominently in the lead. Bodney has a more complete list of sources in another section but here are some for this discussion.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am out of touch about the decline of Forbes. I struck that. As for The Advocate, if there is a wiki-policy-based explanation for why community publications are excluded from talk about their own communities then I want to see it. The Advocate is a fine source for presenting mainstream LGBT community views. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; SMcCandlish is offering a "unique" reading of WP:INDEPENDENT, here. Taken to its logical conclusion, we couldn't cite UK broadsheets on UK political issues... Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a tendency to shoot the messenger and squelch dissenting voices, I don't know what "mainstream LGBT community views" could be, but if The Advocate gets a pass we can also use community publications that are on the other side of the PC popularity aisle; such as Lesbian and Gay News, AfterEllen. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyxis Solitary: Excuse the late reply, I just checked again now that this is closing. I object to your argument because those publications are not comparable. There is such a thing as the LGBT community and the The Advocate has been a respected publication for that community since the 60s. Millions of people have read their articles, and thousands of LGBT community leaders have shown respect to the publication by cooperating with their journalists. Those two publications you shared are new and have not yet been shown to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I personally characterize them as fringe, because they both present themselves as serving a community of LGB people who are transphobic. The LGBT community has always opposed hate and discrimination, and I doubt the existence of legitimate journalism which seeks to grow a transphobic gay audience. There is so little money in mainstream LGBT journalism that my first thought to explain funding for transphobic gay lifestyle magazines is that it must be propaganda intended to sow discord and doubt with negativity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I grabbed some captures of those publications. Lesbianandgaynews has a list of transphobic articles. Almost every article on the frontpage of their website today seems focused on hatemongering against trans people, which I feel makes this topic a focus and defining feature of the publication. Afterellen avoids the usual LGBT coverage of trans topics, but at the top of that list does have an article guiding trans people into conversion therapy to quit being trans. None of this is from the LGBT community, and there is no organized LGB community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your characterization of Lesbian and Gay News. I see it as a canary in a coal mine, and to form a factually-based opinion about any subject it is important to see both sides of the aisle. Characterizing the AfterEllen article as "guiding trans people into conversion therapy to quit being trans" is a misrepresentation. The article is titled "Supporting Our Detransitioned Sisters on #DetransAwarenessDay" and is an interview regarding the organization Detrans Voices. Detransitioners exist. Their experiences and what they have to say have as much value as those of transgender women and men. The Advocate ignores the detransition movement. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your opinion of them is does not make them RS. With regards to their opinion on trans people, the fact they'd publish this article saying And as anyone who has ever participated in social media knows, any criticism of transgender ideology, which we all of us have the right to accept, critique and reject, any deviation from the brain-sucking mantra of ‘trans women are women,’ is met with [...] (removed disturbing language but you get the point). This is a viciously toxic form of men’s sexual rights activism that has managed to rebrand and reframe itself as a civil rights movement. means the site supports the statement that trans women are not women and that trans rights is not a valid civil rights movement (both transphobic statements). So I have strong doubts as to whether their editorial policy (or lack thereof) means they can be considered an RS on this topic, Pyxis Solitary. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AfterEllen article you linked is written by Miranda Yardley, a trans woman. You disagree with her. But that doesn't make her opinion not worthy of consideration. You should invite her to tea sometime so you can hash out your differences. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2 points. Firstly, the fact she's a trans woman does not mean she cannot be transphobic. That would be absurd. Secondly, I'm not saying her opinion is not worthy of consideration, I am saying it is indicative of the editorial line of the page you have mentioned and in opposition to both the scientific, academic, and popular media RS mainstream. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casual reminder that Blaire white is also a trans woman. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, feel free to take the issue to WP:RSN if you feel otherwise. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D – Delete Her views on trans people are incidental to her notability. The article has an extensive section on her views ranging from religion and politics to the media to trans issues, yet only the latter is deemed worthy of mention. If the lead is to mention her views then it should be balanced and in proportion to the coverage of her other stances, otherwise it just looks like wiki-activism. If it is to remain then the wording would have to be balanced with her other positions. Betty Logan (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or (2nd choice) Option D, as undue in the lead. For a British person, option C is a complete non-starter - those sweeping characterizations might be true for the US (though I rather doubt it), but are certainly not for the UK, where she lives. Support for her position is much wider than that in the media, & no doubt the wider public. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more than in the politics article: The article Politics of J.K. Rowling contains two lines in the lede on her trans-related views, along with various party political and referendum declarations. None of these views should be more represented on the main article than on the specific Politics article. (copied from below) The mention about trans issues may be present or absent from this article but it would be incoherent in my opinion for the main article to give greater detail to a secondary subject than the specific article dealing with the secondary suject. I think that Wikipedia should be consistent and coherent, especially across two very closely related articles. If any expansion might possibly be worthwhile, it would be over at the Politics article. (added) Munci (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
long IP rant against WP policy
  • Option D (also bad formed RFC choices - all three are POV language, some only more inflammatry than the others) - this is not even remotely close to being what she is notable for. Putting it in the lede is undue RECENTISM, and it most certainly violates many facets of the spirit of BLP, and probably multiple instances of the letter as well (but I refuse to engage in endless Wikilitigation over that). Putting any of the three options in the lede would mean the encyclopaedia is being used as a mouthpiece for a misogynistic and homophobic "lynch" mob, thinly veiled in the "inclusive sheep"'s clothing in order to fool some proponents of women's and gays' rights, and to intimidate the rest of them for fear of being destroyed if they dare speak.
  • The only way this can possibly be mentioned neutrally - and it is UNDUE for the lede regardless - would be to state exactly what she said, then briefly describe that she received backlash from some feminists and LGBT activists, and support from other feminists and LGBT activists. Anything beyond that violates NPOV. The non-activist community at large, here, needs to understand (and eventually, I think, will need to acknowledge) that there is a cold civil war going on right now in the feminist and LGBT circles - all of the involved parties are marginalised groups, and both sides say they are being waged war on by the other side. Only one side engages in personal campaigns to destroy the reputation against individuals that disagree with them, though, and we have a squadron of editors here dedicated to that goal as well (certain of whom "can't wait until every last homosexual is dead and buried"). And for the record: we have sex-separated spaces SOLELY because of material reality: females are weaker, only females can become pregnant, and only males can impregnate them, potentially against their will. None of that has anything to do with how anyone "identifies", and claiming it does is dishonest. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, or second choice option A Option C is too POV in tone, the others, meh. This issue is going to simmer down one way or the other and is not a defining feature of who she is. Most of all, avoid recentism and always keep it NPOV. Montanabw(talk) 08:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D in a decades-long wiriting career, her views on trans issues are insignificant and WP:UNDUE. We certainly should not be using inflammatory language like "transphobic" (a word that is thrown around willy nilly at anybody who criticises anything to do with trans). Additionally, where's the mention of her political views in the lead? Why are the trans views deemed more significant? Why isn't there mention that feminists support her for the same reasons that trans people dislike her? Remove. Remove. Remove. – 2.O.Boxing 10:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why isn't there mention that feminists support her for the same reasons that trans people dislike her? Perhaps because, as it stands, this statement is false? Feminists outside the UK are most unlikely to support Rowling, and feminists within the UK are divided. People who think this is a "trans people vs. feminists" issue seem to be unfamiliar with the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, option D; remove, remove, remove. – 2.O.Boxing 18:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You haven't read either the lead or the sources on this topic, have you? Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You mistakingly think Rowling is transphobic, we get it. Now stop bludgeoning. Still option D; remove, remove, remove. – 2.O.Boxing 00:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I do not think Rowling is transphobic, and I have consistently opposed describing Rowling as transphobic. Perhaps you are thinking of some other editor? What I think is that Rowling's comments on trans issues are controversial, have been widely condemned as tranphobic, and that this is now a very substantial strand in the coverage of Rowling, particular the "better" (scholarly) coverage. You can disagree with that, but please don't attribute to me beliefs I don't hold. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • anything to do with trans. Trans is an adjective, not a noun. Did you mean to say "trans issues" or "trans people", perhaps? —{{u|CupOfTea696}} [ talk | contribs ] 15:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 1

  • Well, I hope your vote is completely ignored. We follow how the news reports on subjects and there has been extensive reporting on Rowling's views on trans people. Hence why there's a section in the article. And the lede is meant to be a summary of the body. SilverserenC 02:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B although I would drop “mainstream”; apart from that it seems the most precise. And two sentences seems well warranted by the space devoted in the body of the entry. (Meanwhile I would suggest trimming the five sentences on how wealthy she is, which corresponds to a shorter section of the body.) Note: I was summoned by Smcandlish’s post on WikiProject Novels. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Informative, concise and neutral. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D exclude from the lead, as articulated by SMcCandlish her views have nothing to do with her notability or her fame. Failing exclusion, option A is the least objectionable biased language. Cavalryman (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I guess relevance is subjective, hence this discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I'd appreciate you indicating which ones you feel should be included in the lead that are not currently there, as that would be helpful both within this RfC and also afterwards since a number of people feel there are more things that could be included and I assume there will be a discussion/RfC on that as well, Cavalryman. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t, I think the first three paragraphs are sufficient and the forth UNDUE. Cavalryman (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I'm just trying to understand your reasoning seeing how leads (in my perspective) are not meant to be a short description of why a person is notable but instead a short summary of the article itself. If you then follow that reasoning (as you did in your second comment) and say that the mention of trans views should be removed because there are sections that are not summarized in the lead and should be before sub-sections are, but then refuse to name which ones you feel should be mentioned before the trans-related paragraph makes it hard to argue against your view as one would have to refute or counteract any of the possible suggestions you might have.
In essence, I don't find your argument that the fourth paragraph does not merit inclusion compelling seeing how a) notability and fame are not the only metrics for including something in the lead (It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. from MOS:LEAD, emphasis my own (fame is not mentioned, but one may assume it is part of notability)); b) your initial comment assumes that the controversy about her trans-related comment is not notable (it assumes so as it does not provide any arguments nor does it respond to the significant amounts of evidence provided in the rest of the discussion saying it is indeed notable); c) arguing that other sections have more merit for inclusion in the lead but not mentioning which ones should (so as to facilitate later discussion on this point and therefore improve the article) feels (if you'll pardon the simile) like setting many goalposts without playing the game, if that makes sense, as I described above in this comment; d) saying it is UNDUE means you are saying that it is not supported by a majority view, but so far all I have seen in this discussion are RS describing the controversy and none that do not refer to it at all. In my view if you wish to claim that the paragraph is UNDUE the burden is now on you to provide evidence for it not being a notable aspect of her coverage since she started making her views on trans people public. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, saying "per SMcCandlish" is really more like saying per John Bullock seeing how Candlish relies on their previous comment on the issue, so then saying doesn't pass notability test per Candlish really is more like saying the content is too recent to be included. The controversy about Rowling's views is neither breaking news, nor gossip, nor is it a brief coverage lasting a month. It is currently over three and a half years of consistent reporting by an overwhelming majority of RS news sources both in opinion pieces (relevant for my next point) and news articles. The WP:RECENTISM page describes a WP:10YEARTEST as a helpful thought experiment:
Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?
The extent of the coverage, the influence her comments have had on the global discussion around trans rights (being quoted by US senators, academic research into her tweets being used as a call for more research on how twitter spreads TERF ideology, analysis about anti-trans rhetoric) and her own work (academic analysis), I think it would be immensely hard to argue that in ten years anyone would be confused about the inclusion of significant amounts of text describing the controversy around her views within the article, and therefore, some non-trivial mention within the lead. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just wrong on what ledes are for? They are meant to be a summary of the body of the article. There is a section on the subject in the article, so it should be summarized in the lede. SMcCandlish's claim is completely worthless for this discussion, as it has nothing to do with how ledes are made. SilverserenC 02:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lede is not required to touch on every point in the body - in fact this is usually impossible to do for a lenghty article. At some point you have to decide what are details fall below a threshold to be included. Or another way - the lede should be a sufficiently complete summary that if that is the only thing they read, they have a fairly comprehensive picture of the topic. Minor controveries compared to what makes one notable are the types of things that aren't necessary for that --Masem (t) 01:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly do not understand how anyone can refer to these as minor controversies given that most of the media coverage about Rowling in the past few years has been about her views on trans people. In what world does that constitute as minor? Yes, the lede is not required to touch on every point in the article – but to claim that this controversy, which –again– has dominated the media coverage of Rowling, falls below a threshold to be included seems dishonest to me. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D Delete. There seems to be an obsession with many to include views on transgender when it isn't what made the person famous and/or "notable". It has gotten enough press to warrant coverage in the article for sure, but the lede should summarize what it is that makes this person notable. Her political views simply aren't that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her pseudonymous novels and her philanthropy aren't what made the person famous and/or "notable" in this case, either, but they each occupy more space in this article's lead than the controversies - even though the controversies have attracted *much* more media and scholarly attention in recent years than those other topics. So you might want to recalibrate...Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fallacious reasoning. There's nothing controversial about including her other novels or philanthropy in the lead. But there is very certainly controversy about including this trans-related stuff, which is itself about controversy, so bound for tighter BLP and PoV scrutiny. If you genuinely think those other things should not be in the lead, then feel free to open a separate discussion about removing them. It's not germane in this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing in WP:BLP to suggest that notable controversies should be excluded from the lead - to the contrary. This particular area of controversy has been responsible for most of the coverage of Rowling for almost four years now, and is reflected in high-quality and academic sources. The question for this RfC was intended to be finding the NPOV language to reflect this controversy on the lead - and it might have done so, if not for attempts to reroute (if not derail) the RfC into a referendum over whether to mention this notable controversy in the lead.
        • If you wanted to ask, "should this controversy be included in the lead of this article" there would have been ways to do that, beginning with a simple, neutrally worded RfC question, allowing for a straightforward presentation of the (quite massive) evidence that the controversy is notable, and then neutral notifications. You have chosen another path, though. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but the lede should summarize what it is that makes this person notable." This is...false? Like, completely wrong on every level of what the lede is for. The lede is a summary of the body content of the article. It is not a summary of "notable" things, other than that everything included in the body of an article with references is by definition notable. You seem to want the lede to only mention that she made the Harry Potter books and Fantastic Beasts films and nothing else? I guess we could have a two-sentence lede and nothing else then. Is that what you're arguing for? SilverserenC 03:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus/besides the point ....Many people are notable for more than one thing e.g. Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson etc etc and this get included in their lead sections. Should we mention in the lead that she is also a philanthropist, film producer, and screenwriter ? ~ BOD ~ TALK 03:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing controversial about mentioning those things, and most of them are directly relevant to her notability (at least an order of magnitude more people have watched HP films than read the books). Philanthropy, maybe not. Lots and lots, maybe most, very wealthy people engage in at least some philanthropy, after all. But this isn't an RfC about those things; it's not the "what should be in the lead?" RfC. It's about one specific thing which has become a WP controvery, about something that is itself a social-media controvery, about an underlying socio-political controversy. It's controversial three times over, so it is not comparable to "and is a screenwriter and film producer".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has gone beyond social media, on the 10th June 2020 Rowling an author with an international platform purposefully published a 3,600-word essay on her website ~ on 19 June, the Equality Act was blocked in the US Senate after Republican senator James Lankford opposed it, citing Rowling's essay as part of his reasoning. Her views on transgender people have had a real world effect, her views have been covered internationally in countless reliable sources, with various levels of neutrality and criticism, I do not think we can simply dismiss it as a social media controversy. ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D or Option A as second choice. Omission of a political position that while well-covered but which has mixed responses is a smart play (leaving the details to the body where there's clearly more room for discussion). But if it must be included, the current wording and position in the lede is succinct, neutral, and placed appropriately. --Masem (t) 03:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D. Don’t mention it in the lead at all. The earlier discussion found consensus to omit this subject from the first sentence, but there was no consensus to have it in the lead anywhere. The lead is supposed to reflect the article, in rough proportion to the coverage a given subject receives. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. So let’s look at the article’s contents. The main section is Life and Career; that constitutes more than half the article, with five subsections about her biography and eight about her writing; this justly makes up most of the lead. Subsequent sections are Philanthropy (a large section with multiple subsections, deserving of the single sentence it gets in the lead); Influences (not enough material to be mentioned in the lead); Views (has four subsections, one of which is Transgender people; a single subsection does not qualify for lead mention); Legal disputes (too little material for a lead mention); and Awards and Honours (a large section, mentioned in the lead). Bottom line, no, we do not single out one four-paragraph subsection and put a sentence about it in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote for Option D, to not mention in the lead at all. WP:UNDUE provides that "undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." Including this sentence in the lead section would give a 'prominent placement' to Rowling's views on this matter (which, for what it's worth, I am personally against and find to be trans-phobic). Her views here are are tangential to her reason(s) for notability. Moreover, one could argue that if this were to be included, then other aspects of her views from the Politics, Religion, and Press sections should be noted in the lead as well. Although all are important to include for the balance of the entire article, none warrant inclusion in the lead. There, I think that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE require no mention of this in the lead, and vote for *Option D. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D. Do not include in the lede at all because it's WP:UNDUE. The claim that the issue was settled previously is irrelevant, since consensus can change, especially when a wider group of editors becomes aware of it. I also below that some entrenched page editors are already fishing for some wiki-lawyering ways of preserving the mention in the lede if the discussion goes against inclusion -- which tells me that this is a case of righting great wrongs and further confirms my conclusion that it should be excluded from the lede -- and any admin closing this should ignore that. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have it backwards. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as evidenced by editors ignoring Wikipedia policies like LEADFOLLOWSBODY, misinterpreting DUEWEIGHT, and not following WP:LEADBIO which states Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole. Removing this content, given its extensive coverage in the body, is blatant suppression. ––FormalDude talk 07:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I did not claim that it had been settled previously, I simply replied to the assertion that the was no consensus to include, by saying that the had been a pre-existing consensus to include resulting from several past discussions, and i never implied that consensus could not change.) ~ BOD ~ TALK 08:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have it backwards. Bullcrap. Your response is quite literally what I said was happening: a wiki-lawyering attempt at asserting the non-existent bureaucratic authority of citing Wikipedia guidelines as if they were black-and-white unambiguous requirements, AND proclaiming that a previous discussion is written in stone and cannot be altered. Congratulations on proving my point for me, and my choice stands. --Calton | Talk 08:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calton WP:TONEITDOWN. Warm reminder this page falls under the discretionary sanctions under Gender & Sexuality. You've made your point. As someone with as much experience here as you have, please be more civil.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • xxx Warm reminder this page falls under the discretionary sanctions under Gender & Sexuality Really? And this has WHAT to do with my comments, how, exactly? Be specific, "warm" or otherwise.
          • You've made your point. Really? Perhaps given the badgering of editors choosing Option-D, by you and others, you should think twice about wagging your finger. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was just saying "Bullcrap" and "congratulations" and other patronizing language was unnecessary. I wasn't "wagging [my] finger" and I hope my message wasn't taken as passive-agressive or tone policing. As I said in your talk page and in a previous comment, I recognize the bludgeoning that's been going on, and just wanted to try and remind you not to let the wikistress from this discussion get the better of you. I apologize if you felt insulted by me doing so, Calton. I only mentioned the sanctions because under them we need to make an extra effort to be civil and impersonal in discussions like these, I hope it wasn't seen as some kind of veiled threat or anything. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D - Remove from lead per WEIGHT. -- GreenC 06:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D. Remove from lede. I saw this advertised at a village pump. Pretty much everything about this drama is Wikipedia at its worst, in my view. Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • E, B, C, A in that order, though I would be open to rewordings. Oppose complete omission or removal in strongest possible terms and I strenuously urge that anyone supporting that without a policy-compliant rationale be disregarded (since many of the people arguing for that have flatly and unequivocally presented no policy-based rationale; and an RFC is not a vote.) B isn't perfect, so I'd prefer workshopping something better, but of the presented options it is the most precise and most accurately reflecting who has said what according to the best available sources. C is a more verbose version of B that doesn't add much that I can see. A is less precise and downplays the level of coverage, but is still acceptable. Removing entirely is unacceptable given the level of coverage - while it is not the thing she is most notable for (and therefore doesn't belong in the lead sentence), it is a major aspect of her notability and her reputation today - a quick news search, for instance, shows that it not only makes up the bulk of coverage now, but that if you go back it makes up much of the coverage of her for the past year, in a plainly WP:SUSTAINED fashion; this is far beyond the level we would require for coverage in the lead in most other contexts. Just a quick summary of sustained coverage includes [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][[16][17][18][19][20]. Note that these cover over a year of coverage, many of them themselves noting the overwhelming impact it has had on her reputation. It has been extensively covered (with entire articles devoted to it) in places like the New York Times, The Guardian, NBC, NPR, and CNN for years on end. It's one thing to argue over how best to word it, but arguing for complete omission is difficult to defend. On top of this, the relevant controversy is a substantial section of the article itself, which requires inclusion in the lead per WP:LEAD. --Aquillion (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, C, A, Oppose complete omission or removal in strongest possible terms along with Aquillion. For reasons I have explained at length many times before. It has been an inseperable and major part of her activism for a while now, and that part only seems to be growing bigger. I understand that as an encyclopedia we inevitably lag behind what people are doing at any given point in time, but I don't see why we should ignore what is clearly becoming a very major part of her activity. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A (leave as is) or Option D (drop it from the lead completely). Given the amount of recent press reports around and the section in the article's body a short mentioning in the lead seems certainly justified. However given her general notability (to audiences at large) this seems a marginal issue, which means Option D might be a valid option as well (or might be again in the future). Personally I have the impression that with regard to (alleged) transphobia of various celebrities, that it is getting hyped to the point of hounding in some cases with little sense of nuance (and disregard for anybody not sharing the orthodoxy). Hence considering WP:BLP I tend to be hesitant to include too much of it in the main article/biography of a person.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to options B and C, Prefer option D (remove), but am also Happy with A - options B and C suggest that she doesn't get any support from non-radical feminists, but this is contradicted by penultimate paragragh of the transgender section, so B and C are misleading. Option A is the most neutral wording, in my opinion. However, I don't see how her views on transgender issues are WP:DUE for the lead. The lead is supposed to sumarise the main points of the article. Focussing in on one aspect of the "views" section of her article, whilst completing neglecting to mention the other sections there fails WP:NPOV in my opinion. I also reject the counter-argument to this, that the length of the transgender section means it is due, it is roughly the same length as some of the other sections ("politics" and "press").(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, though it may need some slight tweaks so adding Option E as a second choice. I think dropping the "mainstream" wording like Innisfree987 suggested would probably suffice. I also oppose complete omission or removal in strongest possible terms, this idea of removing it seems ludacris to me, given that lately the only times I seem to hear about Rowling is when she makes these kinds of comments, or people are referring to her in respect to those comments. Most recent media coverage of her is also in regards to her views on trans people. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} [ talk | contribs ] 12:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, with one of two possibilities or Option F. Deleting it from the lede would be acceptable and might be preferable per WP:RECENT. Alternatively, it might be WP:DUE to write a short paragraph about the "Views" section of the article, and include a briefer sentence (shorter even than Option A) about transgender issues there. That is, I'm suggesting it could be due to cover the whole of the Views section, but that summarizing only a negative subsection seems WP:UNDUE to me. I was brought in by the post at WP:Wikiproject Biography. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENT can't apply - at least to this RfC. Per MOS:LEAD, the content of the lead follows the content of the article body. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that emphasizing events since 2019 in the lede is exactly the sort of thing that WP:RECENT is talking about. But my alternative suggestion is indeed to bring the lede into closer agreement with the article body. As her political views have gotten some broader coverage (not just recently), perhaps this is indeed the better policy-based option. I will strike "might be preferable" accordingly. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with Option F, per changed RfC options. I will expand to comment that her stance on trans issues is notable partly because of her liberal positions elsewhere. It seems to me that balanced coverage requires putting this in context. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, C, A or E. So far as I can tell, ~all current coverage of Rowling is about her stance on trans issues. Yes, this is 'recent' and not representative of the previous 20 years she's been in public life. But equally, it is significant. The lead section is very long, and a one or two sentence mention of this controversy in the lede is perfectly proportionate. The Land (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. D is absolutely off the table. Them coverage of Rowling's newfound TERFdom is widespread, but has not (yet) had a demonstrable impact on her career or works. She is still primarily known as one of the most successful authors of the generation. Zaathras (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or C. Option A is the sort of sentence that makes it seem there's good people on both sides of bigotry. Similarly, attempts to remove mentions of her immensely publicized transphobia from the lede when that dimension has almost overshadowed her career as a writer in recent years would be a disservice to the readers of this page, but a great service to the PR team of a billionaire. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a WP:FORUM. Continue this discussion somewhere else. Isabelle 🔔 00:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, leave as is. The fatal problem with B and C is that the article does not currently support a statement saying that TERFs defend her position. To the folks rehashing the previous RfC, the huge problem with removing this stuff from the lead section is the guideline at WP:LEAD telling us to summarize important points. Rowling's stance on transgender is very widely discussed. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Leaving it out makes no sense--it's a significant part of her current coverage and has been for a number of years. And the lede follows the article. The rest are somewhat problematic given the current article and even the sources. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - omit from the lede. Not central to her notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:LEDE indicates that the lede should "...summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Given that much of her recent coverage (over the last year+) has beenon this topic, I don't think there is an UNDUE argument to be made. And being "central to her notability" isn't really part of how we pick what to put in the LEDE as I read it. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, to rephrase… I don’t think this actually is a “prominent controversy”. While it should be mentioned in the body of the article, I don’t think it merits being called one of the “important points” of the article, and thus should not be summarized in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Given the massive coverage, I think it is fairly prominent. The sources provided seem pretty clear it's been a large part of her coverage over the last couple of years. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, remove. I find the arguments relating to WP:UNDUE more compelling here, particularly the analysis by MelanieN. The arguments in favor, on the other hand, seem to come down mainly to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with a dose of WP:RECENTISM. Arguments that "this has already been approved in previous discussions" ignore that WP:Consensus can change. If "lede follows body" to the point that these views need to be mentioned, why is no one insisting that we also include mention of her views on politics, religion, and the press in similar fashion? If we mention it at all, IMO that's the direction it should go: point out that her views on several topics have generated controversy rather than specifically calling out only the one that currently has activists (both here and in certain parts of the media). Anomie⚔ 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anomie if you read the subarticle Politics of J. K. Rowling and the "Views" section of this article, it is one of two parts of her political views that is/has been significantly covered/commented upon by others. As can be seen in the subarticle and the sources provided this coverage has been extensive and not limited to the types of sources that gossip around or use controversy as their main content (e.g. FT, Reuters, The Economist). The other view that has received much attention is her views on the press, and while I think that her being named as core participant in the Leveson inquiry means including her views on press in the lead might be worthwhile considering, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY it is not covered extensively enough in the articled and subarticles of Rowling to have a strong case for inclusion in my opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, the religious controversy is not about her as much as it is about Harry Potter, where the controversy is mostly by hyper-religious POVs so I'm not sure how notable that would be in an article about her (a member of the Church of England). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!
    • Absolutely nobody has based their arguent on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, folks arguing for inclusion have done so mainly due to WP:DUE to the WP:SUSTAINED and widespread coveraged in the international media that has gone beyond a brief burst of news coverage in the WP:RSP, and because WP:LEAD WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and WP:LEADBIO. Other notable aspects of her life could be added to the lead, nobody has argued against that, but it is a seperate matter to the current discussion. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC) (Add ...Regards simple size comparisons the Trans section compared to other sections, the Trans sectionm has been kept short in this article simply because WP:SPLIT it is more fully covered in the Politics of J. K. Rowling article were it accounts to close to half of its content, with only a brief summary kept in the main article. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC) )[reply]
      • Right. People invoking WP:RGW in contexts like this, as Anomie has done here, are almost always motivated by misinterpretations they have made, both of the sourcing of this article and of the motives of *other* editors - they misunderstand what NPOV and DUE call for in a given case and therefore throw their !votes (or other interventions) in support of a specific POV that they mistake for NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anomie: why is no one insisting that we also include mention of her views on politics, religion, and the press in similar fashion? This is irrelevant to whether we should include her transgender views. Each section/topic should be evaluated on its own merits. That said, it is true that likely the entire views section deserves some mentioning in the lead. You yourself haven't made any argument against that, so I'm not sure why you're against this proposal which gets the ball rolling on a more accurate lead in general. ––FormalDude talk 19:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: getting the ball rolling, I've actually become pretty curious about the "philantropist" mention in the lead, because bodney mentioned it somewhere in here. What qualifies her to have such a positive qualifier compared to other individuals who have her kind of money to throw around? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it's a question I don't have an answer for. Richard branson is not called a philantropist in the lead, bill gates is, despite both having a header about their activities around science and humanitarian causes. Are there rules about this on wikipedia? --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather a tangent, but I oppose use of "philanthropist" in Wikipedia's voice almost everywhere, as it is an implicitly political term with non-neutral connotations. We can describe that some people viewing the spending of Rowling, Branson or Gates positively with attribution, but then must make sure that we're giving due weight to criticisms of that spending. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support the removal of "philanthropist". She is far better known for her anti-trans activities than any "philanthropy". If her anti-trans activities can't be mentioned in the first sentence, there is no reason to include a much more obscure and even dubious descriptor as "philanthropist." --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:FormalDude Is this the "brief consensus" you mentioned in your edit? I only see two comments arguing for the removal of "philanthropist", and one of the two expresses a general stance rather than being opposed to use it for Rowling in particular. It doesn't seem like much of a consensus to me. Natuff (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose excluding from the lead - the lead should summarize the important points of the article, and this has received widespread coverage in reliable sources for an extended time. Less strong opinions on what wording to use, assuming the same information is also present in the article body and backed up by RSs.--AlexandraIDV 19:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D - Delete from lead per WP:WEIGHT. LondonIP (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A: I was torn between this an Option D per MelanieN, however CupOfTea does note that the current format links to it's own page, and therefore is weighty enough to include in the introduction. Option A is best per WP:NPV. --Spekkios (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A > B > C and do not remove. A plethora of sources are provided by A. C. Santacruz, Aquillion, Crossroads and Sideswipe9th, who are all on the right page here. As far as I can see, D voters do not really dispute that this widespread coverage is dominant in contemporary discussion of Rowling, making it more relevant to include than what else we would consider: not Harry Potter, Cormoran Strike, Rowling's wealth or even The Ickabog (all in the lead already), but something very minor like The Christmas Pig or her opposition to Scottish independence. I really can't understand SMcCandlish's argument that the lead should not include this because it's not related to her initial notability, as if WP:LEAD does not quite clearly say we should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, or as if Coromoran Strike would have made her notable without her pre-existing fame (it would testably not have). If it was an argument about what to say in the first sentence, I'd get it, but this is the fourth paragraph. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, followed by B and C in that order, per Bilorv just above. The lede is there to summarize the body, and the phrasing of each option is acceptable. Inclusion in the lede doesn't depend upon what a person first became famous for. That would be like cutting off the lede for Richard Feynman after it mentions his work on quantum electrodynamics in the 1940s and refusing to include his role investigating the Challenger disaster just because it happened later. XOR'easter (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, leave it out entirely. She's notable as creator of Harry Potter. Her flirtation with TERFism may just scrape through as not Wikipedia:Recentism but is still not important enough to go into the lead. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many editors are conflating how Rowling became notable with their general notability. There are a lot of generally notable things about her besides Harry Potter, especially including her views on transgender topics. ––FormalDude talk 08:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not important enough? People are using it to inform legislation, anti-trans "protesters" are carrying placards with her name on it, and transphobes are making posts about her on social media that border on worshipping her like some kind of deity. Give me a break —{{u|CupOfTea696}} [ talk | contribs ] 12:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is more an arguments against the H.P. Lovecraft article than it is one in favour of removing this from the lead imho. Over the last few years, most of the media attention Rowling has been getting has been in relation to her view on trans people — leaving it out of the lead just seems like downplaying the level of coverage and impact of it. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} [ talk | contribs ] 21:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS, the lead section serves as a summary of its most important contents. Inspecting the main text of the article, we trivially find that it contains a significant amount of information about Rowling's views & actions regarding issues involving trans people. The significance of that aspect of Rowling's life rightfully begat a separate section dedicated to that subject, titled "Transgender people." Moreover, in the Wikipedia article dedicated to and titled "Politics of J. K. Rowling", there's an even larger section dedicated to the same subject. In both instances, the subject is covered through extended references to sources, per policy. In conclusion, it cannot be reasonably disputed that the subject of Rowling's involvement in issues of trans people is "important" - and, therefore, according to the WP:MOS wording cited above, a brief reference to it in the lead section is essentially mandatory. As a matter of fact, ignoring and omitting that reference would constitute a gross violation of a foundational guideline.
The proper way forward is to establish mention, i.e. do away with D-suggestions to "delete," and then decide on a possibly better wording. Hence, the current necessity for option A. -The Gnome (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E the lede section should say what her views are, not what other people's commentaries on her views are. If I have to pick one from A-C for use in the interim, I choose Option B as the best. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, but not in its own paragraph. This is important enough to deserve a mention in the lead, but putting it in its own paragraph strikes me as undue weight. Options B and C are inappropriate for reasons others have already given. RisingStar (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E, but given this is a BLP Option D for now until this new language is formulated. Editors above asking for inclusion are saying lead follows body, which is true. This has to be done proportionally though and there is two sentences in its own paragraph relating to one view when the article has a whole heading covering multiple views. This is clearly WP:UNDUE. A paragraph needs to be formulated that summarises the whole section, not just one aspect. Aircorn (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D – Delete I'm not sure this is lead-worthy, given what she's actually notable for. Yes, it should be included in the body, but not in the lead at this stage. (If there is further controversy it may be worth visiting again, but not at the moment. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. You appear to have forgotten to log in, btw. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LEADFOLLOWSBODY is a straw man (and it isn't even a policy, let alone a guideline). It doesn't say you need to cover every single aspect of an individual; there are four sub-sections in the "Views" section and this is the only one mentioned. It fails WP:WEIGHT massively. I haven't forgotten anything, btw: I do not have an account. (And interesting, if predictable to see it too just six minutes for this D-voter to be WP:BLUDGEONed. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk · contribs) is currently under sockpuppet investigation. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You opened an idiotic investigation without knowing the policy. You should also have looked at the previous investigation which pointed out no breach of the policy. There seems to be a lot of effort going into cancelling !votes people don't like. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
/shrug. You asked, I answered. Sure, LEADFOLLOWSBODY may not "even be a policy, let alone a guideline", but it is how pretty much every article in WP is written, so... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Although the lead follows the body is a truism, it points to the obvious position that the lead should summarise the main points of the article. It does not mean that every point or fact in an article is repeated in the body. It also doesn't mean that we ignore WP:WEIGHT and give undue emphasis to one aspect of a biography while ignoring the wider context. Much of the information on Rowling that is covered in the body is not covered in the lead, so it's a strawman to keep pushing this point. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree: the relevant aspect is WEIGHT, but given the preponderance of coverage of this issue in recent years, WEIGHT is on the side of inclusion, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need to call me an idiot. If the SPI is wrong then it's wrong and that's my good-faith mistake. In any case, I don't see why if the reason you're using dynamic IPs is that your previous account's password got scrambled why you can't just create a new account? As has been seen above it makes it hard to account for which IP is saying what, and as the ANI thread discussing you shows makes accountability a bit harder when being disruptive (not that I'm saying you're being disruptive here in any way). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to actually read what was written: I did not call you an idiot. I said it was an idiotic step, which you would have realised if you had actually looked at what happened last time someone tried that, when the clerks ended it with this closing statement. Perhaps you should have taken a couple of minutes to actually look into something properly before jumping to the wrong conclusion because you don't know wheat you're doing.
I scrambled my password for a reason, and I choose not to open an account. I do have to do so, and I prefer to now operate as an IP, as I am fully entitled to do so. (See WP:IP users). - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WCA > "You don't need to be registered to contribute." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. But if Che had written a popular series of children's books as well as being a famous revolutionary, it's quite possible the coverage of his endeavours in YA literature would have been split off into a separate article. I'm not sure why exactly the "Politics of..." article was spun off as a separate article, though it's normal practice when parts of a particular article get too long. I wouldn't read anything into it. But if one were to attempt to delete all of that notable, due, and reliably sourced content, one would imagine it would be merged back into this article. Which would make it very long indeed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your non-dismissive comment. I am not sure at all that a great deal of the content in the Politics of Rowling article is "due". It seems to be mainly coverage of her comments on transgender issues in excruciating detail, garnished with a few stub-quality sections on other topics. Anyway, that's probably (yet another, interminable) discussion for another day... Tewdar (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of a mind with you on it. Part of WP:UNDUE, in my mind, is that there just is a point where an article reaches the limits of its encyclopedic length. Rowling, for instance, is a highly documented author. It does not therefore follow that we need to have article/s on her that are ten times as long as those of other celebrated authors. We are not here on Wikipedia to write comprehensive and complete biographies, and the answer to "But there are thousands of sources and so much to say!!" ought to be "Whatever, we still ought to get this down to a reasonable length." Ravenswing 03:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, otherwise option AHer notability is due to her authorship of HP. 'A' isn't as bad as the other options, which are clearly loaded and biased. That said, 'A' is very vague and I would support leaving it out.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I notice that a lot of D-suggestions are supported by notions such as "Rowling's views on trans persons are not that she's notable for" and "There are a lot of articles on equally or more important persons in life with no separate article in Wikipedia for their politics." Let me just say that (a) a biography is not restricted to what a person is "mainly notable for," but what sources get busy with about the biography's subject, and (b) again, this is a matter of what sources do. As it happens, I also find it a bit funny that Wikipedia has a whole, separate article on Rowling's politics. But I acknowledge the fact that, in our day and age, the media, obsessed as it is with Rowling, dedicates an inordinate (for me) amount of reporting to Rowling's politics. Therefore, we cannot but dedicate in turn an analogous space in Wikipedia. (The Che Guevara analogy is wrong, by the way. We do not have a separate article for Che's politics for the same reason we do not have one for Rowling's writing. ) -The Gnome (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see... so an "English philosopher, considered to be one of the founders of modern political philosophy" shouldn't have a separate article for his philosophy then. Gottit. Tewdar (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and there is this of course. Good to see Che in there with philosophical heavyweights like Marx, Hobbes, and Rowling... Tewdar (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guevarism refers to a political school of thought based on Che's politics, not a description of his political views 1-to-1. In any case, I do disagree with the idea that we don't have articles about J.K. Rowling's writings, however they are articles on each franchise/book itself not a global overview of them. I'm quite confused as to why referring to Calvin or Hobbes contributes to this discussion, in any case. An article about Hobbes' political theories, which are very complex, influential, and the source of significant scholarly analysis over the course of centuries is orders of magnitude more important and valuable for Wikipedia than an article about the politics of a children's fantasy and divorcee's crime author (even if increasingly influential in the UK and US), to the point where I almost feel like comparing them would be comparing completely different beasts. However, the J.K. politics article seems necessary per WP:SPLIT length. (Small comment: I feel like the Hobbes article is in dire need of expansion. Sadly I'm not an expert in Hobbes except when explained by Patterson, so hopefully someone else can pick up that torch). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response, Tewdar. A._C._Santacruz addressed your point about Che & Guevarism before me. As to the Hobbes article, I truly find it inexcusable that, for a philosopher, we have such an extremely detailed biography of him but a separate article for his philosophy! The bio should be expanded. (I note that in the Hobbes biographical article there is not even a direct to the "main article" on his philosophy: it's demoted to the "see also" section.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, am I reading this correctly... you want the moral and political philosophy of one of the most important founders of modern political philosophy to be merged with his own article, but you want someone who writes fantasy about wizards and a poxy essay on transgender people to have her own standalone article about her undergrad-level political beliefs?! Surely I cannot have that right? Tewdar (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing untoward in merging Hobbes' bio article with the article on his philosophy, except for the issue of size. Since, as we can all agree, Hobbes is a major figure in the field, an extensive presentation of his thought would both take a lot of space and crowd the bio article. As to Rowling's politics, the fact is these get a truly extraordinary quantity of coverage in acceptable, reliable sources. (This is, I'd speculate, because of her prominence as an author and, in particular, an author in children's literature.) Here too, I see nothing untoward in merging, but for the question of size. I'm afraid that, as often happens in Wikipedia, such things happen, though for a good reason. I could personally not care more about Rowling's thinking than I could by any random person but that's how things are done here.
P.S. We should try and maintain, I believe, a more neutral attitude here. Being dismissive about the subject itself robs us of the neutrality that must shape out input. Your strong dismissal of her politics ("poxy essay", "undergrad level") and even her main work ("fantasy about wizards") does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't possibly see how we could merge Hobbes' political and moral philosophy (n.b.) with his bio - if anything, the philosophy part could do with quite a bit of expansion. The Politics of Rowling article, on the other hand, seems to exist purely to describe her views on trans issues, and could easily be integrated into her biography, with suitable brutal pruning. Finally, I am sorry for my lack of neutrality. I just wanted to make clear that, far from being a HP fanboy, I have little time for Rowling, her work, or her politics. PS I think someone accidentally removed some of your edits a little while back. Tewdar (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I think the Politics of J K Rowling article is a solution in search of a problem. A more appropriate treatment of the DUE content of that article would be an expanded section within the parent article (this one). Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have known better than insert that wretched sorbet aside about Hobbes in my remark above amidst the lava. Seriously though, I suggest we keep trying to untangle the tangled web we weave instead of piling up more contentious issues on the J.K. Rowling saga. It may or may not be kosher to have a separate Wikipedia-article on her politics. I'm sure that, sooner or later, said article will appear on the guillotine carriage. Let's do away first with the still-open RfC's and then initiate a Merge proposal, if you feel like it. Just a thought. -The Gnome (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • D. F - remove from body and lede, otherwise D. Reviewing coverage by recent news isn't particularly useful; it is distorted by recent events, and to follow the example they give would result in issues of WP:RECENTISM and result in significantly different context than what is being proposed, and as such we need to consider other sources.
Reviewing a random sampling of academic sources on JSTOR about her and her work, we find that the coverage of her in this context is virtually non-existent, and as such the most appropriate option under WP:DUE is to remove her position from the lede entirely, and possibly the entire article. If someone is interested in reading some of her recent biographies, and summarizing how much coverage is given to this matter in relation to other topics, then please ping me with the result and I will likely change my position to match. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal: what you describe isn't what I see at all: most of the academic references I see to Rowling since 2019 are precisely about this controversy. What are you finding that differs from this?
Also, I can't find any biographies of Rowling published since 2019, so your homework assignment to read some of her recent biographies seems to be addressing a null set. If you mean that we should read the recent biographical coverage, most of that since 2019 deals with these controversies. Newimpartial (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went and briefly reviewed all results for JK Rowling since 2018 on JSTOR for you; of them, I could only identify one that seemed to mention her position on this, although I do not have access that I could give further details. To put this in context, this is less coverage than her positions on other political matters such as Trump, Brexit, and the Migrant Crisis received, as well as considerably less than the influence of theology on her work received - none of which is included in the lede, and only the latter of which is included in the body. Based on this, I've updated my position to explicitly support removing it from the body as well as the lede.
Regarding the biographies, I was not aware. Perhaps we can review this in a few years when a couple more have been written? BilledMammal (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
digression, in which scholarly sources are listed and discussed
I don't use JSTOR, but it seems not to have pointed you to this paper, or this one, or or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, etc., etc., or this dissertation, or the Palgrave handbook of popular culture as philosophy or the SAGE encyclopedia of transgender studies, for that matter. Perhaps your search was mis-specified in some way?
I mean, sure, we can wait for all of the grad students who recently completed master's theses on Rowling and gender issues (which of course are not SCHOLARSHIP on en-wiki) to finish their dissertations or get their articles peer-reviewed, but really, it seems clear that Rowling's tweets are already a touchstone in academic writing on transgender issues such that it seems foolish to exclude them from Wikipedia, as you (with no policy justification) propose. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Search was "JK Rowling", and it didn't point me towards those sources, but I see no reason to believe that the sources outside of JSTOR exist in a significantly different ratio, impact adjusted or not impacted adjusted, from the sources inside of JSTOR. And I had thought I did lay out the policy-based reason drawn from this ratio, which is WP:DUE.
On the topic of thesis's, I seem to have sparked one between you and Tewdar, so in the interests of not making this any discussion any longer, I will now leave this RfC and article. BilledMammal (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR is usually rather more selective than other academic journal repositories. It's a bit élitist... Tewdar (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps just retro. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really retro... they just prefer to only host those very highest-quality, reliable sources that you're always talking about... 😁 Tewdar (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be snide, Tewdar. When editors distinguish between RS news outlets and trash tabloids, you insist that the news outlets covering Rowling and trans issues are effectively no better than trash tabloids. When we distinguish between scholarly sources and news sources, you insist that peer-reviewed work that isn't on JSTOR isn't good enough, either. But you are perfectly willing to look at irrelevant tertiary sources, like Britannica, when they ignore what you want to ignore. It is almost as though you were moving goalposts based on your own personal opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say peer-reviewed work that isn't on JSTOR isn't good enough. I'm just telling you that JSTOR tends to host higher quality, very notable articles. Some (not all) of the sources you gave are certainly good enough. The fact that Rowling's views on trans issues receive minimal coverage in other encyclopedias and JSTOR may indicate that this topic is not really notable enough for the lede, however. Which happens to be my own personal opinion. Tewdar (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"But you are perfectly willing to look at irrelevant tertiary sources, like Britannica, when they ignore what you want to ignore." - this is a complete falsehood, and the exact opposite of my approach. I wondered how other encyclopedias might handle this topic, looked, and found nothing. If I'd found something, I would have said so, and possibly changed my vote. Tewdar (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, the idea that JSTOR is "retro" is preposterous. And do you really want them to host MA dissertations now? Tewdar (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't rely on JSTOR being an authoratative source for whether a piece of published work is or is not of the highest quality. Though it has been a few years since I left academia, JSTOR has embargos set upon them by publishers like Elsevier and Springer. Depending on where the these articles about Rowling are being published, it is entirely possible/probable that they are still within the JSTOR embargo period. In these circumstances it is better to assess the actual publisher per the regular WP:SCHOLARSHIP criteria. I only mention my history because when I was in academia, this embargo made accessing recently published research in my field and those of my colleagues in all departments across my university a real pain in the proverbial backside. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have similar trouble with the archaeogenetics articles - every so often, this crackpot shows up, screaming "it's not on JSTOR, so it doesn't exist, IDIOTS!!!" Tewdar (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tewdar: I admit I was conflating your appeal to Britannica here with Crossroads' use elsewhere; my apologies to you both. The fact remains that it is strictly irrelevant in both cases; the only meaningful thing that we could learn from Britannica is the advantage of updating our article less often. I am not strictly opposed to that, actually, because I have no doubt that by 2024-5 the inclusion of these controversies in monographs will make its exclusion from our lead seem absurd, and presumably some of the herd of POV editors who can't see their own POV will have passed on from editing. But in spite of NOTNEWS, Wikipedia generally aims to be up to date, so why it will cover the Omicron outbreak up to the minute while denying the prominence of a controversy that began in early 2018 seems, ahem, opaque to me. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry accepted. Whether to include certain things in the lede is rather subjective, I think, especially in this case. Tewdar (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say, I don't know why you brought up that Master's thesis since I had so carefully excluded them from the links I provided. There are many, many masters' theses on this, which is one of the reasons I am so confident that the peer-reviewed work on this topic - which is already easy to show - is likely to flower more fully in the next few years. You didn't have to point "over there!" at a colorful herring just because I hurt your feelings by pointing out laugh lines on JSTOR. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to "Cancel Culture: An Examination of Cancel Culture Acts as a Form of Counterspeech to Regulate Hate Speech Online" in your source list. Tewdar (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Not im this section, where I listed scholarly sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.proquest.com/openview/f4c1aa20a21d0ccb42fad8c4b20ecf1d/1 "this dissertation" Tewdar (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see my mistake; I saw it listed in the Proquest entry as a "dissertation", not "dissertation or thesis". That entry didn't tell me enough; that one change, however, doesn't alter the point made by all the other references. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some (not all) of the others are a bit dubious too, tbh... Tewdar (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resist the urge to engage in mocking nit-picking, I implore you. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/ gives me a 404 error, so there's that. Tewdar (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities" has an h-index of 6. Maybe one day, eh? Tewdar (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the broken link. And the h-index literally doesn't matter, when there isn't any scholarship saying that this issue *isn't* important, or even that some other aspect of Rowling's career *is* more important. I would love to see some good work that would put her IP strategies in the context of the mousers at Disney, etc., but that hasn't happened yet, that I've seen.
Anyway, pointing to index weights seems to be a thing you do when it seems convenient as a way of dismissing something you'd rather ignore, and it is a dammed tedious habit. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally false - I also do it when it seems convenient as a way of entertaining something I'd rather acknowledge. Tewdar (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And have you actually read the "Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities" article? You would fail your GCSEs if you turned that in around here! Tewdar (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More ruddy salt herring. I mean, if I sat omnipotent on all committees, there would be no Jordan Peterson, PhD (sic.). And if Crossroads sat on all committees, there would be no humanists at all AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That article is an unscholarly rant that looks like it was written by two angry twelve-year olds. Tewdar (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still better scholarship than Peterson. Newimpartial (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tewdar, as you no doubt realize, the sources they listed are a Gish gallop. That's why there's junk in it. Crossroads -talk- 07:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's almost as though someone Google searched for "Rowling transphobia scholarly article" and then copied a bunch of hyperlinks without reading their content! Tewdar (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No; not a gish gallop. The question at hand was, do scholarly sources address these controversies? The answer to that question is demonstrably, yes. The question, are these sources as good or better than the sources on X other Rowling topic, hasn't been asked, and in fact no high-quality sources have been provided for the philanthropy or the pseudonymous authorship, to name two topics that take up more space in the lead section status quo than trans issues. And I have repeatedly expressed the wish that certain topics - like Rowling's IP management - should receive better scholarship, but I can't find it.
And no, Tewdar; don't be sarcastic, and that is not how I search. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this so-called high-quality article from the "Journal of the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences" by one "Emily Hotine" appears to have been written by somebody whose sole qualifications are that she is a "data analyst" and "trained Mental Health First Aider", unless I am mistaken, and is almost as bad as the one from the Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities. Tewdar (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So much IDONTLIKEIT; so much ad hominem. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem? You claim these are scholarly articles, and offer trash from the "Journal of Wherever Whatever", written by the bloody janitor? You're right, IDONTLIKEIT. Tewdar (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the "Nuffield Departmetn of Surgical Sciences" is a multidisciplinary team that serves as the academic department of surgery at the University of Oxford, and its journal is double-blind peer-reviewed. Your argument that the article is unreliable seems to ignore both the reputation and reliability of an institution like Oxford for academic research and the editorial process of the Journal. Tewdar, if you spent as much time finding sources that support your view that the coverage is not notable as you do nitpicking sources against your view the quality of this discussion would be significantly improved. Yet again we provide more sources, yet again you (plural) provide none, yet again the goalposts move. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a research article, though, so not peer-reviewed, which is why it is written by a data analyst. Tewdar (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your point was there was no significant scholarly attention to the controversy. The journal is obviously a reliable journal from a reputable institution. If they consider the publication of an article on the controversy worth including, then they consider the topic worth scholarly analysis. The qualifications of the author matter not if a reputable source believes they do not when publishing their analysis. What exactly is your criteria for scholarly attention? Is it not being published in scholarly sources of high reputation and strong editorial policy? At this point I'm running out of patience with you. You still haven't provided sources that back your perspective, you keep nitpicking endlessly those that do not, you are endlessly disrespectful to those that are putting in significant amounts of time to improve the discussion here through the provision of sources with your sarcasm and ridicule. Until you provide damn good sources that agree with your perspective that there hasn't been notable, on-going, reliable coverage on Rowling's remarks about trans people and their effects on society, I refuse to give your opinions any merit at all. I believe me and other users have gone way past the necessary burden of proof to support the views her coverage has been notable, reliable, and sustained over years. We've done our part. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I merely pointed out that JSTOR tend to be more selective with the articles they host. Unfortunately, Newimpartial decided to describe JSTOR as "retro", which led to the current discussion on sources. I have not said that coverage has not been notable, reliable, and sustained - just that it has not been notable, reliable, and sustained enough for the lede. Unfortunately, some of the primary sources provided do not appear to be written by experts, or are published by non-notable journals, or both. Which is why I do not 'respect' them very much. Finally, perhaps you shouldn't have started this RfC if it's making you so grumpy. Tewdar (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tewdar said: Some (not all) of the sources you gave are certainly good enough. - please read the whole thing again. Tewdar (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And presenting, from the world-renowned New Jersey English Journal, An Argument for Affective Inquiry by the legendary BRIAN KELLEY says J. K. Rowling's transphobia is a "small moment." There you have it. Tewdar (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you intend to moonlight in reception studies, I'd suggest that you not give up your day job. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, at least he's not a bloody data analyst. 😂 Tewdar (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So much ad hominem, so little policy-based reasoning. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A. C. Santacruz, academic reliable sources are not generally considered reliable if for whatever reason they publish an article that is clearly outside their field of expertise. This is not a surgery-related topic whatsoever, so this is a poor source. Crossroads -talk- 08:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trans surgery is an important and complex field of work, but in any case I cited that and other articles to show that it is receiving scholarly attention. See, additionally, this, this, this, and I could go on and find more. The only scholarly source any of you have provided dedicates half a parenthetical to mentioning Rowling. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very concerned about the ad hominem against the author of this paper. Hotine is not just as @Tewdar: said a data analysit, she is also that department's co-ordinator to Athena SWAN, and whose day job involves analysing data to devise and deliver effective initiatives to improve equality, diversity and inclusion within the department. WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH heavily applies here, as this goes far beyond reasonably questioning the reliability of a source.
As Santacruz said, the paper is double-blind peer-reviewed, and from an institution of good repute. There is nothing in the journal's submission guidelines that state the Equality, Diversity, Inclusion section is less rigurously vetted than any other. In fact, the submission guidelines very clearly state the following: All submissions undergo an initial Editorial board review. Only those manuscripts deemed of sufficient quality and meeting the aims and scopes of JNDS will progress to a second review. The second tier review is a double blind process by external reviewers, whereby the credentials of the author(s) will not be available to the reviewers. The Editorial team will make final decision on the submission. Editorial decisions are final. Emphasis mine.
I'd also like to re-emphasise the point I made previously for why inclusion/exclusion from JSTOR should not be authoratative. JSTOR's embargo on recent research varies per publisher, and has historically been anywhere between three and five years post publication in the original journal. Other search methods like Google Scholar, ResearchGate, BASE (search engine), and Web of Science are often more relevant for recently published research.
@Crossroads: do you have proof that this is an article that is clearly outside their field of expertise? Having looked through the journal's archive, the only non special issue that does not have an Equality, Diversity, Inclusion section is the inaugural issue. Furthermore, the author of this paper has appeared in that section for each issue of this journal in which it appears, and her primary role is an Athena SWAN co-ordinator. Now you could make an argument on bias as I have seen you do frequently on other talk pages, however WP:BIASED states that However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. So I think that argument made so far for dismissal is invalid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I missed out any of Hotine's credentials. Good to know that articles written by authors such as this are suitable sources for Wikipedia as long as they pass "peer" review (edit - in a reputable journal). This is actually great news, thanks. Tewdar (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite an impressive sarcastic strawman of my reply. That was not the point I made. I was addressing your ad hominem against the author of the paper, as a means of dismissing the paper, as it seemed as though you did not consider the broader picture of what her job role actually entailed. I did not say that any source is acceptable if passes peer review, that is obviously false becuase of the existence of predatory journals of which this most certainly is not, and I would like you to strike that from your comment @Tewdar:. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - sorry, for once I am not being sarcastic, I really do consider this to be great news. Tewdar (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick return from retirement to point out that the source given above, "Hate Crimes Against Trans People: Assessing Emotions, Behaviors, and Attitudes Toward Criminal Justice Agencies" (https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517715026) by Walters et al. (2017) does not seem to mention Rowling at all, unless I am mistaken. Sorry if pointing this out seems 'nitpicky' to you... Tewdar (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2

  • Option C is preferred but principal concern is it not being removed frankly, regardless of ones opinion of Rowling and her views on civil rights, this has been her principal source of notoriety beyond a few forgettable mystery books and increasingly unwatchable spin-off films for several years now. It should not be elided just because it might be embarrassing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D (now), then take the time to come up with a proper alternative (option E), else, if it absolutely positively must be included without being significantly altered then option A (as the least problematic, if still poor, of the three). Leads should be brief and neutral. Rowling apparently has many views (including in plenty of other topics entirely unrelated to her writing). Including this one in the lead but not the others seems to be more the outcome of the current Zeitgeist than of any actual valid way to write an encyclopedic article. I disagree that this has been "this has been her principal source of notoriety [...] for several years now" - not only out of personal intuition, but because it's clear from a look at the article and its structure that this is not a massive element of this subject's notability, given that most of the article is spent on her creative works. Leads should follow the body of the article, not unduly put to prominence a relatively minor element (even if it's controversial, even if it offends some people). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC) edited 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D , but it is OK for there to be brief mention in the body of the article. Thincat (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note. After making the above edit I was contacted at my talk page User talk:Thincat#Standard ArbCom sanctions notice. Thincat (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E,B,C or A almost all recent coverage of her has been related to this issue—blindlynx 15:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blindlynx: Then why is this "almost all recent coverage" confined to a few paragraphs in the views section? Even if (for the purpose of argument), one conceded that your statement might be partly correct, focusing on recent events would be undue WP:Recentism and would miss the forest for the trees (as some suggest, writing that Rowling has held many views which generated controversy, without unduly focusing on any one of them, might be a more acceptable solution). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the hat note on that section it is covered in more detail elsewhere, namely it makes up a significant portion of the article devoted to her politics Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people. By recent i mean the last two years, honestly i don't see this as a blip or a news spike at this point—blindlynx 19:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that some editors think the time has come to collapse the "Politics of" article back into the main article (and trim it accordingly). I for one feel that it has outlived its usefulness. Newimpartial (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A future in which there is nothing but debate over what to merge over and what to delete, and then in the future debates over what stuff is noteworthy every time Rowling says a word on the topic. Truly a wikidystopia that would be. Crossroads -talk- 08:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Compared to the zombies currenrly running rampant, I fail to see how this "dark future" would be in any way worse than the rather dim present. Newimpartial (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At this rate this discussion is going to meet WP:GNG soon—blindlynx 16:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would find that amusing if it weren't for the recent "Death by Communism" AfD, which actually does meet the WP:GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    yikes, i'm happy i stayed out of it—blindlynx 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D I think the current presentation as a standalone paragraph gives undue weight to these issues. They may well be why Rowling has been in the news recently, but that doesn't mean they should be singled out for such prominent treatment, as Wikipedia isn't a news service and considers the enduring notability of events. Is Rowling going to be known in large part for expressing views on gender a few decades from now? Nor is this paragraph accurately summarising the article. The "Views" section includes as much discussion of Rowling's views and activities on other political issues, religion and press regulation as it does on gender issues. If gender issues are going to be mentioned in the lead then the lead needs to summarise the entire section instead of singling out gender issues. Hut 8.5 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Is Rowling going to be known in large part for expressing views on gender a few decades from now? This is a WP:CRYSTAL question that, per policy, is not supposed to affect our editing decisions; however, I think based on recent and ongoing scholarship the clear (provisional ) answer would be Yes! At least compared to her philanthropy and pseudonymous works, both of which take up more real estate in the lead section than the issues addressed in this RfC.
    Also, you are misreading the "Views" section - the content summarized in the lead is also from Politics of J. K. Rowling, which is dominated (as is the RS coverage) by the transgender-related controversies. I for one believe that these articles need to be merged, for clarity to all readers. Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTAL certainly does not prevent us from weighting content according to how significant we think it is going to be in the future. We do that all the time when we decide that we don't want an article to be dominated by something which gets a flurry of news coverage. CRYSTAL only says that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be based on unverifiable speculation, and I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I disagree with how significant the transgender controversies are likely to be in the long run, in my experience controversies which mostly consist of people yelling at each other on social media generally have a very short shelf life. The lead of this article should be trying to summarise this article, which certainly isn't dominated by discussion of transgender issues, and even Politics of J. K. Rowling only devotes about half of its prose to discussion of that issue. Hut 8.5 19:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that many social media controversies ever receive the amount of scholarly attention that these utterance by Rowling already have, so I think there are strong reasons to question your assumptions here. Also, none of the RfC options would result in the lead section being dominated by discussion of transgender issues, so that herring looks rather crimson from here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that anything would result in the lead section being dominated by discussion of transgender issues. I was responding to your statement above in which you said that transgender issues should be mentioned in the lead of this article because Politics of J. K. Rowling is dominated...by the transgender-related controversies. This article doesn't devote very much space to these controversies, and we're discussing the lead of this article. I am also rather sympathetic to those who suggested above that having an entire article on her political views is excessive as she's not a politician, political commentator or a public intellectual. Hut 8.5 19:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
digression, mostly over whether this article lead section is to summarize the article, J. K. Rowling or the topic, J. K. Rowling
  • I'm not sure I made myself clear about the discussion of these controversies in the Politics article. My point was (1) these issues dominate the coverage of Rowling in high-quality, reliable sources, including scholarly sources, for the last couple of years; (2) right now they are covered primarily in the child article, not the parent article; (3) this article's lead section is supposed to give an overview of Rowling as a whole, including the "special topic" of politics; and (4) this would all be clearer to our readers if the Politics material were trimmed in terms of DUE and BALANCE and merged into the parent.
    The sources on the trans-related controversies exceed those on other matters included at length in this article and its lead section, e.g. her philanthropy, in terms of their quality and quantity. Arguing, as you seem to, that this interest will cease while other aspects of her career become more prominent, looks to me like CRYSTAL indeed. We need to address the sources as they are, not as we wish they were. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead isn't intended to summarise Rowling as a whole, it's supposed to summarise the rest of the article. If the article was changed to include a lot more coverage of transgender issues then it might make more sense to mention them in the lead, but the way to do that is to get consensus to change the article first. You've assumed that I'm in favour of philanthropy being discussed in the lead, which isn't true. She is notable overwhelmingly as an author, and if she is still remembered years from now it will be as an author. The lead is right to focus on her writing and the recognition she's received as a result of it. Hut 8.5 20:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not aware of any policy basis for excluding the subtopics covered by child articles from the lead of a parent article. Could you point me to where you got that idea? Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that subtopics should be excluded from the lead, only the fact that we have a more detailed article about a subtopic doesn't mean we have to mention it in the lead of the parent article. If the subtopic isn't considered to be important enough for lots of coverage in the article then it's hard to argue it should be mentioned in the lead. MOS:LEAD (the relevant guideline) says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Article, not topic. Hut 8.5 20:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean yes, a more appropriate RfC would have presented the sourcing on these controversies in relation to the coverage of Rowling and asked, how prominent should this be in the article and then, as a derivative question, should it be presented in the lead and how. But to be fair to the RfC mover, the lead had consistently mentioned the controversies for over a year and this had been supported by consensus on this Talk page (until the recent Zombie invasion effort to attract editors inexperienced in gender-related controversies). So the need for that overarching RfC wasn't evident to the mover and the sources about the important controversies have not been brought to the attention of all participants. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're making ad hominem attacks against the people who disagree with you - I must be wrong because I'm "inexperienced in gender-related controversies", whatever that means. I think we're done here. Hut 8.5 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that you were in that category - you have apparently read the lead section and at least some of this article, which places you well ahead of the zombie hordes, even though I doubt you have read any of the sources on the controversy judging by your comments above. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A, B, or C; oppose D. Slight preference for B or C over A. This is the only thing we hear about Rowling in recent news and social media, and is (properly) the subject of a four-paragraph section in the article. The lead should summarize this content, briefly, just as leads of articles generally summarize significant subtopics of article content even when they are not the main piece of article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: "is (properly) the subject of a four-paragraph section [sic. - it is a subsection] in the article": as are also Rowling's views on politics, religion, and her relationship with the press. Yet neither of A, B or C mention any of that. This seems more like putting WP:UNDUE prominence on recent events, than the usual way leads summarise content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the Options A to E, including D have anything to do with Rowling's views on other political matters, religion or the press etc, if you think they should be included in the lead surely they are entirely separate debates. Whether her views on Religion are included has very little to do whether we include the much more extensively covered trans views. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bodney: Many people arguing for option A or close cognates argue that "this is covered in article, therefore DUE, in this format, in lead". That is simply an overly simplistic argument, which selectively ignores the rest of the article in favour of focusing on recent events. It's possible to mention that Rowling has controversial views on different subjects (of which transgender issues are but one, and not the only one, so as such singling this out and putting it in the lead but not the others is effectively WP:UNDUE and an inaccurate summary, both of the subject as a whole and of the article as it stands). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL Please can we leave out belittling accusations of simplistic arguments.
    The lead section of MOS:LEAD clearly states that we should summarize the most important points of an article, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources (note: not simply the amount of words in the article itself). The argument for WP:DUE is based on the WP:SUSTAINED and widespread coverage in the leading high quality global reliable news media that has gone well beyond a brief burst of news coverage in those WP:RSP. Further if we go back to those simple section size comparisons i.e. the Trans section compared to other sections, the Trans section has been kept short in this article simply because of WP:SPLIT , the topic it is more fully covered in the Politics of J. K. Rowling article were it accounts to close to half of that articles content, with only a brief summary kept in the main article. The comparative volume of RSP sources on this issue compared to any other topics clearly means that this 'controversy' satisfies WP:WEIGHT to be in the lead. So yes we can and should selectively include this very highly notable topic according to the RSP in relation to the articles subject, compared to her other views. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bodney: This is a discussion about the J. K. Rowling article, not some sub-article which goes into more depth and thus reasonably gives more weight to aspects that are more relevant there. What I see is that this is an article about the author, and as such should give a general summary of the author. As far as I know, Rowling is best known for her Harry Potter books (which is the only reason why her views on other topics are even reported on by the press?). There's no J. K. Rowling transgender controversy, because that is not a good article topic, and because it is not one of the most important aspects of this person's life, however much recent attention it might have gotten. The lead, as it stands, gives a summary of the "Life and career" and "Philanthropy" sections of the article (giving much more weight to the former, as warranted). I see no summary of the "Views" section, yet I see a prominent focus on this. Prominent, because it stands alone in its own little paragraph; and because it alone of all the other stuff in that section is in the lead. There's no good reason to single this out like that. If it is really so prominent that it and it alone deserves a mention in the lead, then I'd expect it to be important enough for a stand-alone section, not for a few summarised paragraphs. Ergo, it isn't, so that's that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, RandomCanadian, that isn't that. I've seen the argument made in this discussion that when an article is split between parent and child, the material of the child article should be excluded from the lead section of the parent article, but I haven't seen anyone present a policy basis for this idea. As I have said before, my preferred resolution to the quandary would be to merge the Politics of J. K. Rowling content into the main article (trimmed according to DUE), and as I have said before, it seems to me better to determine the BALANCEd place of the transgender controversies in this article before arriving at stable language for the lead. But I don't see any basis in policy for what amounts to "Politics of is a different article so we exclude it here, and neither the coverage of these controversies in good sources nor the inclusion of this topic in the lead (by consensus of people whose opinions of the controversies themselves are diametrically opposed) should affect what I have decided is right". I know my posts have taken up enough electrons already in this discussion, but your ergo just doesn't follow from any WP policy that's been cited here when it comes to parent and child articles. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The very obvious WP guideline (which I didn't feel the need to cite) is WP:SUMMARY. Parent and child articles can, and usually very much do, cover the same topic to different levels of depth; as appropriate to their respective topic (this can include even major aspects of the child article: for example, while international involvement and the political ramifications of the Spanish Civil War are definitively important aspects to mention in an article about World War II, the precise course of that war is not relevant in the WWII article. While Rowling's controversial statements might be an important aspect of this person's "politics", they might not be that important of an aspect of this person's biography. The corollary of this is that people should always try to take a distanced look from the subject, even if they personally feel offended by it, and especially if it involves an almost knee-jerk mass-media reaction to recent events. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Spanish Civil War is not a child article of World War II. I'm not sure how that is relevant here, RandomCanadian. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @A. C. Santacruz: It is an article which covers a topic mentioned on the "main" page to more depth than what is necessary or DUE at said page. You can pick any other example, I don't know, The Holocaust (which, despite it's undisputable significance, gets only a single mention in the lead, in a sentence about many other things (Tens of millions of people died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.) and not a whole paragraph to itself; or the whole World War II#Advances in technology and warfare sub-section, which does not get mentioned in the lead at all (although it has a sub-section to itself; and also has a child article). In short, the mere presence of a child-article, and the contents of said child-article, are entirely irrelevant here. The lead must be a summary of this article, not a summary of some other one. If Rowling's controversial views are not that significant in the context of her biography, then no, they don't get preferential treatment to be mentioned in the lead, even if people are offended by it. An encyclopedia should cover topics of lasting significance, not change at every whim of the current Zeitgeist. In the long-term, Rowling is clearly more encyclopedically significant due to her books and everything associated with them than due to some badly received comments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure if I'd agree with using a topic as complex as WWII as reference for how to model a BLP article. Other BLPs such as Walt Disney, Richard Wagner, etc. might be much more appropriate for comparison. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, the idea that her trans views are not significant in her coverage has been overwhelmingly disproven through the sources provided in this discussion. I warmly invite you to provide numerous sources from the past few years where this is not the case. Surely it is what the RS feel is important to mention and not your own opinion is the most "encyclopedic" description of Rowling. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @A. C. Santacruz: Let's take Wagner, then. His antisemitic writings have a sub-section in the article; there's even a dedicated article on Wagner controversies and on Das Judenthum in der Musik, and yet, it's unambiguous that this is not a defining aspect of its author (nor is it expounded upon at length in the article), and as such it only gets a short mention in the lead, along with other stuff [like the Holocaust example from WWII] (His controversial writings on music, drama and politics have attracted extensive comment – particularly, since the late 20th century, where they express antisemitic sentiments.. As you can see, the comparison, with Wagner [there's surely lots of writing on antisemitism in Wagner, probably a fair bit of it quite recent: yet another similarity] or even with WWII, is entirely on point RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how this means that Rowling's controversy should be removed from the lead. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @A. C. Santacruz: It shouldn't be allowed to stand as is in a standalone paragraph without anything else, due to the fundamental issue (UNDUE apparently-negative criticism on a BLP) which it represents. Since option E is unlikely to result in its prompt removal, and since that would entail yet another discussion as to how exactly to include it (keeping the unbalanced coverage in the article for even longer), then it needs to be removed until a proper paragraph which gives a more comprehensive outlook can be prepared. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To frame the issue as UNDUE apparently-negative criticism on a BLP is quite misleading, in my view. The only questions relevant to policy are whether it is DUE to mention the criticism, based on the (quality, independent) sources, and whether the lead text represents how the sources depict the controversy in relation to NPOV and BALANCE.

Some editors believe that apparently negative criticism is subject to different standards of evidence than more flattering statements, but WP:BLP and WP:NPOV don't actually support that, as far as I can tell. Given the large amount of high-quality coverage of these issues in recent years, I believe it would actually be a BLP and NPOV vio to remove mention of these controversies from the lead section, particularly when aspects of the subject's life supported by fewer or lower-quality sources - but more flattering to the subject - are included. Newimpartial (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the part about negative vs. positive statements being treated equally by the policy. That policy statement starts out describing what type of material is subject to "immediate removal", and that type is "contentious" material. If this interminable Rfc ends up as "no consensus" and proves nothing else, it does prove one thing: namely, that including this material is contentious, therefore subject to immediate removal if not adequately sourced, and the burden is on those (including me) wishing to include it. Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any (good faith) arguments in this discussion that the material about these controversies is not adequately sourced, but a transparent presentation of the citations underlying the eventual text will doubtless be required. Newimpartial (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any argument which adequately addresses WP:UNDUE. Undue weight can be given in several ways; and "prominence of placement" and "depth of detail" both apply here, especially when brought into contrast with the whole rest of the section this is apparently supposed to summarise (a job which it currently does quite inaccurately and ineffectively). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where we two Canucks seem to disagree is whether to take into account the content of the Politics of article (and its sources) in determining DUE content for the lead section here. My proposed resolution to this - merging and trimming the Politics of article - would also have the advantages of heading off POVFORK issues and cutting back some of the more poorly-sourced topics (those other than the Trans-related controversies) to better align with the quality sourcing. We won't have any lasting agreement on this lead, I fear, without agreement on what it should be summarizing. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Is this lead a summary of the J. K. Rowling article, or of the "Politics of" article? If it's a summary of the former (as it should be), then you've got your answer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't presented any reason to believe that the treatment assumed by your rhetorical question is undergirded by policy. And none of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS examples you provided even concern a (child) topic that is a strict subset of a (parent) topic, which is the case under discussion. So I'm just getting wikistatic from this intervention.
Another way to phrase your question would be: is this article's lead section supposed to provide an overview of the article "J. K. Rowling" or the topic "J. K. Rowling". My understanding, based on a reading of policy and of other parent articles, is that the lead is supposed to summarize the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at Richard Wagner, then look at Wagner controversies (which is a direct child topic of the parent); then realise it is the exact same relationship as this article and the politics one (not just in form but in nature of topic, which in both cases includes controversial views of their subject); then realise that, in the same way that an extensive summary of Wagner controversies would be unsuitable in the lead of Richard Wagner, an extensive summary of Politics of J. K. Rowling would be unsuitable in the lead of J. K. Rowling. The lead is indeed supposed to summarise the whole topic, not focus unduly on a single element of it. I've given a suggestion below which shows how this could be done (and I note that, like at the comparative articles I gave, it similarly points out the most important element [transgender issues; compare with Wagner and antisemitism; or WWII and Holocaust] without ignoring the rest). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help your case that Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists. is nearly identical to what is currently in the lead of this article. Somehow, the same sentence is an appropriate lead-worthy summary both in a specific sub-article and in an article which deals with a broader topic? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the lead section of Politics of J.K. Rowling not that of Wagner controversies is a model of encyclopedic writing. However, I would point out that the topic of the "Wagner controversies", and antisemitism in particular, is addressed in the lead section of Richard Wagner, while you have been arguing somewhat strenuously for the removal of the equivalent mention from J. K. Rowling. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Go read my comment immediately below (dated 18:34, 6 December) to see why I'm arguing for removal at this time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are pointing to what, logically, is a rationale for an "E" vote, while you are still voting "D". I can't really help you with that. Newimpartial (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Newimpartial that the two articles would be better merged back together, trimming less well sourced/developed areas, I feel rightly or wrongly the need to point out the obvious that a lead is not a mere shrunken summary of an article or sections in proportion of its physical constituent parts. Some areas of an article or section are deemed more notable by the reliable sources than others. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Relative emphasis MOS:LEADREL According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This in no way undermines that Rowling primary notability as a extremely successful author, but we do not need to include every other aspect of her life in the lead, only that considered most notable by the sources. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bodney: "Relative importance" - I do not see how the specific sentence on the trans controversy is due weight in its present form (due to the issue of prominence by depth of detail and by placement), if all of the rest of the section it is contained in isn't even mentioned. An acceptable solution could be Rowling is also well known for her outspoken and sometimes controversial political views, including, notably, transgender issues. [plus probably something about the other big element of the "Views" section, which isn't relevant at this time] This would be an apt summary of what is in the article, putting emphasis on the most well known part without unduly singling-it out. I still !vote D because "E" is unlikely to achieve consensus (due to the lack of any concrete proposal) and because I'm pragmatic, and this can be added back in later, once there is a clear and neutral proposition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A brief introductory mention of her other more notable views can easily be added, though following MOS:LEADREL her out spoken views on transgender people should have the main emphasis. As this is easy I have **changed the fourth paragraph** to reflect this (i hope doing so is OK and not too early). ~ BOD ~ TALK 10:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a brief introductory mention does not fix the "depth of detail" aspect of UNDUE. The sentence which follows is literally copy-pasted with minimal adaptation from the lead of another article. It is practically impossible for it to be appropriate for both the lead of this article (the main article on the subject, which should offer a broad overview) and for the politics article (which, being a clear sub-topic, should offer a more in-depth overview on that aspect). The usual relation between child/parent article is adapting the lead of the former (if it is suitable to do so) for a section/sub-section on the other, not selectively copying the lead of one into the lead of the other. Is this something that will really be that important and that defining on the long-term, to justify such an unusual and unencyclopedic approach? I don't think so, and nobody has presented a coherent policy-based argument why the lead of this article should summarise the contents of another (something practically never done). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see how your argument works here. IIRC you voted D, with A as a second option, but this argument doesn't work for either of those. After all, the trans thing is mentioned in this article too. at lenght even. So clearly not including it at all would be just as bad as spending too much space on it relative to the size of the relevant portion, which means, according to you, that we should keep it in the lead in a reduced form. The correct option for that would be E, rather than D or A. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A is not my second option. A is the "if I'm wrong and there's consensus to include this without significantly altering it, then A is the least unacceptable option". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how that leaves you with D as your first option, since it so clearly contradicts what you are arguing here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bold-ish addition of additional views to the section was chiefly based mostly use your own wording. I did not change the specific wording which is the question of this huge RfC on purpose. That should not be done until after the RfC. Though a few editors have said her other views should be represented, most have expressed no opinion, personally I thought it was a separate matter. I believe the current wording more than satisfies inclusion of Rowling's other views for the lead coverage of the views section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Relative emphasis MOS:LEADREL According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. The simple reason why the two articles have similar wording is that they have often been edited in tandem...a strong pointer that the two articles should be merged, not that the text which is subject to this ongoing RfC, which is covered in the body here and in finer detail in the sub article should be deleted. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly no need nor valid reason to merge anything to this article, which is already too long. That the two article were edited in tandem (if they indeed were) could be a sign of many things, including but not limited to A) lazy writers who did not bother to alter the scope of their summary for this article or B) writers who are too passionate about the thing they wrote about to realise it is not appropriate here. Interpreting this as being only a sign that the articles need to be merged is motivated reasoning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A seems to me to be the most neutrally worded and DUE option. When I think about Rowling, I think about Harry Potter, her charity work, Cormoran Strike, her disputed and changing status as a billionaire, the 2017 Birthday Honours, her work as a bilingual secretary for Amnesty International, her divorce, the birth of her first child, and of course that time her train was delayed. All of which is given appropriate coverage in the lead. Has coverage of her statements about trans rights reached the level of those other weighty aspects of her life? I think so. Though I am hesitant to weigh in at all, as summarizing an article into a lead requires a dispassionate approach and cool heads, and this discussion long-since devolved into an unproductive battleground, which we as editors should try harder to avoid. I would ask that the closers address the non-neutral notices of this discussion posted in multiple locations, making unfounded accusations of vote-stacking and canvassing users to come here to counter it.--Trystan (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A The lead is generous to begin with. If her philanthropy and accolades are being listed in the lead, this is definitely DUE enough to also be included. Many sources are listed in discussion below. Also, Rowling is very active about this issue on Twitter, in an ongoing way. She often gets engagement there at 10x her usual engagement. Back on July 25 she said that “since speaking up about gender identity theory, I’ve received thousands of emails – more than I’ve ever had on a single subject.“ SmolBrane (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A – (then E; not B or C). Options B and C both say, "criticized as transphobic in mainstream media" but this is POV and highly misleading at best; MSM sources do not say anything about JKR being criticized in their own reporting voice, rather, they report what activists, bloggers, or social media have said. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, to include this phrase would imply that the majority of mainstream media criticizes her as transphobic; besides being false, it is a violation of WP:BLP. It's not that it is merely a violation of WP:BLPBALANCE because, let's say for the sake of argument, that a significant minority of MSM have actually labeled her as transphobic, it's that with respect to reliable secondary media voices, it is fringe, or non-existent. Gedankenexperiment: If a bunch of media sources report social media, activists, pundits, bloggers, or even national figures saying that the Dalai Lama is a separatist Tibetan nationalist, that would not justify a sentence at Dalai Lama saying that he has been "criticized as a separatist in mainstream media", and that kind of language would never survive there. Option A is the best choice here; next would be E. For options B and C, to avoid a massive WP:BLP violation, the WP:BURDEN would be on supporters to show that MSM have actually said this, and until they did, per the policy, such wording "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (bold in the original). Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • E > B > C > A; strongly oppose removal. Rowling's views on trans people are increasingly becoming a major part of her notability. They make mainstream news repeatedly. They are extremely well sourced. They are a major part of her notability and very well sourced even in comparison to other facts about her already in the lead, such as her philanthropy work or where exactly she came up with the idea for Harry Potter. I am dumbfounded that there are any people who think that they should be removed from the lead, much less as many as there are.
I don't think any of the current wordings quite hit the exact balance I'd like which is why I prefer to hash out the wording later, but of the options provided I think B is best (but dislike the phrase "criticized in mainstream media"), C is overly wordy and typo-ridden but has the basic gist I'd like, and A is a bit too weasel-wordy for my liking. If I had my way, it'd be: Since 2019, Rowling has received significant attention for her views on transgender people and transgender rights. These views have been widely criticized as transphobic by LGBT rights organizations and many feminists, but have received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists as well as some artists and politicians. Loki (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, Option C, Option A, Option E; oppose removal. Rowling is very well known for her transphobic views. This should definitely be mentioned in the lead. Nosferattus (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsupported assertion which isn't more convincing than a bare 'WP:ILIKEIT' argument and does not address how B or C are not blatant BLP violations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden of proof is on you to say that they are, actually. And most of the points made here have already been hashed out extensively in earlier votes. If you feel this vote is lacking in explanation you can always take a look at the extensive discussions going on elsewhere on this Rfc where this user's points are hashed out more. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Licks-rocks This is a discussion, WP:NOTAVOTE, and you can't just make the same arguments as others if they have since been countered, as that does not help achieve a reasonable consensus. Mathglot made a comment (just a few above) explaining how B or C are not appropriate, which due to it's proximity I don't feel like quoting at length. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, per policy, the WP:BURDEN of proof that B and C are verifiable rather than BLP violations is on you. Crossroads -talk- 06:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That they are verifiable, yes, But if you're going to demand we refute every possible argument in advance in our !votes, we'd all be here for quite a while. If you want to talk about how you think they're blatant BLP violations, that's fine, but there's no "burden of proof" to mention something you believe has been addressed sufficiently elsewhere. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of Option D !votes that aren't more convincing than a bare WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but you're not commenting on those, RC. I'd hope the closing admin will be able to weigh up the relative merit of participants' arguments, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Nosferattus), I'm not exactly sure as to which option(s) you're supporting. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty simple to me to be honest, especially looking at some other !votes in this thread. A lot of people are listing the options in order of preference. I'm honestly not quite sure why you're trying to talk to this particular editor so much? --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First time I'm requesting clarification from the editor. Don't know what you're going on about with the "...this particular editor so much" bit. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I confused you for Canadian above. Disregard, and my apologies. It's hard to keep track of everything going on in this RFC. Let me rephrase then, I'm confused as to why this particular comment, which mostly restates opinions already expressed much more at lenght elsewhere, is receiving so much attention. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything other than Option D – when you're the subject of ridicule in a Family Guy manatee gag, then it shows a certain amount of relevance to inlcude in a précis of her career, although more on the level of Orson Scott Card's souring his reputation than Graham Linehan's destroying his reputation (and marriage). Sceptre (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - Leave it out of the lead completely. Irrelevant and WP:UNDUE. Her views on the trans community do not define her. When I think of Rowling, it's not for her views on transgender people. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B/C > A To imply anyone agreeing with what she says isn't by definition a TERF seems a bit silly to me, regardless of which side of things you stand on. But my main concern here is that it remain in the lede in some capacity. This issue has been an enormous portion of her social relevance post-Harry Potter and her vocalizing her views on trans people has been enormously influential with potential huge implicaitons for the overall trend of trans acceptance in the UK as well as other Western countries. It is absolutely of sufficient notability to be within the lede.
  • C or A: given that the issue is given so much WP:WEIGHT in RS that it not only takes up a sizeable portion of this article (and the lead must summarize the body) but also has its own article, censoring any mention of it a la D is out of the question. The current wording is decent, but the weight this has continued to get since the RfC that resulted in that wording, and the level of detail the body has accordingly been revised to have since then, does suggest more detail a la C is merited. -sche (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, in the seemingly-unlikely event that option B carries the day, surely "These views have [...], yet has [...]" should be "yet have". -sche (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D then A and Strongly oppose B and C. I oppose B and C as it completely WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH as labelling/highlighting those feminists who agree with Rowling as TERFs , and those indivduals who support Rowling as conservative is a complete violation of SYNTH. I support D (then A), as labelling her as "transphobic" like there fails to be enough sources in balance labelling her as such violating MOS:LABEL and WP:BLP, in addition to WP:UNDUE. Most of this is repeating what others above like SMcCandlish, Crossraods, and Pyxis Solitary but I belive they are far more grounded and policy and reflective of sources then B/C argument. Do not ping me to this discussion.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The D !vote in particular seems to be at, errr, considerable tension with the same editor's !vote rationale in the philanthropy section, below. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 100% what you are saying here but those two discussions are distinct. MOS:LABEL applies to something terms like "transphobic" unlike the term "philanthropist".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with the LABEL argument, but I see why you might see that as a reason to !vote against B or C. It certainly isn't a rationale for a D vote, however, given that A and E have also been proposed. Also, the MOS does tell us not to use peacock language, which some editors hold to apply to "philanthropist" where it is nota term commonly applied to the BLP. Let's not pretend that the MOS instructs us to say nice things and not mean things: it tells is to say well-sourced things using NPOV and BALANCEd language. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A / F. It's easily notable enough to warrant inclusion in the lede. The lede should not however coatrack about what kinds of people (conservative? feminist? queer?) line up pro/con Rowling. All kinds of people are on both sides, and that's not the point of the article anyway. A goes into the least detail on those lines, but it would be possible to do an F that says even less. Sennalen (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primarily NOT Option D - Do NOT remove. I believe that emotive, non-policy advocacy for removal should be ignored, as these are not votes (abbreviated !votes). Statements that her views are incidental to her notability are flat out contradicted by the weight of the section in the article, and the fact that we had to WP:SPLIT off a new article just about her views! As for what text to use? I would suggest Option C, B, or A in that order of preference, but I'd find any of the options preferable to removal. I find that options C and B offer the most information summarized in the most compact way, while option A is a bit vague and seems to be wishy-washy-- weak writing overall. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B or option C please, either's fine! (I hope I'm voting correctly, Wikipedia editing is messy at the best of times, let alone on a looong talk page...) It shouldn't be controversial to say that she's frequently and very publicly writing articles against trans civil rights; that the people who disagree with her are intersectional feminists in particular (the more mainstream third wave branch, I believe) and LGBT groups (who are inherently pro LGBT rights); and that the people who agree with her are mostly conservatives, including exclusionary feminists (more fringe, I believe) and anti-LGBT groups, such as the "LGB Alliance" hate group supported by mostly cishet people. If you remove certain editors' cis bias, this is all pretty axiomatic stuff. ZoeB (talk)
    Oh sure, once we get rid of all that cis bias we could probably just automatically generate BLPs and GENSEX articles by creating a neural network and feeding it old articles from PinkNews and The International Journal Of Tourism Sciences for training data. Tewdar (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tedwar, is this hostility really nessecary?.--Licks-rocks (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, my name is Tewdar, not Tedwar. Secondly, it is utterly ridiculous to accuse me of 'hostility' when replying to an editor who has essentially just claimed that anyone voting for option D is guilty of cis bias with a sarcastic piss-take. Can you imagine the hostility if someone accused an editor here of "trans bias"? Newimpartial would have written a couple of megabytes of 'hostile' text by now and taken them to AE within a few minutes tops. And yet, nobody seems to have even noticed this claim of cis bias at all. I'm not sure what sort of bias that is. Tewdar (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's safe to say most of us here are biased in one direction or the other. This discussion wouldn't be so loaded otherwise. ZoeB is just sharing her opinion. As I interpreted it, all she basically said was "I think the situation is a bit more simple than it's being treated as because a lot of people aren't that immersed in the subject matter". Which, yeah, that counts as a bias, so I think that's an entirely fair thing to say. Though I am, of course, a little biased -*GASP* because I agree with her on the bias thing. To summarize, I think you interpreted "bias" as an insult, where I suspect it was intended as more of a descriptor. sorry about your name btw, I misread/typed. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, if I were to say that option D or F were "axiomatic, my dear Watson" were it not for "certain editors' trans bias", would this be interpreted as a mere descriptor, or more of a massive behavioural problem requiring immediate sysop and ArbCom involvement? I think we all know the answer to that. Tewdar (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe several people have said that exact thing before on this very page. In fact, I just did a very quick search on this page for the word bias and yeah, that is very much a thing that happened. Several D !votes explicitly mention bias. None of the ones I bothered to go through here go so far as to put trans in front of it though. I do think claiming that "a minority being biased about their own topic just because they're in that minority = bad" is a bridge too far, in a way that saying "people can be biased due to *not* being in a minority" isn't. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a member of a recognised UK minority group, I still think "a minority being biased about their own topic just because they're in that minority = bad" Tewdar (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think being cornish and being trans are entirely comparable. That's a little besides the point however, and I don't think it leads in a very productive direction. More importantly I already pointed out several people on this page have already done what you claim would lead to immediate arbcom intervention to very little fanfare, so I think this entire point is somewhat moot. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, my nationality bias definitely outweighs my gender bias. I couldn't care less if people misgender me, as long as nobody ever dares to call me English. 😡 Tewdar (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    <sarcasm>But people can identify as Cornish just as they can identify as space aliens, and surely there's no harm in that.</sarcasm>. Newimpartial (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    <not sarcasm>Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that identifying as Cornish, multilingual, space alien, or indeed anything else are qualitatively different.</not sarcasm> Tewdar (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you do understand, I hope, that that is just your personal view. Some people would presumably risk their lives to defend their Cornishness but not their multilingualism. And I am reasonably confident that no-one on earth is an actual space alien, so those who believe themselves to be such, are mistaken. Aspects like these make such identities qualitatively different from each other, at least from my (non-Qanon) perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, define Cornishness for me, to ensure I can present as truly Cornish, against the constant mockery I must endure on an almost daily basis every time I identify as Cornish to some emmet incomer from Pow an Sowson, who insists I am mistaken... Tewdar (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I'm not the editor Tewdar was replying to, I thought it was pretty funny. Beep boop! Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just your Heaviside function misbehaving again. Tewdar (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No true Cornishman... Mathglot (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But... but I put my cream on the top! Tewdar (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer option A (although I don't think it's perfect). I have quibbles with the "mainstream media" bit in B and C as the majority of the UK mainstream media are clearly on Rowling's side of this. Oppose D - this is what she's known for these days such that it's always brought up even in relation to HP. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E: per MOS:LEAD, we should include summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, and Rowling's controversial views on this topic are extraordinarily prominent. This is also a WP:DUE argument, with the weight of years-long, international coverage being sufficient for a couple of lines in the lead.
    There are too many deletion rationales to succinctly counter, but I'd like to focus on:
    • Any argument mentioning notability: the notability policy is inapplicable here, and it says so specifically in its lead.
    • D voters who want the trans controversy removed from the whole lead but her philanthropy retained in the first sentence are presenting us with irreconcilably dissonant arguments.
    • Arguments for removal that present no policy basis whatsoever, of which there are many, should be discounted by the closer.
    This controversy has been so prominently covered for such an extended period of time that removal would create a major NPOV violation. Firefangledfeathers 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully, the closers will evaluate every editors argument & not dismiss any editors argument. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment contains no substance, but I still disagree with it. Firefangledfeathers 02:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See further down in the discussion sub-sections. We don't like to cast a bad light on any group of editors in this RFC, with the hope of influencing the closers' decision. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No "bad light", just arguments based on personal opinions only, which I continue to urge the closer(s) to discard. I do see in the discussions below you insisted that "'discussions/challenges' are suppose to take place in the 'discussion' subsection." Firefangledfeathers 04:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You support 'E', that's your choice. But, you didn't have to complain about a group of editors who support options, that you don't. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your choice to use 'complain about' where I'd use 'rebut arguments (or lack thereof) of' is a minor annoyance to me. I imagine the disruption to focused discussion on the content issue will be annoying to other readers. I'll do my best not to reply further here, though I'd be happy to debate further in the discussion section or a user talk page. Firefangledfeathers 04:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's literally the job of the closers to dismiss editors' arguments, where those arguments aren't based on policies on guidelines. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The closers will do it the way they wish to, collectively. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A . Nobody has come up with a rationale for the change, and if it ain't broke, why fix it? I endorse Sennalen's comment, which summarises my opinion well- It's easily notable enough to warrant inclusion in the lede. The lede should not however coatrack about what kinds of people (conservative? feminist? queer?) line up pro/con Rowling. Most of the other options appear to be hideously coatrack-ed in order to present the (wholly false AFAI can see) case that only a handful of bigots have defended Rowling (Conservatives like Tony Blair? Gordon Brown? Eddie Izzard? Great swathes of trans-sympathetic UK media is at least prepared to discuss the issues raised rather than "shoot the messenger") - similar numbers have defended her right to express opinions which are substantially seen as pro-women, and pro the rights and dignity of (natal) women (not to be defined and referred to for example as 'menstruators') by many in the UK, but characterised as inherently anti-trans by others, paricularly by activists. There may be a difference of coverage between UK and US, where the issue seems even more hideously polarised than it is in the UK, but (mainstream) UK coverage is a great deal more sympathetic to much that Rowling has argued than many of the options above suggest. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. The lead reflects the body, and her campaigning on this topic is clearly a major portion of her current notoriety. It is WP:DUE because of her influence on this topic, and repeated statements to that cause. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Options E>B>C>>A>>>>>D. I don't think the wording of B or C is ideal (e.g. "mainstream media", mentioning politicians), but B is more concise. A violates WP:UNDUE by giving equal billing to pro-trans and anti-trans feminists, when the former are solidly in the mainstream of feminist thought. However, it is significantly better than D. Coverage of JK Rowling in the last couple of years by reliable sources across the breadth of the political spectrum has overwhelming been about her views on trans rights, and the controversy over her trans views is well-covered, sourced, and is the polar opposite of a fringe topic. This is reflected in how the trans section of Politics of J. K. Rowling is by far the single-largest section, and makes up about half that page. Per WP:UNDUE and MOS:LEAD, ledes are not restricted to the topics that initially made the subject notable, but are meant to summarize the contents of the article, and if necessary, articles split off from the parent article. Rowling's trans views are a significant portion of the article content that should be reflected in the lede, though in a manner less wordy than B or C, but more neutral than A. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A will do - it reflects the body and is sufficiently neutral. See previous RfC for why not D; there already is consensus for inclusion in the lede. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Rather than the (rather similar) options B and C, I think it would be helpful for one of the pre-formulated options to emphasize support from literary and entertainment industry figures. Not that there is uniform support for Rowling from these quarters, but the writers' letter and the indications of support from actors and comedians are at least as prominent as the declarations of Conservative politicians, at least from my perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the letter, will add another option. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to append the options instead. Decided on "artists" but "entertainers" would work too. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion While I've gone for option A, can we reword options B and C to remove "a few", as this sounds rather casual and not particularly encyclopedic. I think changing it simply to "some" is fine. — Czello 18:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Czello 👍🏼. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: The premature closure and evaluation of the Rfc above by the OP who created it, as well as the presupposition of its outcome, taints this Rfc. Please see further details here. Mathglot (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: "So if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need all these endless ill-prepared RFCs. The paragraph at the end of the lead section on her trans-related views wasn't even under debate in connection with the former RFC, and as I understand it, it has already been carefully crafted/developed over a long time through discussion here. If it needs further adjustment at some point, it's better to have a discussion before starting any unnecessary RFCs. I don't view this as a legitimate RFC for the reasons explained by others. Of course, removing the paragraph on the activity that has by far received the most media coverage over several years, and that not only has its own section in this article but that also is the dominant issue in the Politics of J. K. Rowling article, is not a serious proposal, and is completely unacceptable, non-encyclopedic and contrary to relevant content policies. If anything, this issue needs far more weight in this article based on how Rowling is covered in third party sources. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Great point. Masterhatch (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Who, me? Or Amanda? If you mix asterisks and colons, it messes up the indentation... Tewdar (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tewdar: no, you can mix asterisks and colons. You just need to have an asterisk before the first colon. You also need to make sure there isn't any blank lines between asterisks, as that will break indenting. It's partially why I prefer colon based indenting, it handles blank lines between paragraphs far more gracefully. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amanda A. Brant I agree completely that removing the paragraph on her transphobia is WP:UNDUE removal both per the coverage within the body of the article and in sources. I also agree that it needs more weight in the article based on third-party sources. this NBC article, for example, goes into very long detail about her history of transphobia and links to other articles they wrote about the topic. If I dedicated more than 10 minutes to this I could probably find the same for many other news sources and other RS. When 90% of readers of an article only read the lead, it should include more description and context than the current lead does. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @A. C. Santacruz: what is the procedure if a wholly policy non-compliant option (ie option D) achieves consensus at the time of the RfC closure? Is it raised to a dispute resolution noticeboard? Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sideswipe9th that depends (I'd imagine) on how the RfC is closed. If the closer identifies the consensus as against policy I have no idea what would be done (maybe keep status quo? I honestly am not near experienced enough to guess). If the close is such that it would violate policy, one can challenge the close using the proper procedures and follow that sequence. However, other more experienced editors probably have a better idea what would happen than I do. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Side-note, Option D is not deletion, just "other". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • D being "policy non-compliant"? That would apply to B and C which are riddled with BLP and WP:NOR violations. Crossroads -talk- 17:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Crossroads: B and C are policy complaint. They are neither BLP nor NOR violations. They are complaint, and supported by reliable sources in this area. Option D however would fall afoul of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and MOS:LEADBIO. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            No, it would not; LEADFOLLOWSBODY is an explanatory supplement (neither guideline nor policy), and in any case is more concerened with proper sequencing of edits, and not about what *belongs in the lead*. The latter is covered by MOS:LEAD (*guideline*; first paragraph:), which says that the lead is "a summary of [the] most important contents" covered in the body. So it depends whether you feel that reporting on JKR's comments on transgender issues are an important part of her life story or not. Clearly, you do; so your vote and your comment above are consistent, and that's fine. But saying that Option D "would fall afoul of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY" is merely a reflection of where you stand on the importance of Rowling's comments relative to the arc of her whole life story, and in no way negates Crossroads' comment above yours, who clearly has a different view of it. Just because you have one interpretation or preference of "importance", does not negate the fact that others view it differently, and when they do, their views, including the Option-D supporters, are entirely in line with LEADFOLLOWSBODY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathglot (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Omitting anything about Rowling's statements on trans in the overall article would be a policy violation of UNDUE, but we have no policy that says this has to be in the lede. The lede should be written neutrally, impartially and dispassionately, and should cover the major parts of the body. Not mentioning that she is an author and tied to the Harry Potter books would be a clear mistake. Whether the transphobia stuff is "major" is something to be decided by consensus because of how relatively small that section is compared to her authorship and other details. Also, we should be writing ledes towards what a person's enduring coverage, not what is "hot" about them at the moment. Now I do know that these views of hers have been going on for a few years, but whether that is enduring at this point is debatable. In other words, arguing that omitting transphobia stuff from the lede only is a policy violation is simply not true, though there is also no policy that says it has to be omitted. It's all based on consensus. --Masem (t) 04:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's also worth looking at it another way. Is her current transphobic bent likely to continue going forward? if it is here to stay (which I believe it is) not including it in the lead would just lead to this discussion coming back every few months. I think if we want to future-proof this article and create a lasting, stable version we need to look into the future as well. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary on Rowling's transphobia has been a thing since since early 2018, and I'm not sure appeals to WP:RECENTISM are justified over something that has been pretty constant for almost four years now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been "constant" since early 2018. There was very, very little mention of it in sources until the Forstater tweets in Dec. 2019, and even then it didn't pick up more until the June 2020 tweets and essay. Crossroads -talk- 07:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple RS reacting in early 2018, followed by more coverage in 2019 and even more in 2020 certainly makes this a prominent issue IMO and would justify !voting for its inclusion in the lede - which you did, above. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Al Jazeera (after several recent controversies stemming from comments by series creator J.K. Rowling that were seen as transphobic,Last summer Rowling made several comments that were widely viewed as demeaning toward transgender people and denounced by many,
  2. AP News (J.K. Rowling is facing widespread criticism from the transgender community and other activists after tweeting)2 (She has been under hefty scrutiny about her thoughts on transgender identity from the LGBTQ community)
  3. The Atlantic (note, paywalled but the piece is called "How J.K. Rowling Became Voldemort" and is about the backlash)
  4. Daily Dot stars face online criticism for reunion amid J.K. Rowling’s anti-trans controversy
  5. The Economist
  6. Financial Times
  7. Forbes Tampax was clearly trying to do what we’ve been asking all of our large corporations to do, be more inclusive. Still, some women perceive that including trans means erasing the identities of cisgender women. Earlier this year, Harry Potter series author J. K. Rowling tweeted in response to an article [...] (that's right, she is being mentioned in an article about Tampax ad campaigns)
  8. Insider (formerly Business Insider) Rowling has been widely criticized by LGBTQ people and allies since 2020 when she tweeted about her belief that trans activism hurts women and lesbians.
  9. MSNBC
  10. New York Times (article titled "Britain’s Transgender Stand-Ups Find Comedy in a Hostile Climate")
  11. New Yorker
  12. NPR
  13. Reuters
  14. Vanity Fair
  15. Washington Post
all cover events related to the Harry Potter franchise or herself with mentions of the controversy she's caused and the criticisms of transphobia she's received, I'd find it hardly convinving to say that the current public image (and thus understanding) of J K Rowling is not one tied to her trans-related opinions. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can also add the following sources to this list.
  1. Reuters Critics of the “Harry Potter” author accused her of revealing prejudice through a transphobic trope, while supporters defended her right to write fiction without people jumping to conclusions about her beliefs or abusing her. and Rowling has long faced accusations of transphobia, which she rejects, because of some of her tweets.
  2. Time, though opinion piece Rowling’s views are not new to me. There have been discussions online about her transphobia for quite some time, both public and private.
  3. iNews Harry Potter fans have voiced their disappointment with JK Rowling over a series of tweets about menstruation, gender and sex that some users have deemed transphobic.
  4. BBC News Critics accused her of being transphobic, but Rowling said she stood by her comments, saying it "isn't hate to speak the truth".
  5. Vox Now, in response to a significant UK court case, Rowling has provided what might be the ultimate, upsetting confirmation of her perceived transphobic leanings
  6. The Guardian Critics accused her of being transphobic, an allegation Rowling strongly denies.
There is understandably less sources on this within UK media, due to the rather strong anti-transgender culture war currently happening in the UK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe remove the Metro as it is not considered a RS (a free daily mail offshoot). ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I had no idea Metro was linked to the Daily Mail. Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is better than its parents for being briefer and having less opinion and it has claimed a general neutral political stance ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This source pile does not support what you think it does. For one, the Forbes article is by a contributor and hence unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. The MSNBC article is an opinion piece and hence unreliable per WP:RSOPINION. As for the rest, they do not say she was "widely" criticized but attribute it to her critics. They almost all do not say she was transphobic in their own voice, so "by mainstream media" is not supported and hence POV OR. Lastly, these sources are not necessarily representative, and seem to have been cherry-picked specifically for using the word "transphobic". Crossroads -talk- 17:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Entertainment Weekly, however, says in its lead paragraph that Rowling's comments have widely been criticized as transphobic. USA Today refers to her transphobic comments in its own editorial voice and says that Rowling continued to double down even after the posts were widely perceived as transphobic, misinformative and hurtful. Vanity Fair says that Cynthia Nixon called out the Harry Potter author for her transphobic comments and refers, in its own editorial voice, to her transphobic opinions and her TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) logic. A mainstream Canadian news source says in its lede that Rowling has widely been accused of transphobia, and the LA Times refers to J.K. Rowling's tweets widely condemned as transphobic and also, in another piece, to her history of anti-trans comments and her latest anti-trans tweets in its own editorial voice. This literary journal article refers to her transphobic comments and transphobic tweets - these are all RS, and none are opinion sources. Et cetera, ad infinitum. Like it or not, this is a major strand in the coverage of Rowling over the last three years or so. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another few sources to add. This time scholarly/scholarly adjacent.
  1. TERF Wars Masters of Media, New Media & Digital Culture M.A, University of Amsterdam Coming from the British environment of transphobia it is not unsurprising that [Rowling] has adopted this radical pseudo-feminist stance on trans rights. Although her tweets garnered great media attention this year this is not the first time she has tweeted or been associated with transphobic sentiments.
  2. Terfism is White Distraction: On BLM, Decolonising the Curriculum, Anti-Gender Attacks and Feminist Transphobia., Alyosxa Tudor, London School of Economics This brings me to JK Rowling’s essay in which she defends her transphobic tweets. and Do Rowling and other TERFs really believe that trans people and trans women in particular are a danger, a menace, a threat to others? and How bored and annoyed must JK Rowling be that she thinks the perfect moment in which she can reheat her transphobic comments is the height of Black Lives Matter?
  3. Alive but Cancelled: The Public’s Response to the Controversial Author, Fleur Heiltjes, master's thesis, Radboud University. While this thesis doesn't state the author's opinions on Rowling's commentary as far as I can see it does include an analysis of 120 non-opinion news articles, twenty opinion pieces made up of ten professional media and ten blogs, and reactions on social media, published in the days following Rowling's "People who menstruate" tweet in June 2020, that may be useful to the discussion here.
@Crossroads: I would remind you to WP:AGF before you accuse multiple editors of WP:CHERRYPICKING. You may disagree with the weight of the evidence, but don't ascribe motive to other editor's contributions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Crossroads can speak for himself very well if he chooses to.) Since this is your go-to finger-wag, as has been displayed in other discussions, you need to be reminded that WP:AGF is a guideline — not a policy. The mirror has two faces, and for you to assume that an editor's comments are not made in good faith shows that you need to be reminded to read the guideline. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 in your list is from a blog - it even has "blog" in the URL. Source 2 is described as "Opinion Pieces / Media / Blogs" and is from this blog. Now I'll grant that since these are from institutional websites they aren't exactly like some random blogspot, but they are equivalent to opinion pieces at best. Source 3 is a master's thesis which is unreliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Crossroads -talk- 06:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody pinged me in this discussion. What's the problem? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awfully sorry, I should not have pinged you. I was just pointing out that it was you who suggested "don't mention anywhere in the lede" and used the "yo" template. Tewdar (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No prob - Option D was available & I took it. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those adding 'Option D remove completely' should note there's an RfC immediately above this one that was snow-closed as "Keep mention in the lede but not the lead sentence." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC you mentioned, should've had the 'remove completely' option. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So? Consensus can change, and invoking the previous discussion as if it were some sort of court ruling is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What difference would that have made - only 2 people out of 18 suggested it wasn't suitable for the lede. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The option was "Option A: Do not mention them in the lead sentence." - nothing about keeping any mention in the lede AFAICT... Tewdar (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because it seems to be within the scope of the relevant WikiProjects, and they had not yet been notified as far as I could tell, I've just made notifications on WP:WPWW, WP:WO, WP:FEM and WP:LGBT. I don't know if there's any others that should be notified or not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez, there's gonna be a huge figurative crash up. Particularly if notified WikiProject members have conflicting views. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: perhaps, perhaps not. But the content of this RfC is unquestionably within the remit of those projects. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My 16+ years of experience, recommends we all strap on our figurative helmets. This BLP is quickly becoming a battleground for which group of editors views will prevail. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been that way for over a year, GoodDay. This is why after the effective if not intentional canvassing mentioned above, I notified Village Pump, the BLP noticeboard, and wikiprojects on fiction and such, to get broader input in this RfC. It's been going on far too long that a pair of WP:FACTIONs have been using this page as one of their WP:BATTLEGROUNDs. Those of us who are centrists on the underlying issues are tired of being caught in the constant crossfire.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force. Firefangledfeathers 04:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Thanks; you beat me to a couple of those. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this means all this article's WikiProjects have now been notified. Firefangledfeathers 04:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is gonna be the most widely attended RFC in Wikipedia's 20-year history & increasingly, the most difficult to post in, due to its continuing growth. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. The topically related VPPOL RfC about how to refer to Caitlyn Jenner back in the mid-2010s ended up turning into three RfCs and taking several months, as I recall, and it resulted in a lot of stabililty at MOS:GENDERID and at various trans-related articles. This particular thread isn't as much of a proxy for other related disputes as that one was, but it needs to be settled with a broad and firm consensus or disruption at this article will go on indefinitely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying the other Wikiprojects. I suspected there were more, but I wasn't aware of an exhaustive list of them. Hence why I stated which ones I had notified, and left it open for someone or someones else to cover the gaps in my knowledge. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More quotes from sources showing the variety of ways in which the situation is summarized in short overview sentences much like we would do for an article lead, and balancing out the sources selected above by showing it is often not saying "widely" and/or 'transphobia'. Note that this fact also applies to some of the sources quoted above.

  • Rowling's opinions on transgender issues in the last year have been a cause of controversy, with some in the LGBTQ community accusing her of transphobia. Reuters
  • The author, who has been criticised for her views on trans issues BBC News
  • Rowling caused a social media storm last year after she shared her opinions on Twitter and months later wrote a lengthy personal essay on transgender issues, and some in the LGBTQ community accused her of transphobia. Washington Post
  • Rowling has attracted criticism for her views on gender identity Evening Standard
  • The author of the Harry Potter books, who has been the subject of death threats since voicing her views on the importance of biological sex...Rowling, 56, caused controversy last year when she published a 3,700-word essay on why she was concerned about children being encouraged to transition and the tension between women’s rights and trans rights. The Times
  • JK Rowling...her controversial statement on trans and women’s rights The Guardian
  • In a series of tweets in June, Rowling said she supported trans rights but did not believe in “erasing” the concept of biological sex. Rowling said she refused to “bow down” to a movement seeking “to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it.” Actors from the Harry Potter franchise, including Daniel Radcliffe, have previously criticized the author. AP News
  • While the writer has been under scrutiny by trans activists since 2019...The recent tweets are the latest in an ongoing series of offenses and defenses about her views on gender. Yahoo Entertainment
  • J.K. Rowling, who has faced backlash and fallout over her comments about transgender people NBC News
  • Rowling's controversial tweets about gender identity, which some labeled as transphobic CNN

Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC) added 5 more Crossroads -talk- 06:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful. Option E, so? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we don't want use other encyclopedias as a benchmark, let's take a look at this internal source (a FA, no less, with a related Cultural impact of Elvis Presley page with a subsection "Danger to American culture"). Here's a man who caused moral outrage, facing widespread accusations(!) of being a danger to young women, corruption of young people, undermining racial "stability"(!), being a danger to the security of the United States, and the "personification of evil"(!). And how does Wikipedia summarize this notable widespread criticism in the lede for this subversive and dangerous individual? "Initial controversy." And he's not even alive! (so they say...) Tewdar (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Elvis version promoted to featured article status, there's a one line description in the lead of his controversy. Firefangledfeathers 14:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would probably be the equivalent of something like, "her views on transgender issues have been controversial", which I suggested a variation of, with minimal support, at a previous RfC. Tewdar (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tewdar: I'm sure you understand the difference between someone being controversial because they challenged the status quo (in the 1950's), and someone being controversial for their views on minority communities (today), so I hope you can see how your example isn't very relevant and doesn't really contribute much to this discussion. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} [ talk | contribs ] 14:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I totally disagree. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't say much about Elvis controversies, because they occurred in the 50s and YOULIKEIT, but we should say a great deal about Rowling controversies, because they are happening now and YOUDON'TLIKEIT. Isn't this the very definition of RECENTISM and POV? Please explain. Tewdar (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely we should base our treatment on how recent, reliable sources treat each of these issues? Or hasn't that occurred to you? Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the very utmost highest quality premium reliable scholarly and popular biographies of Elvis continue to provide significant coverage of the extreme controversies that Elvis was part of back in the 50s and 60s. And yet "initial controversy" is all he gets in his lede. He hasn't been up to much lately, though, so perhaps that's why. Tewdar (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tewdar: My main point was actually that there is a difference between challenging the status quo and existing power structures and having controversial views on minority people. But that part you seem to have conveniently ignored. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} [ talk | contribs ] 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CupOfTea696: Wikipedia doesn't give two hoots whether a BLP subject is challenging the status quo and existing power structures or has controversial views on minority people, because that's just WP:YOULIKEIT vs WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. If you had a point, I'm not sure what it is exactly. Tewdar (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As with many of the recent, reliable sources on which it depends, norms at Wikipedia do actually distinguish much of the time between what the kids call "punching up" and "punching down". If you are at loggerheads with community norms - as many frustrated editors are - it might be healthier for you to contribute to an encyclopaedia that more closely aligns wirh your values. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced that you understand either my point or my values. My point was that a BLP subject's controversies will be covered in WP according to whether they are notable, not according to whether they "punch up" or "punch down". As for my values, Gnome has cautioned me to be neutral, but let's just say I'm not exactly Rowling's biggest fan. You don't see me trying to remove Stock's "harmful rhetoric" from her lede, do you? Oh yeah, I forgot, I wrote that part!!! Tewdar (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was objecting to your Wikipedia doesn't give two hoots, which doesn't reflect current Wikipedia values. We simply do cover the two kinds of controversies differently, largely because the sources do, and we also treat them differently outside of article space. I wasn't extrapolating about your values beyond that statement you made. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from the list of sources that Santacruz and I provided previously, it seems as though J. K. was tweeting again yesterday, and this has been picked up by the media.

  1. Daily Record Harry Potter author JK Rowling has become embroiled in a new trans row following comments from a top Scottish cop.
  2. US Magazine Not staying quiet. J.K. Rowling faced backlash from social media users after sharing another controversial tweet about trans women.
  3. The Mary Sue After More Rowling Transphobia, Internet Remembers Anne Rice Supporting Trans Fans and J.K. Rowling’s determination to constantly choose violence against the trans community was continued over the weekend, when she posted more anti-trans propaganda while referencing George Orwell’s 1984.
  4. The Independent Social media users are criticising JK Rowling for posting a new “transphobic” tweet.
  5. The Times JK Rowling has reopened the row on gender after characterising as “Orwellian” a police policy in which a rape can be recorded as being committed by a woman if the attacker “identifies as a female”.

There may be more to add to this list later, as the articles are still being published. While this particular example certainly fits the bill for WP:RECENTISM as the tweet in question was made a little over 24 hours ago, it certainly shows that Rowling is not going to stop tweeting anti-trans words any time soon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But surely if we cover our eyes and plug our ears at the same time, we can ignore the issue until after we're dead? Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said elsewhere on this page. No matter what result this RFC reaches, the trans section of this article is going to continue growing. If we vote to exclude this from the lead now, we're going to be here again in six months, with exactly the same RFC, and yet more evidence for inclusion. She's been at it for two years now. I wonder at what point our current D voters who decided on recentism will finally flip. Because I don't see her stepping away from this postion anytime soon. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the trajectory, I hope the Politics of material has been trimmed and collapsed into the main article by then, in line with the WEIGHT of the sources, because that split/fork has produced some of the most pointless digressions in what would always have even a somewhat "diffuse" discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this specific incident, a lot of celebrities constantly are in the news for every little thing they say. But we have a policy telling us we don't need every little bit of ephemeral drama like this.
And The Mary Sue, really?? "Constantly choose violence"? Obvious sensational trash and literal fake news. Crossroads -talk- 07:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's a minor source on an even more minor incident. Did you expect the washington post to cover this? What this demonstrates is that this is very much a continuing thing that Rowling is doing that just is not going to change. The point me, sideswipe, and newimpartial made here is that this will continue. It's a trend. This specific incident doesn't really matter. Sideswipe doesn't appear to be arguing for inclusion, neither do I, or Newimpartial. What matters is that these incidents continue to add up. This trend has been going for two, three years now. When, you think, will the people who currently stick their heads in the sand finally admit that this is part of her brand now? --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Licks-rocks has it right. I'm not aruging for inclusion of this new material. Of course I recognise WP:NOTNEWS. I'm using those recent sources as evidence of a trend in behaviour that Rowling is showing no signs of changing. While I could have linked the tweet directly, we do prefer secondary sources here. Hence the selection above.
As for The Mary Sue, there is no consensus on whether they are or are not unreliable per their entry on WP:RSP. The last discussion on it was in 2016 though and is marked as stale. So while that may have changed they aren't for the moment considered unreliable except in the same way The Daily Mail, or The Sun would be. If you feel they are a promoter of obvious sensational trash and literal fake news you're of course more than welcome to start a discussion at WP:RSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I feel like it needs explaining that "chooses violence" is a bit of a neologism for "not evading discource". They're not claiming she's literally fighting people in the streets, just that she's choosing to start/stir up/continue a conflict. "loaded language" yeah probably. "Literal fake news" not so much.--Licks-rocks (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads, this seems to be the same blind spot for pop culture that has troubled you before with PinkNews - making a pop culture reference simply cannot be interpreted (by a competent reader) as literal fake news. "Choosing violence" is a reference to Game of Thrones (and the character who utters the line Cersei, happens to he the role that most fans would be most likely to cast Rowling in, if given the chance). You can say what you want about TheMarySue and its pop culture references, but it is silly to call them "literal fake news". Newimpartial (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning of D-preference editors

I'm noticing that many editors who've chosen Option D, are being constantly questioned about their choice. This amounts to WP:BLUDGEON & I wish it would stop. PS - If anything, such browbeating will only make one 'more determined' to stick to their option choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, previous Talk page discussions and RfCs had concluded, for almost a year, that the last three years of controversies (covered in media and scholarship about Rowling) were DUE for inclusion in the lead. It may therefore have been unexpected by the RfC creator that this issue would become the focus of this RfC. If it had been anticipated, presumably the question "should these controversies be discussed somewhere in the lead?" would have been asked prior to the rather more specific question that was posed. And many of the "Option D" !votes have been ill-informed and/or void of a basis in policy, even more so than is usual in RfCs. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no previous RfC on this matter, let alone "RfCs" plural. And this RfC clearly already has far higher attendance than any past discussion on this page. Crossroads -talk- 02:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they are being questioned because they are avoiding answering this RfC and instead are rehashing the previous RfC. I don't think anyone is changing their mind from already quite determined to "more determined". They were already there. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When one holds an unpopular opinion, then challenges are to be expected. Zaathras (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but "popularity" of inadequately supported opinions here holds very little water. A proposal might have many "fans" and thus be "popular" and then promptly get defenestrated. -The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions If editors argue a point, other editors are allowed to respond to their reasoning in good faith. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're clogging up the 'survey' subsection. Those 'discussions/challenges' are suppose to take place in the 'discussion' subsection. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that some of the contributors are explicitly here because of @SMcCandlish's notification, and the notification that they posted was not neutral and arguably non policy compliant in multiple ways, I would not consider it browbeating or bludgeoning to challenge questionable opinions. If anything, it should be the default. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that notification wasn't even trying to be subtle in its motivations, was it? —{{u|CupOfTea696}} [ talk | contribs ] 12:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CupOfTea696: Yeah. It's definitely regrettable that one of the standard neutral templates for that set of notifications, for which there were 9 in total, was not used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the sentence is not even an option in this questionable RFC. None of the comments that call for the deletion of the material have any kind of policy-based rationale, and such comments should be completely disregarded, and it is reasonable to point that out. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the history here. Where is the prior RfC? Springee (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, it is right above the FAR section in this talk page, caalled "RfC on lead sentence" for reference you can also see the discussion that happened in the section above that. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That RfC was SNOW closed as not in lead sentence. That only means we have a clear consensus that this content should not be in the opening sentence of the article. That RfC does not say the content should be anywhere in the lead as it didn't ask that question. Is there a RfC that actually asks if this content should be in the lead at all? Springee (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if the was an RfC but the have been multiple previous discussions Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 8#Transgender views controversy in lead redux, Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9#Should we mention the controversy over her remarks on trans people in the lead paragraph?, Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9#Lede sentence rewrite that ended in consensus. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all surprised there were prior discussions. However, a number of editors are saying this is an invalid or poorly scoped RfC because of prior RfCs. Talk page consensus is always a good starting point but isn't always a good finish since it's not uncommon for the local page to be dominated by a few motivated voices vs a larger view that uninvolved editors may provide. Note that absent reviewing the prior discussions I can't say if that was the case here. Springee (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No more than in the politics article: The article Politics of J.K. Rowling contains two lines in the lede on her trans-related views, along with various party political and referendum declarations. None of these views should be more represented on the main article than on the specific Politics article. Munci (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Munci:If this was intended as a !vote, it is currently in the wrong section. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Thank you for clarifying. I shall copy it above. Munci (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: They're being questioned because they either didn't provide any motivation, or because their arguments for omission don't hold up. It's not unreasonable to question arguments that don't make sense. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} [ talk | contribs ] 12:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
:@CupOfTea696: Here, let me fix that for you: "They're being questioned whether or not they provided any motivation, or because their arguments for omission don't agree with ours. It's our intent to question arguments that don't make sense, in our blinkered opinions." Please don't pretend that Xxanthippe, SMcCandlish, Springee, Tewdar, Pyxis Solitary, Only in death does duty end, Cavalryman, Dennis Brown, MelanieN, Calton, GreenC, Alexbrn, Russ Woodroofe, Blueboar, Anomie, Daveosaurus didn't set forth their rationales.

Seriously, sixteen editors get hammered, and you're pushing the narrative that there's no bludgeoning here? Ravenswing 14:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, several of these editors have made POV edits in the past, on trans-related issues, that are not backed by policy; some of them have launched attacks on trans and nonbinary editors on Wikipedia fora (sometimes while insisting that they have trans friends), and a number of them in fact have not set out any policy-compliant rationales in this discussion; WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy-compliant rationale. Does this mean all these !votes should be ignored by the closer? No, it doesn't, but it does give rise to some deserved skepticism, and it is not unreasonable to query when editors appear to be making !votes without reference to policy - and in this case, seemingly without having even read the lead of the article the RfC is on, in a number of instances. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, to be fair, exactly the opposite could be said about POV edits in the past, on trans-related issues, that are not backed by policy. Not bludeoning people would take a lot of heat out of the situation, and the bludeoning policy does not give any guidelines that suggest people who have been active in discussions on related topics are somehow open to being bludgeoned. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that questioning inaccurate, misleading or policy-tangential statements in !votes, on a bespoke basis, counts as WP:BLUDGEON. On the other hand, composing a misleading notification and posting it to multiple pages does strike me as a fairly serious behavioural violation, particularly when it casts ungrounded WP:ASPERSIONS at another editor. But evidently, not all editors agree about the relevant norms. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no monopoly from either side of the argument in posting inaccurate, misleading or policy-tangential statements, but I do see people !voting for one option being bludgeoned: that is not conducive to reasonable discussion.
The 'aspersions' point is a behavioural issue that should be addressed to ANI for further action, complete with any diffs or other evidence. It does not mean people should be bludgeoned here. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When editors arrive here to !vote without reading any of the evidence, being familiar with the relevant policies or even having read the lead the RfC is about, I don't see why replies to those !votes should be construed as BLUDGEON. As far as I can tell, these editors are typically not present to participate in reasonable discussion but to express a pre-judgment they have made about an issue without having either gathered evidence or examined reasoning about the factors relevsnt here. Frankly, the previous (sometimes divisive) discussions about the lead were of higher quality than many of the !votes here, which amount to J K Rowling is known as the Harry Potter author: as if that point has anything to do with the lead in either its current or any imaginable amended form. Reiterating an irrelevant point does not contribute to reasonable discussion in any way I can see. Newimpartial (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof that editors don't read the evidence or know the policies? Are you sure that those voting for other choices have read the evidence and know the policies? You can't know the position of any of the others, so you really can't justify the bludgeoning; as always on WP, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Leave it to the closing admin to weigh the comments and decide the balance of the consensus - that's what they are there for and some of them are fairly good at it. Bludgeoning leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth and only ramps up the heat, without providing any light. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument I paraphrased in italics makes no sense in the context of this article's actual lead section. So I AGF, supposing that those making said argument have not read said section. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
several of these editors have made POV edits in the past, on trans-related issues, that are not backed by policy; some of them have launched attacks on trans and nonbinary editors on Wikipedia fora. Wow. Talk about WP:ASPERSIONS. Crossroads -talk- 07:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked an example of the former, above, im response to a !vote, and others have noted the personal attack embedded in the non-neutral notification that seems to have brought many editors to this discussion, which is an example of the latter. If your issue concerns my use of the plural, I can produce other diffs on request, but would rather keep that to my personal Talk page since they would be off-topic here. But I have made factual statements that are easily demonstrated to be true, not cast ASPERSIONS, nor am I making claims without having any evidence at hand as some editors make a habit of doing. Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let folks chose the option they wish & leave'em alone. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, this is supposed to be a determination of consensus based on WP policies and reliable sources; it is not a pizzeria. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're annoying editors who've chosen an option that you oppose. Relax & let the process continue forward. When the RFC is closed, an uninvolved editor(s), preferably an administrator will make a decision & we'll all respect that decision, no matter what it is. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I am annoying anyone, it is not by design. And I am holding out some hope for a panel of three admin to close this one; the recent "death by communism" AfD close was quite well done. Maybe those folks will be available lol. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope that the chosen triumvirate are as far-removed from this topic area as possible. Tewdar (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: and myself have already made contributions on this over at Closure requests. Feel free to add your voices in support over there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just have. Thanks FormalDude for listing it there, much appreciated. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's rather comical. A subthread titled "Bludgeoning of D-preference editors", and look who the first to respond is lol I think one should take a hint. – 2.O.Boxing 00:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mm, I was away for a couple days for a relative's funeral, so I fell behind in responses. So, for @Newimpartial: ... sorry, I call bullshit. Strange though it may seem to you, editors can and have disagreed on what constitutes "inaccurate, misleading or policy-tangential statements," and there is zero scope on Wikipedia to exempt yourself from the norms of civil and productive debate on the premise that you don't think the other guy's arguments hold water. There's also a catchphrase I use as a .sig that bears repeating: it's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that I don't agree with what you're saying. It is damn arrogant to claim that failure to agree with you here must mean that the voters are ignorant of the facts,≥ ignorant of the relevant policies or are casting knee-jerk votes. Ravenswing 03:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can call whatever you want, and call it CIVIL if you like, but I haven't exempted myself from the norms of civil and productive debate on the premise that (I) don't think the other guy's arguments hold water. I haven't been unCIVIL or violated Talk page norms (although I have been the recipient of multiple unCIVIL comments here). Nor have I replied to most of the !votes with which I disagree - only the ones that did in my view rely on "inaccurate, misleading or tangential statements", like all the editors who clearly haven't read the lead section they were voting on, and the editors who are clearly refusing to read the RS on the topic at hand. If you believe that these issues are out of scope for the RfC, then that is your view, but please don't mistake mine.
    • To be absolutely clear, I have never said or suggested that failure to agree with (me)here must mean that the voters are ignorant of the facts - I have left alone all of the Option D votes that seemed to be based on policy or where other editors have raises the relevant issues already, and also ignored the pure parrot !votes as best I could. I only responded to what I can only read as arguments articulated either out of ignorance of facts or policy - mostly the argument that "Rowling is best known for Harry Potter" which, while true, has no policy-based relevance to this RfC.
    • The current lead section, which mentions the transgender controversies, is clear that Rowling is best known for Harry Potter, and so do all conceivable implementations of all the RfC options. What is more, the current lead and all conceivable alternatives to it also provide more information about Rowling, beyond her Harry Potter authorship. The intended question for this RfC was supposed to be, how can we meet BALANCE, DUE, and NPOV requirements as we incorporate the reliably sourced information on this article's topic into the lead section. I simply do not understand how editors who refuse to read this article and its sources - or even the lead section - can hope to help answer this question. But here they are, !voting and hoping to "win" the day by head count rather than policy-based argument. The situation is absurd, and while I don't assume that everyone who sees the situation differently is casting knee-jerk votes, some editors demonstrably are. Newimpartial (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really. Well. Suppose you identify the editors you claim to have not read the article or are hoping to "win" the day via head count, and the basis for your claim. Me, I have no idea, but I don't pretend to be a mindreader. Ravenswing 16:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I have been specific enough in my BLUDGEON detailed comments, above. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps yourself and your Bludgeon Buddies could indicate which of the Option D votes above are well-argued enough to be taken into account by the closing admins? Or is the answer "none of them"? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The answer, of course, is: the closer(s) will decide that. But it would be an act of sheerest optimism to expect closers to take into account points that have not actually been made in the discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Newimpartial is, of course, correct: the closer(s) will decide. I would trust, too, that the closers are cognisant of the fact that WP:NOTABILITY does not apply to the contents of an article; WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, however, do. And we do have a lot of 'D' preferences saying "Not notable for this." But when mainstream newspapers are speculating that the reason she didn't appear in Return to Hogwarts is because of her views on transgender issues (see here, here, here and a good roundup here, for example), I think we've established beyond all reasonable doubt that coverage is warranted. (Not sure where I stand on the renaming of Quidditch, myself, though... 🤔) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response count

After seeing the slightly excessive discussion my response provoked, I was curious how much of this conversation had been dominated by just a few voices, so I got a list of the top ten editors on this page, and counted the number of separate comments they had made in this RfC. Of the ten, five had made few or no responses to this discussion, so I did not include them. The number in parenthesis is the response count once responses in that single "slightly excessive discussion" have been omitted.

Caption text
Editor Comment count (3 December) Comment count (15 December)
Newimpartial 71 (64) 83 (76)
Bodney 19 25
Crossroads 16 20
Tewdar 46 (24) 47 (25)
A. C. Santacruz 36 (33) 39 (36)
Licks-rocks ? 17
GoodDay ? 22
Sideswipe9th ? 30
RandomCanadian ? 21

For Bodney and Crossroads, this is relatively small and makes up only a small fraction of their their overall posts on this page, but for the others listed, could I suggest that you refrain from commenting further on this discussion and not risk bludgeoning it to death? BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Expanded for various reasons to the top 30 editors with more than 15 comments in this discussion; see below for details. BilledMammal (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that I was asked to add a column regarding the number of comments in the "survey" section, rather than in the entire discussion. This has merit, as posts outside this section as less likely to be problematic, and for some editors, particularly GoodDay, almost all of their posts are outside this section. However, I haven't found myself with time to do so, and so instead I've chosen to leave this note. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
You're right, I'm hereby retiring from that discussion, this RfC, and the entire topic area. Please, nobody ping me to this discussion or any like it ever again. Bye. Tewdar (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the ping Tewdar despite the content of the post I am replying to, but I wanted to apologize if the table made you feel targeted, and say that I don't think retiring entirely is necessary; while your contributions did contribute to the excessive size of these discussions, and I do think it is time to step back from this discussion, I would note that the number is significantly reduced when we exclude the outlier discussion from the count, and of the rest I would note that I did observe that they were typically in reply to one of the other users listed here, rather than a direct reply to a !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: I was going to ask you (in light of the more recent comments) if you could stop the "bludgeoning of D-preference editors", but I see BilledMammal has already made the same case as me... Got the message? On top of that, you have apparently read the lead section and at least some of this article, which places you well ahead of the zombie hordes, even though I doubt you have read any of the sources on the controversy judging by your comments above is demeaning (by implying other editors are incompetent "zombie hordes") and out of line (per the usual guidelines which prohibit personal attacks and uncivility of any kind, and instead favour discussing content and not contributors). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of what some editors may have done, I don't see any way a table like this or its attendant comments (which I happen to mostly agree with) are appropriate to this discussion, or this page, given what a talk page is for, which as RC already noted above, is about discussing content. In the unlikely event an uninvolved editor wanders by here, I certainly think they'd be justified in collapsing this entire subsection, which I would do myself as off-topic, out of process, and contrary to Talk page guidelines, were I not involved. Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the table. It provides knowledge. As for the comment by User:RandomCanadian: we need transparency and we all need to know who we're dealing with in this (and any other) discussion. "Humor" is often a means to disguise hostility, and can be used as a tool for demeaning others and hiding personal animosity. Whether an aggressive comment is served as humor or as an unmistakable insult, everyone should be reminded of where the line is crossed:
  • WP:CIVIL > Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, they very probably don't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping.
  • WP:IUC > (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.
    (e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say....
  • WP:NOPA > Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.
    Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.
    Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
  • WP:ASPERSIONS > accusing others/another of misbehavior ... without reasonable cause ... without evidence ... to besmirch reputations.)
  • WP:HARASS > singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.
    placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors....
    Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out hostility (or any other editor behavioral problem) is perfectly fine, as are any of the points you list above, as long as they are on the appropriate page, which is a User talk page. None of them are okay here, because they in no way tend to improve the J. K. Rowling article, which is the only thing this page is for. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shedding light on the behavior of some participants may improve the discussion overall. That doesn't mean that it cannot be followed by a request on a user talk page for her/him/they to stop the behavior. And if an editor has an AN/I history of reprimands, editing restrictions, topic bans, etc., it may prove to be helpful in the future to have diffs about an editor's behavior in this discussion. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Pyxis. When one or a handful of editors is derailing a discussion, it's perfectly normal to bring that up in the discussion and ask that the behavior cease. It's a good idea to make such a request at the editor's talk page, too, of course.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment count table, needs updating. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bastun; I've got no objection to you adding additional names to the table, but when doing so could you please state that you did so, so that the additions aren't mistakenly attributed to me? I would also ask that if you are going to add names to the table, you do so systematically rather than choosing individuals to look into. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed Bastun was responding to GoodDay's request for an update, above. And it seems that GoodDay has passed Crossroads in the league table, and is closing in on Bodney. Newimpartial (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean Crossroads and Bodney are gonna get relegated? — Czello 13:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As they were only on the list as the systematic method used to generate it resulted in their names being checked, and their counts were and are low enough that they aren't an issue compared to the size of this discussion, you could put it that way.
I mention this because the systematic method is important, as it allows us to consider the impact on the discussion without focusing on the individuals involved, and so I would ask that if editors feel the need to expand the list, they do so systematically. Looking at the top 15 editors would be an appropriate way to choose whose comments to count, as it would include all individuals currently on the list. BilledMammal (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I notice when looking at my own edits that it seems to be counting all edits I ever made on this page, rather than just the ones in this discussion. How are you filtering for that?--Licks-rocks (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used that list to find determine which editors to count the comments of; I then did the counting manually. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully there's some sort of Champions League for the top w(r)ankers. :D /s Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be dispassionate for a moment, I actually expect to be taken out in the qualifying round by a strong BLUDGEONer from the "Death by Communism" AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, those are some scary opponents. They have too much experience discussing and providing sources to not be favorites, compared to this thread where uh... few sources came up from one of the sides. Who knows, maybe you get an upset victory. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can only hope to prevent them from scoring, grind them down and win on penalties. Bloody commies. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not sure what value this table has within this discussion. Surely if anyone is seriously bludgeoning the issue would be discussed in the proper noticeboards or in that user's talk page.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I acted before thinking. Note added above, now. I've also added myself. My count done manually, is just in this RfC section, and omits comments that were !votes. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. While I appreciate your efforts in expanding the list, I've deleted the three names you added for now; I don't believe there is a systematic method of adding the names you have chosen, and any systematic method that would include all the names you have added would make for a very long list. (To point out one of the issues with not using a systematic method, you missed the fourth highest comment count).
I also don't think that the issues this table was created to draw attention to have expanded beyond the table, given that outside of three of the names on the list there are no significant outliers when it comes to comment count, and while that holds true I don't see any benefit in expanding it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And with all due respect, I've re-added the names. This section was started by someone complaining about the alleged bludgeoning of process by people commenting excessively. Given your own comments in the whole section, the numbers of edits by editor were added (presumably) to back up (or refute) that assertion. I believe it's of relevance that the edit counts of other editors is now surpassing those originally included in the table. If you'd prefer, by all means, let me know, and I'll add a new, separate table to yours. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two lowest were included only because the systematic method I used required them to be included; I felt it wasn't appropriate for me to be selecting who to include based on a non-neutral criteria, though I did note that their comment counts were relatively small and thus didn't include them in the three I suggested might want to step back. If you do choose to create a new table, then please feel free to do so in your own comment, though I would suggest you also use a neutral method to select who to include. For now, I've reverted my comment to how it was before other editors made their good faith edits. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reluctantly expanded the table. I checked the top 30 editors to this page, and included them if they had made more than 15 comments in this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think my place in WikiTalk Champions League is fairly secure, based on my Shield performance, and at least I seem safe from relegation. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I demand a recount!!! and Q: when does the editor transfer season start? ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Given the amount of socking going on, I think the transfer season for WikiTalk never ends. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking forward to the winter break transfer market, perhaps other teams will promote some academy players before then. We'll see /s Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify what option D is?

In light of this diff by @力:, could we clarify in the survey options what D actually is? With the exception of @Always forever: who clarified here that they do not support the option D as proposed by @GoodDay and SMcCandlish: but has yet to update their survey response, all other commentors who support D do so for the "delete from lead" option as far as I can tell. I don't think it would be too disruptive to change D to the version that either GoodDay or SMcCandlish has proposed, and either add on an option F for other, or just not mention it at all. If there are other contributors that have ambiguosly voted for D, I'd propose pinging them and letting them know of the clarification made since they contributed. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option D, has to be -delete entirely from the lead-, in order for the RFC to be unbiased. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that formulation or the "Leave it out completely." or "Leave it out." as you and SMcCandlish stated in your initial survey responses. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - I wouldn't object to the transphobia stuff being deleted from the entire article, however. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is somewhere between a can of worms and a Pandora's box best left unopened for now I think. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And we'd need at least a short WP:SUMMARY left behind since there's a split-off article about it. Just how it works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's in no way surprising, GD. But we won't be removing entirely due content that's backed to multiple reliable sources. Insert links to usual policies and guidelines here, including NPOV, WP is not censored, Righting Great Wrongs, etc. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"That's in no way surprising", whatever. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote above to avoid causing any confusion, thanks for letting me know @Sideswipe9th:. always forever (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th, thanks for your advocacy here. I went ahead and changed Option D. @A. C. Santacruz: as part of the edit, I moved your signed 'Other' option to Option F, and I hope that's okay. Firefangledfeathers 03:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to me, for balancing the RFC ;) GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Politics of J. K. Rowling back into this article

Adding a sub discussion for this, as it's a point I've seen raised a few times above, though it may work better as a fully separate subsection away from the RfC so feel free to move if needed.

A few editors have proposed the potential of merging Politics of J. K. Rowling, along with the requisite trimming and removal of duplicate information. While I'm not opposed to the principle, I am concerned about the practice. WP:SIZESPLIT has some guidelines for when you may want to consider splitting an article. When an article is over 100kB in size, the recommendation is that it should be divided. If I'm reading the respective edit histories correctly, the main article is currently 200kB in size, and the split article is 66kB in size. Even if a review of the currently split article for duplicates and undue material reduces its size in half, we'd still be over the WP:SIZESPLIT recommendation.

I don't have any suggestions at this time, but I'd like to draw attention to this nonetheless, as it may be an important thing to consider if/when merging as it may have to be undone again shortly after due to length. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think this is the right way to frame this question. For one thing, the length of the subsections for Views here duplicate some of the material in the sections of the Politics article, but the length of the respective treatments (and therefore the amount of material duplicated) differs between topics. My sense is that most of the unduplicated, well-sourced material concerns the transgender issues section, so I'm not sure that it would be as difficult to merge and trim as suggested above.
Also, I think it is at least worth considering whether BLP concerns would be better satisfied through some other split, rather than Politics of. Newimpartial (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but it would be pretty much impossible to reach agreement on what to cut entirely and what to merge. We have a good enough WP:Summary style already. Some editors will want to include every little thing that ever got picked up on by the media, and therefore mess up the WP:WEIGHT on the main article. Her political views are WP:Notable at this point, so the status quo works just fine. Crossroads -talk- 06:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "people just willy nilly adding everything that comes up"(paraphrased) already a concern you have brought up multiple times on the politics offshoot too? It shouldn't make any difference in terms of inclusion worthiness whether it's added on the "politics of" article or here. Either it's E or it's not. It's more of a question of "will this article get too bloated if we add everything E-worthy from the politics offshoot." in my eyes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Politics of J. K. Rowling article, should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Lol, take it to AfD then. ––FormalDude talk 05:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather let someone else, do that. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colour me surprised. On the actual issue in question, is there a recommended method of measuring articles? I've crudely (pasted the text (only) into Notepad, looked at file properties) measured this main article at 61kb; the 'Politics of...' article at 20kb, and the "Views" section of this main article at 13kb. So if I'm measuring correctly, on the face of it, a split wasn't necessary, and re-merging would add no more than 7-10kb. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem like they should be merged then. Does anyone know the actual reason for the original separation? --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI
The has been sections in the main article about her political views since early 2010. A LGBT section in the main article appears in 7 June 2020. I personally can not see any discussion in the main article at the time of the creation of the 'sub' article regards a split, the Politics of J. K. Rowling article seems to have been originally created independently and then expanded largely by someone who has left Wikipedia with a line through their user name.
The earliest visible version of the Politics of J. K. Rowling article 6 Oct 2018 (though the first isolated date is 2 April 2015) did not include a section on her trans views. A section called TERF-sympathizer was added 1st sept 2019
The reason why i though an article merge was needed was simply it has been argued that J.K.Rowling's views in the sub article had absolutely nothing to do with J.K. Rowling's the subject of the main article, when this is absurd. Has the sub article become a place to hide all the negative stuff about the author as a person. Rowling the author is as least as notable as her creative works. However I agree with Newimpartial and Crossroads merging would be an extremely difficult thing to do, with folks in polarised camps never mind the mammoth task itself. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's gonna happen? A merge or does that other article get deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: discussions on this are clearly still ongoing. Have some patience. If you want the article gone, but don't want to nominate it for an AfD, poking the discussion where other people are trying to figure delete versus merge is kinda antithetical to that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the big question over at the article-in-question. As this discussion 'may' belong there, as a proposal would be to (if not delete) merge that article into this one. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too Early for such a discussion...I think it would be helpful if we let the current RFC on this page finish first. One thing at a time is probably best or we might shatter the spinning arguments. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You want to avoid a schism. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: I know you like RfCs from contributions elsewhere, but do you really want to have two on a contentious topic (Rowling) running simultaneously? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figured this sub-section, was better held over at the related article. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple discussions in multiple places about merging or deleting another article, while an RfC that would directly impact any such discussion is still ongoing, is counter-productive and inefficient. Let this RfC run its course first. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Widening the fourth paragraph to include Rowling's other views

It was not an attempt to spoil the RfC, but rather following several editors comments regards Rowling having, and this article covering her other outspoken 'notable' views (and criticism that the fourth paragraph appeared to be an isolated stand-alone paragraph) ... it was an attempt to be a general introduction to the section on Rowling's wider political, religious, press views as a whole and it is correct to state that some of her outspoken views are unquestionably polemic, not just her opinions on trans folks. The specific wording which is the question of this huge RfC was not altered on purpose, these edits were an attempt at including Rowling's other views in the lead section. ~ BOD ~ TALK 09:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aditionally, I made sure to check with WP:LABEL five or six times over to make sure I was understanding it correctly. The label "controversial" is not in violation. WP:LABEL does not say "avoid at any cost". WP:LABEL says "use with caution". When using the word "controversial" WP:LABEL requires us to satisfy a number of specific conditions. The existence of a controversy needs to be supported in RELIABLE sources. ABC news, Die Welle, TIME, and NBC news all meet that condition with ease. It needs to be widely used. Which it is, considering the ease with which I found so many highly reliable sources using it. Therefore, this does not qualify as giving a fringe vieuwpoint undue weight and as a result, it does not run afoul of WP:LABEl. The only condition under which I think you could argue there's a fringe vieuwpoint involved at all is if you were to claim rowling's vieuws are WP:fringe, which I would agree with. I'm actually quite offended at the gish gallop accusation you level against me here, since all I did was try to meet the requirements of WP:LABEL. Successfully, as far as I'm concerned.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LABELs have to be "widely used" by sources - meaning not just saying that there is a controversy, but calling the BLP controversial - and in-text attribution must be used. That vague statement is on the level of "many people are saying"-type vague aspersion-casting. Crossroads -talk- 06:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I surmise then that you failed to read the sources I cited? Because they do directly call the BLP (or more accurately in this context: The claims made by said BLP) controversial, so that is a moot point. The "in text attribution" part does not refer to the controversy label, which is used in many places across Wikipedia, even in headers, when sufficiently supported by the source material. It instead points at the prefix "pseudo" and the suffix "gate", both of which are a lot more loaded than the word "controversial". And you forgot the second part of that sentence: "when in doubt", which I don't believe you can seriously argue it is in this case, considering the state of this talk page. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Observation

Glass houses and stones

I wonder how we're supposed to ignore that there are editors who engage in this (and other gender-related article discussions) that think slandering other Wikipedians as transphobes is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. What kind of Wikipedia club is that? Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newimpartial&diff=next&oldid=1057275096. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the preemptive collapsing. Could this discussion happen at a user talk page instead? Firefangledfeathers 13:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Santacruz is allowed to comment on my Talk page that I have dealt with (what admittedly in their own opinion were) "transphobic" editors. I mean, it is not as though I haven't interacted with editors in the past who were removed from Wikipedia for behavioural issues arising from their transphobia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which has jack to do with labeling more editors "transphobic", and related character-assassination attempts, in this and other discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the name of the goddess, please stop the unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

With a panel of editors volunteering to close this RFC. Hopefully, nobody will challenge their collective decision. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A request to the panel. Please, make your decision as short, precise & clear as possible. So there'll be less of a chance of editors being confused :) GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten entirely about the closure request discussion earlier. From the looks of the discussion there, we may not see a closure until January. But I definitely feel for the editors who have to review this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who's going to voluntarily adjudicate this fustercluck?! 🤪 Tewdar (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A panel of at least three. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC tag will soon expire. When it does, I'll request closure, via notifying that the tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-contacted the Closure requests board. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

How anticlimactic. — Czello 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to lie, Czello, that really made me laugh. I'll take anticlimactic over cluster-fuck any day :P. Happy New Year! Newimpartial now... about that Champions League... /s. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... what does it mean? Her trans opinions are included? or are they excluded? GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay return to status quo ante bellum.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is? GoodDay (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? I mean... seriously?! Really struggling with WP:AGF, here, with the best will in the world. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her opinions are mentioned in the way they were before the RFC (since there was not consensus to change or remove the way they're mentioned). -sche (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, there wasn't a consensus to change or remove the text so it stays pending a new consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just needed a straight forward answer. Thanks for giving it. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad we managed to clarify to your satisfaction what staus quo and "Thus the section is kept by default, for lack of a consensus to remove or alter it" mean! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS3O5zg290k . Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Philanthropist" in the opening sentence

I oppose the removal of the descriptor "philanthropist" in the opening sentence of the article. Her philanthropic activities have received extensive coverage by the media, to the point that it seems pointless to link to sources that attest to that. The article itself contains plenty of such sources. Searching "jk rowling philanthropist" gives me 91,300 results on Google, "jk rowling charity work" gives 859,000 results [As has been has pointed out below, the number of Google hits is a useless indicator, and not really relevant to my argument anyway]. Among the many public recognitions of her charity endeavours:

  • "Harry Potter creator JK Rowling named most influential woman in the UK": Rowling, who recently donated £10 million to set up a new multiple sclerosis research clinic in Edinburgh, was chosen for her writing skills, tenacity to succeed and philanthropic nature, the National Magazine Company said.[1]
  • "JK Rowling receives Humanitarian Award from British Red Cross": The British Red Cross has presented author JK Rowling with its Humanity Award, designed to honour philanthropists and humanitarians whose work has changed people’s lives across the world.[2]
  • "JK Rowling becomes Companion of Honour for charity work": After being made an OBE in 2001, she is now becoming a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for her services to literature and philanthropy.[3]
  • "JK Rowling to receive human rights award": JK Rowling is to receive a prestigious award from literary and human rights group Pen America. [...] Pen (Poets, Essayists and Novelists) said it was honouring the author in recognition of her support for free expression and charitable causes.[4]

The extent of coverage by the media and the recognitions by many institutions of her philanthropic work make clear that it is one of the most prominent aspects of her public persona—in fact probably only second to being the author of the Harry Potter books. Natuff (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC); edited Natuff (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/11/harry-potter-jkrowling-influential-woman
  2. ^ https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/03/12/jk-rowling-receives-humanitarian-award-from-british-red-cross/
  3. ^ https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-becomes-companion-honour-charity-work-1447141
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35408331
  • And my search for "J K Rowling transphobia" receives 466,000 google hits, while "J K Rowling transgender" nets 4.6 million. But the decision was made in a recent RfC not to mention this in the lead sentence - perhaps because we do not base these decisions on google hits. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only mentioned the Google hits to show that media coverage of Rowling's philanthropic activities is certainly not lacking. It wasn't my only point though, I suggest you address the rest of my post too and elaborate on why you think she shouldn't be described as a philanthropist in the opening sentence. As you said, the transgender issue has already been debated and it's not relevant here, so why mention it? Natuff (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As previously stated, my point was that we do not base these decisions on google hits. I don't see any evidence in your post that her philanthropy is one of the most prominent aspects of her public persona—in fact probably only second to being the author of the Harry Potter books. In fact, I would say that the controversies about trans issues now firmly place second to being the author of the Harry Potter books as what she is known for - perhaps third if her management of the Wizarding World IP is broken off as a distinct topic from actual authorship (she has played a more prominent and successful role than, say, George R. R. Martin or the Tolkien estate in that respect, I would argue). Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly don't agree with your view of what makes Rowling renown besides the Harry Potter's books. As I already explained, my case doesn't rest solely on the number of Google hits. I produced sources that show how her philanthropic activity was acknowledged by notable institutions and commentators which assigned awards to Rowling because of it—weight, not just quantity. I would argue that if it is ever appropriate to describe a public figure as "philanthropist" in the opening sentence of their article, Rowling would qualify. However, after giving it some thought I must say that, since we don't have objective criteria to decide who is a philanthropist and who is not, the debate comes down to subjective views. In this case, it's probably best to leave "philanthropist" out of the opening sentence and stick with the definitions that are uncontroversial. Natuff (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The main thing that led to the deletion was that a few people (Me being among them) wondered if that word wasn't a bit loaded for wikipedia, and what would qualify someone for that description. As the first removal mentioned, the "brief consensus" was that there are no clear rules for it, it is used somewhat randomly across Wikipedia, and therefore it was best to remove it. The example I used earlier was that Richard Branson and Bill gates both have fairly large sections on their contributions to humanitarian causes, yet only bill gates has it mentioned in the lead, which makes it seem like its application is more based on their general reputation rather than their actual actions. which seems like a wrong way to go about it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a BRD edit removing it from bill gates' opening sentence too. seems logical that if we're going to to remove it we should be consistent about it.--Licks-rocks (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, Licks-rocks. Your removal of the "philanthropist" term from "Bill Gates" was clearly a mistake: Here we are discussing the merits of having that term in the lead sentence of "J. K. Rowling" without a consensus being reached yet about this specific case - and you go over to an entirely unrelated article and removed the term! Listing the term in BLPs is, as we all admit, practically the conventional approach. If we want the term "philanthropist" ostracized from any and all biographies, we should submit a proposal to the appropriate forum. Kudos, though, for re-introducing on your own the term. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the search engine counts quoted by OP or responders have the slightest relation to the reality of how many reliable sources support any of the terms searched for; they are completely useless for the purposes of this discussion. Please see #sidebar on search engine hits below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the removal of "philanthropist", both as contrary to the spirit of NPOV and based on the relative prominence of the descriptor compared to other relevant descriptors. Her alleged philanthropic activities are exceedingly obscure compared to her anti-trans activism, as measured by the media coverage. The only sources I see constantly referring to her as a "philanthropist" are anti-trans groups, and they really seem to mean her support for causes that demean marginalised groups rather than what most people would understand as any genuine philanthropy. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is rich. When Wikipedia is crammed full of bios of minor CEOs, pop singers and politicians who are described as a "philanthropist" if they so much as give anything to charity, here we have a figure who actually does fulfil the definition by giving substantial portions of their large fortune to good causes, as is documented in the article. It seems to me from some of the above discussion there's an attempt to make a WP:POINT in relation to the trans discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I would love to see this label removed from BLP leads in general in general. It's just someone here used it in an argument during the RFC and it piqued my interest. I do notice that a few people do seem to compare the two. This discussion probably won't benefit from happening on such a controversial page. I notice you reverted my edit on bill gates' page. Doesn't "philanhtropist" seem like a bit of a value judgement to you? what qualifies someone for that title, is there a certain percentage of one's income above which one qualifies? --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Those are questions best left to reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is an issue of compliance with WP:NPOV. "Philanthropist" can be used neutrally to describe someone who engages in philanthropic activities. It is not necessarily congratulatory, and philanthropic activities may be subjected to scrutiny and criticism. The word is commonly used in Wikipedia's articles. The issue here is the lack of objective criteria to determine who should be introduced as a philanthropist in the opening sentence of their article. As for Rowling's philanthropic activities being "exceedingly obscure compared to her anti-trans activism", that is patently false. They are described at length in the article, with plenty of reliable sources to back it up. Other sources, like the ones I posted here, show how they have been the object of public recognition multiple times. I don't know what you mean by "genuine philanthropy", but it seems to me that the last part of your comment reflects your subjective impressions rather than a demonstrable fact. Natuff (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain use of the term. There is no consensus to remove it, and WP:STATUS QUO demands it should remain while a discussion continues ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo"). I have no doubt this will be ignored - there seems to be some form of movement to paint Rowling as a dark figure, rather than retaining the neutral view. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided (Possibly move to later in the lede) I believe generosity by rightfully famous and wealthy persons should be both recognised and applauded, but I do also believe the term is heavily overused/misused throughout Wikipedia. Wealthy people can afford to donate more than others this is a welcome and positive fact. Should it be mentioned in the first sentence i doubt it, but later in the the lede I am not sure (especially while other notable people are similarly praised). ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above we have a whole lot of editors citing lead follows body for retaining two sentences on a viewpoint covered by a single sub section in the article. If thats the case we shouldn't remove a single word based on a whole section. In fact if lead follows body we should have more details in the lead about her philanthropy. Aircorn (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a stronger argument if the reliable, recent sourcing for the philanthropy were anywhere near as strong as the sourcing for the trans-related controversies. Just saying. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not how a lead works though. It summarises the body of the article. If there are problems with due weight in the body then fix that. Given that this is a well developed quality article with a lot of diverse attention I have no doubt that the body is in pretty good shape. Aircorn (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain As a recipient of a major honours' award for 'literature and philanthropy', it's reasonable to describe her as a philanthropist.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support retaining the descriptor. The sourcing seems sufficient and due. The timing of this during a tough debate on trans views in the lead is unfortunate. I'd suggest to those opposing 'philanthropist' but supporting mention in the lead of her trans views that they may be on the riskier side of the double-edged sword of hypocrisy. There's room enough in the lead for both topics, and I think the most consistent position is that the oceans of reliable coverage of both show that mention in the lead is due. Firefangledfeathers 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should one but not the other be in the lead sentence? especially if the strength of the reliable sources of the other is greater ? (due to overuse of the term throughout Wikipedia i have not selected removal). (I personally wish Philanthropy was discussed at another place to cover all BLPs equally). ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s entirely acceptable to have this in the lead sentence, but not the term in dispute. This is in line with MOS:OPENPARABIO “The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.” Rowling is known as an author; she received honours for literature and philanthropy. The philanthropic element needs to be in the lead. The trans question seems WP:UNDUE to me. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9DEB:AF22:C944:6AAE (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to many editors contributing to the RfC above the only thing J.K. Rowling is notable for is being a highly successful writer. Following that argument surely her positive generosity as as a philanthropist though much welcomed is a secondary side product of her success, it is certainly not something she is primary notable for. As such at best it should be later in the lead. Notability is not honours, it is whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re view of Rowling is being seen through the prism of the RfC above. She received an honour for literature and philanthropy. It’s difficult to ignore that aspect. To claim “Notability is not honours” is nonsense: recognition of activity from an official source is a measure of notability. I think trying to paint her as some darker figure than she really is completely breaches NPOV and NEUTRAL. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:780C:1D6B:539E:5075 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were possible to perfectly balance nuance and brevity, I'd support mentioning her views on trans people earlier in the opening, but I'm convinced that it's not. Philanthropist is short, verified, and due. Firefangledfeathers 20:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If we're turning this into a !Vote kind of thing, I'd support keeping philanthropist in the lede. One can be a philanthropist and still hold contrary views - the two are not exclusive. As the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article proper - there is an entire section devoted to philanthropy, so to mention it in the lede as a reflection of the article is justified. After all, this is the same reasoning that wishes to include any anti-trans commentary in the lede - that it has considerable mention in the article ergo warrants mention in the lede. Realistically, if ones stays then so should the other for the same reasons. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say her philanthropy should be removed from the lead entirely. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has actually proposed to drop the philanthropy discussion from the lead section. As I understand it, the only issue in this section concerns the lead sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least two editors seem to advocate removal entirely, either that or they're vague in what they actually do want:
"Honestly I would love to see this label removed from BLP leads in general" - Licks-rocks
"I support the removal of 'philanthropist', both as contrary to the spirit of NPOV and based on the relative prominence of the descriptor compared to other relevant descriptors" - Amanda A. Brant
Tbh, much of Amanda A. Brant's commentary is concerning in itself and shows very little NPOV, at least in opinion and manner of expression.
Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear - I see no reason for the same arguments put forward earlier that "philanthropist" should not be in the opening sentence.
A defining reason should simply be "does she meet the criteria as laid out in the common understanding of the term, or the article?" Regardless of her opinions in other areas (trans or not) she meets the criteria for this particular statement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the descriptor/badge is much abused/over used in BLPs in general, but I would much rather the was a separate discussion on a noticeboard that reached global consensus and guidance to limit the use of term in the leads and bodies of articles. So I very much agree with Licks-rocks regards a general site-wide approach to Philanthropy. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be made clear that an editor who has not even participated in this discussion has made the edit being discussed three times, which is totally unacceptable. Edit warring and restoring against STATUSQUO when a tp discussion is happening is bad practice. 1 2 3 NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you are at reading date stamps, NEDOCHAN, but the second and third diffs you provided come from before this discussion had opened, when a previous discussion had not revealed anyone opposing the removal of philanthropist. The first diff you provided seems - according to the edit summary - to have been an error, intended to move the adjective, as was accomplished by another editor. So maybe cool your jets, and pay a bit more attention to your own diffs before you throw accusations around. This wasn't edit warring ... when a tp discussion is happening, as you would have known had you checked your facts. Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I said is true. An editor who has not participated in this discussion (true) has made the edit being discussed three times (true). Restoring against STATUSQUO when a discussion is taking place is bad practice (true). Your assessment as to how an edit summary should be interpreted is far harder to prove than than the facts are.NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you did not mean to imply that an editor had restored the same text three times while the Talk page discussion on the issue was taking place? If that is true, you did a terrible job of communicating what you actually meant, and a great job of suggesting to other editors that you were making the argument that I refuted. If you were making that suggestion on purpose while knowing that your individually true statements led to a false implication, that is a much worse violation of WP:CIVIL than I had assumed. I hope you were not doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first comment in this discussion was made at 16:48 UTC, 29 November 2021. diff 3 was made at 07:41 UTC, 29 November 2021, approximately nine hours before this discussion began. diff 2 was made at 14.45 UTC on 29 November 2021, approximately two hours before this discussion began. diff 1 appears to have been a mistake made by FormalDude as the edit summary refers to putting the word back in it's correct place. This mistake was caught by Tewdar five minutes later.
So everything you said was true, except the details you are relying upon. The only diff that was after this discussion opened was, by analysis of the edit summary versus the content a clear mistake. Even if you want to discount that analysis, there was still only one diff after this discussion opened. So yeah, what Newimpartial said about cooling your jets and checking your facts before you make unsound accusations is solid advice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove it--here and in just about every other BLP of a rich and famous person. Few people are actually notable because they are philanthropists. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Drmies, typically one has to first possess enough money to be a philantropist. I cannot think of any person giving away money when that person does not have money. (Putting in work to help the needy is not defined as philanthropy.) So, rich people are in. But, more importantly, in biographies we are not supposed to include only what the subject is mainly notable for, but anything the subject is notable for, provided of course that the information is properly sourced and that the sources are enough to assign notability to our subject. A trivial examination of sources shows that Rowling is notable, and quite enough too, for her philanthropic work, no matter what we think of her politics or her stance on trans-persons' issues. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Gnome, it seems like you're responding to someone who said that only rich people are philanthropists--I didn't. What I find disconcerting here is the slippage: a philanthropist is NOT someone who "gives away money". It's rather the opposite: many rich people tend to give away money because they can and it makes em look good. Philanthropy is doing work (and Bill Gates meets that requirement, for instance), not just giving money. So if some hypothetical rich person gave ten million bucks for some good cause, that doesn't necessarily make them a philanthropist: it makes them someone who gave away a bunch of money. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Drmies, your definition seems a little restrictive. Rowling isn't a doctor, so she donated £10 million to Edinburgh university to research multiple sclerosis because they are medical professionals and would be the best people to use the money. Seems that there are times when giving a bunch of money away is the best option. You're right, it doesn't necessarily make them a philanthropist, but it doesn't automatically exclude them either. And given the multiple occasions on her donations to wide and varied causes, that seems to meet the philanthropy requirement of "private initiatives, for the public good, focusing on quality of life". Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          If she had donated 10 million to malaria prevention would she still be considered a philanthropist to the same level of Bill Gates, who has dedicated a large majority of his time over the last decade+ to establishing systems to do so, meeting with heads of state and industry leaders for this purpose? Would we consider Charlie Munger a philanthropist for donating 200 million to a dorm project in UCSB? I'm not sure those three are equivalent to each other and so the bar one needs to meet to be called philanthropist in the lead should be pretty high. Also, 10 million when you're a billionaire is less than I donate proportionally to my income every year and I don't get called a philanthropist. It's more of a symbolic sum of money than anything, if you ask me. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, A. C. Santacruz, your opinion as to what constitutes a "true" philanthropist might or might not be correct but, as we all know, what matters here are not our personal opinions. We go by sources. And, as I verified just now, to make sure, practically every source one can scare up confirms that Rowling is a philanthropist. Of course, if we want to set a certain "higher" bar for that attribute in biographies, we can always hoist up a specific proposal at the appropriate forum. I'd love to take part in such a discussion. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. I'm responding to you, Drmies , no mistake there - and your subsequent commentary supports my response. First, you assign to all "rich people" ulterior, egoistical motives for all their philanthropy, which renders their philanthropy a strictly narcissistic endeavor. If that's what sources state, then start a proposal to drop all mentions of philanthropy from rich persons' biographies in Wikipedia. I doubt it'd get much traction, but go ahead. Second, you conflate philanthropy with volunteer work, e.g. helping out at a homeless shelter. But philanthropy is not strictly "doing work"! By your definition, a physically incapacitated person who cannot put in a minute's physical work yet gives away money for a good cause would not qualify as a philanthropist. As to Bill Gates, well, he is one because, first and foremost, -drum roll-, he gives away money. He's a rich fellow and can afford to. End of story - and whatever motives you want to assign to rich folks giving money you are obliged to do the same with ol' rich boy Bill. Your personal definition of philanthropy ("some hypothetical rich person gave ten million bucks for some good cause, that doesn't necessarily make them a philanthropist: it makes them someone who gave away a bunch of money") runs smack against the definition in every dictionary and Wikipedia (private initiatives, for the public good, focusing on quality of life, e.g. financing anti-poverty & children's welfare organizations, financind research for diseases, donating to charities that support sick persons, etc.: Exactly what Rowling's done). -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those "private initiatives", that quote from the lead, how am I contradicting that at all? And that stuff about "a physically incapacitated person"--it's ridiculous to put those words in my mouth. "Work" doesn't mean grabbing a shovel and digging trenches. Come one. No, I'm not confusing anything, but I get the feeling that you enjoy twisting my words. Have fun. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your take is entirely false: I did not "twist" your words, Drmies, nor did I "put words" in your mouth. The example of a "physically incapacitated person" was given by me, simply in order to demonstrate that your claim that philanthropists are only those who "put in the work" is totally off the mark. Take a breather and examine more closely who has qualified in the world's sources and Wikipedia as a "philanthropist" and you'll see. In any case, and to lay off this bagatelle, I leave the stage to you for any further commentary: I made my view clear and that's all I can do. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided for now – but leaning to moving lower down in the lead. Quoting two items from MOS:LEADSENTENCE:
    • The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
    • Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
At first blush, it seems to me the first sentence says *too much* about what "hats" she wears, and *not enough* (actually, nothing at all) about what makes her notable, which we all know what it is. Based on this, I'd lean towards something like this for the first sentence:

Joanne Rowling [nominals, pronunciation] (born 31 July 1965), better known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British author, known around the world for her Harry Potter fantasy series, which has won multiple awards and sold more than 500 million copies,[2][3] becoming the best-selling book series in history.[4]

That adheres much better to the guideline, in my opinion. As to where to place information about her film and tv production hats, the fact is, the article says very little about either of these. There are 14 occurrences of producer in the body of the article, only one in the running text referring to her (i.e., not her agent or someone else), and four (implied) in the table from four "Yeses", so five mentions total, with almost no text devoted to it. As for philanthropist, there's an entire section about it, which means it's easily important enough to include in the Lead, but isn't principally what she is known for, so I'd lean to moving it further down. Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC) (see updated vote below; Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The only suggestion I'd have for this, at this time, would be to maybe add her other pen name of Robert Galbraith, as that is what name her Cormoran Strike series is authored under. While not as large a cultural impact as Harry Potter, they are still somewhat well received and notable as far as I know. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a sidebar comment about producer - while I agree that this "hat" is not very important in itself, it seems to me that it represents an aspect of her very active role in management of the Wizarding World IP (as do her screenwriting contributions, for that matter). I suspect that this will eventually he looked on as part of Rowling's lasting legacy, and just wish the quality sources would pay more attention to it. End of sidebar. Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the opening sentence has been decided through a previous, now-closed RfC. I strongly believe that, on controversial issues such as Rowling's biography article, editors should avoid repetition of arguments and RfC's. Otherwise, we would only march in place. (Your suggestion is not bad at all, in itself, IMHO. All I'm saying is that, after spending so many human-hours on this article, we should be aiming for progress.) -The Gnome (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a fair point. Too bad I missed that one, and hopefully I'll get pinged or bot-summoned for the next one, or notice when it happens. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above proposal truly is an excellent opening sentence, and we should endeavour to write many more like it. Actually give the reader a couple of key concrete facts, rather than a generic laundry list of roles that we always seem to default to.--Trystan (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from lead sentence, but keep in lead section. The lead sentence is already quite long. It should only describe the most important key elements of the biography, and Rowling's philanthropy is not one of the most important topics. However, there is enough reliably sourced content dedicated to it that it can be mentioned elsewhere in the lead briefly. ––FormalDude talk 05:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with this. I feel we should remove philanthropy from the lead sentence here, but retain the existing brief mention further down in the lead. MOS:LEADSENTENCE says to try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; philanthropy is notable but tertiary and doesn't pass that standard - people are presenting sources sufficient to establish that it is notable for somewhere in the article, but the standard for the lead sentence is much stricter and should focus on the core definition of the topic needed for readers to orient themselves on what the article is about, comparable to how the subject is casually described in the preponderance of sources rather than trying to squeeze in everything potentially noteworthy written about them everywhere. That said, this argument is hardly limited to this article - philanthropy should, by default, not be mentioned in the lead sentence in any article where it's not a major aspect of the subject's notability; almost anyone with a lot of money tends to donate significant raw amounts of it, and these donations tend to attract coverage, but that doesn't make it a core defining aspect of the topic. The lead sentence should focus laser-tight on their main source of notability and their core description, as they appear when mentioned normally; very, very few people are casually introduced as "philanthropist" in settings outside those directly related to their philanthropy, meaning that it's rarely a good descriptor for a first sentence. We have the rest of the lead to discuss secondary stuff like what they did with the money earned from their main source of notability. That, however, is obviously a larger discussion that can't be settled here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move lower in lead – exclude from the first sentence, in order "to not overload the first sentence by describing everything" about her; but keep in the lead, because there's a lot of information about it in reliable sources, and an entire section in the article that deserves summarization, and per "spread the relevant information out over the entire lead". Towards the end of the third paragraph, which introduces her " 'rags to riches' life" would be the perfect place for this. (this is an update of my undecided comment above) Mathglot (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from lead sentence, but keep in lead section per FormalDude. I like Mathglot's proposed lead sentence a lot. The vast majority of people know Rowling as the author of HP; far fewer know her other works and activities. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC) (Oops, just noticed the comment about the earlier RfC. So yeah, just remove from lead sentence but keep in the lead section).[reply]
  • Retain at least in the lead section. I've observed before that most very wealthy people engage in some philanthropy, but Rowling has received awards and honors for hers, which makes it a part of her broad notability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from first sentence, keep in lead section per Aquillion and FormalDude. Squeezing too much into the first sentence is just poor form. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She's not noted for being a producer. David Heyman produced all the HP films.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move lower: as Mathglot says above and Aquillion says in the subsection below, it's a thing she's somewhat notable for (so, reasonable to mention in the lead section), but it's not the (or even a) defining WP:LEADSENTENCE thing. -sche (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. The fact she has entire section dedicated to her philanthropy demonstrates that it is worth noting in the lead paragraph, per MOS:LEADPARA.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find (presumably unintended) hilarity in editors whose !votes argue that a philantropy section merits inclusion of "philanthropist" in the lead sentence, but the comparable section on the transgender controversies - for which the quality sourcing is considerably stronger - does not merit a mention in the lead section at all. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An... interesting voting choice, yeah.--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 100% what you are saying here but those two discussions are distinct. MOS:LABEL applies to something terms like "transphobic" unlike the term "philanthropist".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Newimpartial is observing that the two discussions are both content disputes over well-sourced material, and therefore one could assume your response to one would be based on at least somewhat similar reasoning as your response to the other. A lack of any such correlation suggests cherry-picking the justifications used in your response–rather than actually believing them. In other words, you appear to be deciding your !vote first and then coming up with policies that support it, when it should be the other way around. ––FormalDude talk 12:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - Best not to hide in any way, that she is a philanthropist. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The ongoing discussion about her political views is much closer to "hiding content" than this proposal is. Here all we're doing is suggesting a slightly lower placement in the lead, for an arguably equally well sourced topic, and yet at the other discussion you're supporting removing any mention of the political views in the lead entirely. That would be called censorship by some.
    It just seems very telling, especially with your lack of any policy-based argument here. ––FormalDude talk 02:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your attempts to annoy, isn't working. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was an opportunity for you to better explain and justify your lackluster comment. ––FormalDude talk 11:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't owe you any kind of further explanation & won't be giving you any. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No one owes anyone explanations, you are entitled to your inconsistencies like other editors here. You have every right to be contradictory and not give a rational reason why her less notable but generous Philanthropy should remain in the opening sentence, while at the same time you're voting to expunge any mention of Rowling's political views Leave it out completely. She's most notable as an author from the lead entirely, even though the latter has has far more international coverage in the reliable press media. (Please note: i have not voted to remove her Philanthropy from the lead but to move it down from lead sentence) ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm content to allow the RFC closer to judge my 'survey' post at the aforementioned RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move lower It's notable that she is no longer a billionaire because of her philanthropy. But, writing and producing got Rowling there.Fred (talk)

Please be careful about using the tally on the first SRP (search result page) of Google or other search engines indicating the "total number of results", especially for unquoted results This doesn't mean what most searchers think it does, and for most discussions like this one, is almost useless as evidence. For example, the claim at the top that

Searching "jk rowling philanthropist" gives me 91,300 results on Google...

is not helpful, because of how Google's relevance algorithm works, it will continue to show less and less relevant results, that do not contain all the search terms, and may not contain any of them. To get a better idea of the real number of results actually relevant to the query, you have to advance through the SRPs (click the "next" arrow, or one of the page numbers at the bottom). For this particular query, when you get to page 22 (containing results #210 and above) you will find that there are no more than 211 results for this query. (I should say, when "I get to page 22", because your results may be different based on your location, your settings, and your previous search history; your results may be different.)

But not even all of these 211 results are necessarily indicative of reliable sources about J.K. Rowling's philanthropy so you have to go through and examine them, or at least, sample them. For example, result #203 (for me) on page 21 of results, is "Ep. 10: Tom Hanks and Dave Chappelle Pardon Turkeys in a Time Machine". This is considered by Google the 203rd most relevant result for the search j k rowling philanthropist. Why? Because if you go to that page and scroll down, you'll find Player FM's blurb and link to "Ep. 5: J.K. Rowling and Bill Gates are Naked and Afraid after Scary E.R. Stories" about half-way down the page. Nothing about philanthropy, but there doesn't have to be; after all, we're on the 21st SRP. Many of the results before this are entirely irrelevant wrt to her philanthropy as well, so the number is considerably less than 200, not 91,000 or 500,000.

As another indication of why the initial numbers are not helpful, if j k rowling philanthropist returns 500k results, and j k rowling numismatist returns 200k, what does that tell us, that she collects coins two hours a day, and sends out checks to charity for five hours? (Anyone want to guess how many results for j k rowling marine biologist?)

So, please be very careful about using search engine hit counts for comparisons; none of the figures I've seen above contribute anything usable (positive or negative) about what the comparative standing in reliable sources really is. That doesn't mean one should give up and not use search engines; it means the queries have to be carefully composed and targeted, and the analysis has to be more sophisticated than just throwing numbers out there from the first page of simple, unquoted queries. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I edited my comment. Natuff (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in addition to this... J. K. Rowling with no qualifiers has 38,500,000 results. If we only have 91,300 results with "philanthropist" included, that suggests that she's referred to a philanthropist around 0.2% of the time she's discussed, which makes it hard to support the argument that it's a major aspect of her notability. For the record, "J.K. Rowling" "martian" has 195,000 results, so if we're going to say she's a philanthropist in the lead sentence based on those results, we should also make it clear to readers that she's a martian. Part of the underlying issue here is that even if the raw search results were accurate, the massive amount of coverage means that even very tangential things are going to have a lot of hits. That's why I feel a random sample is best, as I described below - we're not judging is there enough coverage to mention this at all, but is this one of the absolute most important things anyone could know about her? So the important thing is what percentage of references highlight that, rather than raw numbers. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Put another way, is it majority, minority, or fringe coverage—i.e., is it WP:DUE in the lead or not? Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is that the ideal way to try and judge things like this (how is the subject normally described? What is the balance of coverage?), especially for topics with a lot of coverage like this one, is to take a random selection from searching just their name with no qualifiers, and quote the primary description from each source the first time it comes up. I'd be willing to do that if people think it would resolve this (or someone else could), but I think it's obvious enough that that kind of random selection would not mention philanthropy with any particular frequency that I figure I should ask whether it's worth it first. --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the way to do it. I'd just qualify it slightly, to: "description from each [independent] source the first time it comes up". Multiple, reliable, secondary sources are often, but not always, WP:INDEPENDENT. Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off list of awards

I don't see the need to include the whole list in this article. Some major ones (e.g. National Book Award, OBE, Principe de Asturias) are worth including, but other ones (Nestle) are definitely not as important, and could be better off in a separate list article called List of awards received by J. K. Rowling with a short summary of the important ones in this article. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, see Laurence_Olivier#Honours for a great example on how to do this, with its associated article (FL-class) here. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia: WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force, Wikipedia: WikiProject Women, Wikipedia: WikiProject Women writers, Wikipedia: WikiProject Children's literature, Wikipedia: WikiProject Bristol, Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia: Version 0.5. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the current content justifies a split. If you expand the section then that's another matter. I'm no fan of Nestlé's public image whitewashing campaigns to downplay their history of child endangerement, but the Children's Book Prize (given by BookTrust and sponsored by Nestlé) looks notable. JKR is not really comparable to Olivier as acting awards are more numerous than book awards. — Bilorv (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bilorv. It's the same reason that J K Rowling bibliography simply redirects here. Despite being a notable author, she has published a very small selection of books and papers, which isn't extensive enough to justify a new article. The section could use some rewriting, though, and maybe then it would need to be split. Isabelle 🔔 15:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say there needs to be a split, no. It seems fine as it is. Joe (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the need to split this content. There is a lot of fat in the article that can be trimmed just by a good copyedit, so I don’t see the need for this relevant content to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the work at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, I have changed my opinion and now support creating List of honours and awards received by J. K. Rowling (it should not be confined to just "awards"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone still following this discussion please revisit per Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Update 8 Jan? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see follow up discussion on the Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who previously opined here, @Bilorv, Isabelle Belato, and JoePhin: (except A. C. Santacruz who is involved at the FAR and has already opined).

On the Featured article review, work has advanced towards converting the list now here to prose, and we have already trimmed some content from awards. Further, new sources indicate some awards and honours we have left out (see here, and Pugh has others).

Could previous participants revisit their opinions re the usefulness of a separate List of honours and awards received by J. K. Rowling, considering the trimming and conversion to prose proposed on the FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, SandyGeorgia. The prose version looks good, and is obviously an improvement over a simple list; I also appreciate removing some of the less notable awards. With the added prose, a separate article could be a useful place to add tables with the awards, as well as a place to further expand in the future. So I guess I wouldn't be against it. Isabelle 🔔 16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A separate list is now up at List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Status update at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Update 8 Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about converting the Awards and honours section to prose on the Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Wikiproject

Please stop adding this article to the Bristol Wikiproject. This article is not relevant to the Bristol Wikiproject. JKR's Wikipedia page does not explain any connection to Bristol, and the Bristol article (and sub-articles) do not mention JKR. If there were a relevant, non-trivial connection, it would be mentioned in those articles. "The article might be of interest to Bristol editors" is not a good reason to add it to a Wikiproject - by that logic we could it add it to every Wikiproject, and make all Wikiprojects as cluttered with random articles as the Bristol project currently is. If an editor is interested in this topic, they will follow the article or one of the Wikiprojects that it's actually relevant to. The editors who follow the Bristol Wikiproject might be interested in all sorts of random topics, but they one thing they're all interested in is Bristol topics, of which JKR is not one.

Adding articles to Wikiprojects means that those projects get notifications for any issues that come up on those articles. When an article is subject to many such issues, as this one seems to be, those notifications can drown out everything else that is happening on those projects and become spam. Overfilling Wikiprojects with off topic or very very tenuously connected topics therefore makes them less useful, not more.

Thank you. Joe D (t) 13:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She's "Bristol's most famous daughter" according to the BBC, in part because of her primary schooling in Winterbourne. I've added that to the article now. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on how wide an area the Bristol Wikiproject covers - which I guess is a matter for them. Winterbourne is near Bristol but is certainly not within the City of Bristol, and it is very debatable (depending on precise definitions, which vary) whether it falls within the wider Bristol metropolitan area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her Winterbourne school has a Bristol address[21]. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects are not based on postcodes, I think. The BS postcode area is quite extensive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK there are 2 different questions here now - whether it's correct/useful/normal to describe Winterbourne as part of Bristol, and whether it's useful for this page to be included in the Bristol Wikiproject, and I don't think the answer to the latter necessarily depends on the former. The latter question I think is also one which is more properly discussed over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bristol#JK_Rowling_-_relevant_to_this_Wikiproject, as it's a question which affects members of the Wikiproject while probably being of very little interest or relevance to people who follow this talk page. Joe D (t) 13:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources describe Winterbourne as being "Bristol". It has a Bristol address, and Winterbourne is within the scope of WPBristol; so that seems clear enough. Whether WPBristol members want to keep an eye on a person who may be (slightly) connected with Bristol is up to them. Maybe they could help clarify the extent of any Bristol aspect to Rowling's bio. But to assert there is no connection and three times remove it from the Project without discussions seems like a very odd way of going about things. Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that anywhere with a BS postcode has "a Bristol address" is mistaken. As the map shows, the postcode area extends for at least 30 miles beyond Bristol in several directions. But, it's a matter for the WikiProject as to whether Rowling falls within their remit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're straw-manning. The school has a Bristol address: on its website it is literally "St Michael's C of E Primary School, Linden Close, Winterbourne, Bristol BS36 1LG". That might be debatable but to find it "bizarre" shows a rather ill-tuned sense of what is bizarre. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "bizarre" to a more appropriate wording! As someone who used to work on policy issues for that area, I know that many (probably most) residents of Winterbourne would be extremely hostile to the idea that they were in any way, shape or form "part of" Bristol, postcode boundaries notwithstanding. But, that may not be relevant here (or sourced). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies - to cite or not to cite

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1
 – AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging suggestion

AleatoryPonderings in the instances where you are (rightfully) objecting to marginal sources, might you consider leaving the citation and tagging those with {{Better source needed}} rather than completely removing them? Sometimes the lesser sources provide important keywords that can be used to locate a better source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will do, sorry. If there are any in particular you or others need, happy to rummage back in the history for the old ones. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're good ... I am plugging away in userspace at trimming the Politics section and will post that to the FAR when done (just so you don't waste time in there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Proposal to trim "Politics" section. Please comment there. I will insert later tonight unless someone objects (and minor tweaks can be made after/if it is inserted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religious opposition

Zaathras, Respectfully, my addition regarding opposition to Harry Potter by Christian groups is more comprehensive and has better sources than Special:PermaLink/1064957190#Legal_disputes, which is meagre and undersourced. Further, religious opposition is not the same thing as a legal dispute. Please self-revert and/or add the religious opposition portions of #Legal disputes to the paragraph I added, as opposed to removing outright. Also, I think the single sentence you are referring to was left—either by me or one of the other editors helping on this WP:FA rescue project—before moving to a different section. It would have been much easier simply to remove that sentence than reverting the addition of an entire paragraph. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reversion was of very well-sourced content. The legal disputes section has not yet been rewritten, and is not yet an adequate summary. Reversion of the content is not justified; discussing how to better rework both sections would be more productive, but Zaathras, please recognize that both sections are actively being reworked on the WP:FAR. Please self-revert, and discuss ways to improve both sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not. The same content does not belong in 2 sections. Pick one. Zaathras (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so I have picked one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zaathras the single misplaced sentence in Legal disputes is now gone. As this content is actively being improved and worked on, such an oversight is not unusual, and a collaborative approach is to point out duplication rather than reverting an entire well-sourced paragraph. The 2-section has been resolved by removing the wayward sentence and restoring the paragraph to the correct place; please discuss when you see such issues rather than revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&oldid=1065356439"