Jump to content

User talk:ImaginesTigers/sandbox3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:ImaginesTigers
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ImaginesTigers (talk | contribs) at 11:22, 7 September 2025 (→Loki: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello! You may have been pinged or you might have found your way here directly.

This page exists to gather feedback. My overall goal is to address the issues I outlined during the FAR period (1, 2, 3, 4). You can see examples of my previous content on my Talk page.

  1. Place Rowling's recent activity within biographical context, comprehensively outlining what's been happening with her from the 2010s till now.
  2. Outline Rowling's views, balanced against new, high-quality scholarship.
  3. Consistently deploy summary style, with Rowling as the preferred primary subject for all material, particularly literary sections. Ensure consistent depth of coverage across the article.

There are things you can do to help. This is a lot of work for one editor, and I have my own bias (it isn't hidden). I need a range of people to tell me what matters to them.

  • Review the structure against the mainspace article. Examine content in the live structure, and try to determine where it would live in the new structure. Make a heading with your name and say what you think.
  • If you want to work on a particular section, please let me know. I'm happy to quickly provide a bunch of sources and highlight what I think would work. I'm going to start adding useful sources to the sandbox to understand how much material we have to work with. If elements look think, we might want to merge the section with another.
  • There's a sandbox talk with a working list of sources. Add peer-reviewed journal articles or published books to it.((Be careful not to add journal forum articles, or theses, or conference papers!)
  • If you believe something important is missing, not neutral, incorrect, give it below as feedback. Same goes if you are worried about the opposite (i.e., about something inappropriate being added). I'll investigate with a very open mind and give my thoughts. I'm basically a coordinator here—if we're really far apart, article Talk is the final arbiter. I do believe we can limit the need for RFCs if I'm open minded with suggestions & produce content designed to get consensus from a large group. Again, bear with me.

I've spent loads of time time reviewing Talk archives. If you're a frequent participant, I've definitely already got what you've said bouncing around my head. But leave feedback anyway saying what matters to you right now. Assume the best of me, trust in Wikipedia's policies, and I think we can all be satisfied with the end result. I also think it'll produce faster improvement than delisting and arguing on Talk!

Hoping to hear from you soon.

– ImaginesTigers 13:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam

Adam, have a look at the comment above in relation to this proposal (version).

I think, at this point, there's no real evidence of philanthropy in quite a few years that isn't related to anti-trans campaigning. I think that "philanthropist" needs to go from the lead sentence, as an artefact of her past, or her anti-trans campaigning needs to go into it. Otherwise, I feel like NPOV isn't going to be achieved. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 07:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam. I've moved this into the section heading I made for you when I made this page; hope that's okay. Right now I just want to gather feedback from lots of people and I appreciate there's been some "collab breakdowns". All this page represents is me trying to get feedback.
I understand your pain on this, but I don't have a quick fix. A lead rewrite is sorely needed but I can't justify spending time on band-aid fixes. I think you're probably right to open a Talk discussion (although I hope it doesn't create another RFC—I'm optimistic we can make these changes if we just improve the article). While I can't spend time on it, I've collapsed some analysis with likely arguments from both sides and with a recommendation based on that; below that, you'll find my long-term vision (a position shared by others).
In the longer term, my position is along these lines (more detail here): I want to remove the #Philanthropy heading. Beyond the two old biographies, very few sources have Rowling's charitable activity as a primary topic. Early charitable activity belongs with earlier biographical coverage. Her recent activity, like the women's shelter and legal fund etc, should be contextualised alongside what she's been doing recently. These structural changes would require a lead rewrite (and I think fix this issue). In part the current lead being bloated/scattered makes it harder to apply band aid fixes. FWIW my lead proposal would likely just call her a writer. – ImaginesTigers 11:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I've put together a "transgender reception" section on on this page. Happy to get any feedback. – ImaginesTigers 17:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alalch E.

Hello Alalch E. Given your feedback on the Talk, hope it's alright that I made this section for you. I've put together a new section and would appreciate any feedback. It's a first draft so welcome any comments. Ultimately these sections are going to be the biggest blocker on getting consensus to update the page, so getting something everyone's basically content with is important. Thank you – ImaginesTigers 17:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping and the work. Reading the section now, it does look pretty good. I previously (minutes ago) left this comment on talk. I think that a "Public image" section is better than "Views". —Alalch E. 11:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To hew closer to the status quo, I think I'm going to try having a full first draft that includes both Public image and Views. Hopefully I can do this in such a way that it's easy to translocate the material to the biography if what's what others want. – ImaginesTigers 11:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. —Alalch E. 11:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her reading at the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony was removed from the article for reasons that I feel are more organizational than anything. The same information would have no problem fitting within an/the improved layout. For example, her Harvard commencement speech is still mentioned in a totally unrelated place, yet the Olympics appearance is a higher profile one and more noteworthy (The Atlantic: "Performances paid tribute to British heritage and culture, from agrarian beginnings through pop culture successes like the Beatles and J.K. Rowling."), and these appearances form a thread and should be covered together, as they are a facet of her public persona (The New Yorker: "Rowling is not a recluse: she read at the opening ceremony of the London Olympics; she was Harvard's commencement speaker in 2008; she ...") during a certain period. —Alalch E. 16:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E.: Those sources are good finds! I'll get them into the draft now for revision down the line. Thanks very much for these – very happy to get more here (or add them to the source page, which is split up by section). – ImaginesTigers 11:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LittleLazyLass

LLL, last time you commented on this idea, you were open-minded but had concerns (here), so I'm keen to get thoughts from you.

Sandy

Sandy, have a look at the comment above in relation to this proposal (version).

Got it, but the next three days are crazy for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note ... Other literary reception rather than "Wider literary reception", because HP is the "widest" reception? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – ImaginesTigers 18:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The side by side is really helpful, thanks for doing that. Can we make it collapsible? (I suck at tables.) – ImaginesTigers 20:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done (that may be all I have time for until later today ... haven't taken a good look yet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all, I'm amazed at how differently the side-by-side makes me see it. I'm spotting bits I don't like now... but I'll resist the urge to tweak. It's just to get conversation going, after all. Thanks again, talk soon. – ImaginesTigers 20:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to sleep now – your comments below make sense but hope you don't mind waiting till tomorrow evening; office day tomorrow. I will say – when it comes to the award, this is where I think we let sources guide placement (see that Talk post I keep linking to). I've started that sourcing work here (query "J. K. Rowling" on JSTOR from 2022–2025) and I read quick but that'll still take time. Appreciate you making time for this given all that's going on. – ImaginesTigers 22:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Random stuff (not yet focused):

  • Have you got in mind a way to discuss philanthropy before wealth (philanthropy followed wealth)? Or can philanthropy become 4.2? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re, Name "could be absorbed into 'Publishing Harry Potter' ", not opposed to trying but in the past, curiosity/confusion about her name was such a big issue that it had to be mentioned up top. Maybe since she is better known now, moving it down would work, but not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re, "Remarriage, family and religion", we struggled so last time with how to name this section, and religion is still such a small part of the content there, that now may be the time to figure out a better way to ditch religion from the section title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have a better idea of what you're intending to accomplish here, but I'm wondering if:
  • Re "Awards and honours", you say "Incorporates content from 'Awards and honours', but IMO, this is also where the bit about Rowling returning the Ripple of Hope Award in 2020 (not in 'Views')." I could be convinced, but since RFK was her hero (covered earlier), that she would return that reward speaks to the strengths of her views in the Transgender section, so I prefer that placement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Sandy - replies:
    • Re, Name [...] not opposed to trying but in the past, [...]: I find this persuasive as to my own position. As a general barometer, I was basically thinking – "Where will this come up in sourcing?" I imagine this topic would largely be covered in biographies (I notice it opens at least two of them), so figured it might belong better in the biographical section. I see the long history of Talk threads about it mentioned on the Talk template though so perhaps it's right to keep it (less change = more likely to get consensus). – ImaginesTigers 18:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you got in mind a way to discuss philanthropy before wealth (philanthropy followed wealth)? Or can philanthropy become 4.2? In Victoria's sandbox she suggests this material be spread across the biographical section and I think there's a lot of value to that idea. Keen to discuss this with Victoria. May sourcing hold the answer – i.e., do we have multiple book-or-journal sources that have Rowling's philanthropy as their explicit subject? – ImaginesTigers 18:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Background: Ealdgyth looked at every book bio on Rowling available. Rowling has never authorized a biography, and most of the bios besides Smith and Kirk (the two we used) were aimed at children or not from great publishers. So we ruled those out and stuck with Smith and Kirk, which used to be available at archive.org, but no longer are.
      The structure of the bio most definitely reflected these "discrete bubbles" (Victoria's term) of Smith and Kirk-- mostly Smith. You can find a summary of the TOC of Smith at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6#Smith bio. There were chapters dedicated to these "discrete package"s, and a narrative specifically including how the religious attacks enhanced her fame, increased her wealth, fame led to Hollywood, more wealth, which led to ... her wanting to use her fame and wealth for good ... and then a separate chapter on philanthropy. Pugh's biographical paragraphs follow a very similar pattern.
      The only other work that I'm aware of to look specifically at her philanthropy is the Forbes article now used in our article.
      I'm not saying the article structure has to stick with the way it was done in 2022, but if you want to base the structure on sources, the structure we have now in the biographical part reflected sources -- particularly in how it broke out pieces like philanthropy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Understood. I suppose, to explain where I'm coming from (separate from your points): from a philosophical perspective (decompartmentalisation), I lean towards integrating philanthropic activity within the biography according to the time period of the philanthropic activity. I see some ostensible 'neutrality' wins, given the "puff piece" complaints. For instance, we see debate arising over (for example) Rowling's funding for a women's centre. If that's in a "Philanthropy" section, briefly mentioning the conversation around it is much more challenging in summary style. As part of a 2020–2025 biography entry, it'd be a bit easier. I certainly wouldn't be against using philanthropy for one of the biographical subject headings (e.g., the post-Potter years). I find the current section a bit disappointing (chiefly the final two hanging paragraphs of the current section—the last should be at the start, and the second-last is clearly political and not conventional charity in the way Lumos is).
      That Forbes article is helpful, but would you agree the primary topic of that piece is her wealth (fitting into the lucrative Potter years)? Philanthropy is only given 3–4 sentences there. I definitely see your perspective and the value of grouping it, but I hope you can bear with me as my own develops! If you're quite firm on this, it might be something sorted out at Talk; at the same time, retaining it in a heading hews closer to the status quo, which may also make it easier to get consensus. Let me know if you have more thoughts. – ImaginesTigers 16:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ImaginesTigers... First para -- no problem, not firm at all. Overall, if you are willing to take on improvements here, IMO you are in the driver seat, and happy to work with your organization. (Note that right now there is a duplicate entry on Philanthropy that was added last week and no one has dealt with -- content in both Views and Philanthropy, so someone else was confused -- and I wish someone would delete that dupe edit.) I was just addressing past criticism about organization (which was very much source based). I would note though that the NOTNEWSy RECENTism additions on Philanthropy (like the one I mentioned that is duplicated) tend towards taking her donations that pale in comparison to her three big concerns and dump them in, so we might want to think about a threshhold. When someone has donated hundreds of millions, do we really need to mention every little bit?
      Second para, agree. But see my response on first para ... the Forbes article does give context and provides relative amounts re both wealth and philanthropy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • ditch religion from the section title Not mentioned explicitly by Victoria in her sandbox, but – same idea as above? I see the same basic trend (it's assembling info from across her life). If we're rewriting to be summary style, we can move the current footnote into the early life section, move the bit about church attendance into the biography section about her remarriage, and probably mention it again when outlining Christian influence in HP? (Helps make that more about her too)
    • you repeat that in Public image There's some duplicates just to get some chat going. Not sure what my position on this is yet. When I put it in "Public persona", it's because of the first paragraph in the Variety piece that we have consensus to include. A lot of that's about her public persona and it is covered in some journal articles/books. The Variety piece mentions how the online communities like MuggleNet "denounced [her] views" and "severed ties". I'm not informed, but maybe that earlier sourcing will exist about these communities/Rowling doing Q&As with them/etc? – ImaginesTigers 18:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I seem to remember Kirk covering this, but I could be wrong. I never purchased those books because they were freely available at archive.org then ... unfortunately, as they are the only bios, you may have to get hold of them. The good news is you can read them in a very quick sitting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't worry – I've got them all already. I have very useful institutional access. – ImaginesTigers 16:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Great! I was troubled when some of the connections between sections were removed in recent purges, but that's moot with you starting over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      PS, I purchased Errington should you need anything from there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re "Awards and honours" Makes sense. I guess what I am thinking here is – we make that situation a bit less dense by distributing the material. On top, I feel the strength of Rowling's views are quite easy to grasp from how many there are, and that we make it easier to provide a selection of those views (selection TBC based on sourcing) and accompany DUEWEIGHT views if there's a little more space. Might it even simply belong in the chronological biography – it was in 2020, so quite early – as part of the "statements of fact" train? – ImaginesTigers 18:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      When we were writing in 2022, the strength wasn't as apparent as today, so the Ripple of Hope bit said a lot then. I still think it quite important as a reflection of the strength of her views, but defer to y'all as to placement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those comments, I don't see this not working, and don't see those who want to be sure the Transgender section stays prominent being disappointed, and I think/hope Vanamonde93 would find this workable. The only thing I would add is that I've always been a stickler on WP:SIZE. I may have once begrudgingly passed on opposing an article with more than 10,000 words of readable prose, but I prefer staying within the 8–9,000 words of readable prose range. Do you think that doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never produced an FA before that approached 10k words, but they weren't BLPs, and I will have many co-collaborators. Summary style must be enforced; as is, there are many places where that isn't true. In a straight copy-edit, I think the size would drop.
Speaking to the literary sections in particular. Some content I like (e.g., the bit about the Mirror of Erised ties directly to Rowling) but much I don't (Paintings move and talk; books bite readers; letters shout messages; and maps show live journeys, making the wizarding world "both exotic and cosily familiar" according to the scholar Catherine Butler). If I did a redraft for this material, being honest, I think it'd be more summary style/more explicitly centring Rowling... but that the overall size might go up.
In theory the sole new section (Public image) new sourcing but would mostly use existing material. I think >10k words is very unlikely but between 9,000–10,000 is probable; it's currently at 8.7k and there's a lot of literary stuff I'd want to add (condensing existing material). – ImaginesTigers 19:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relieved ... some editors staunchly defend ultra-long articles, and I would not be excited to pitch in on a venture that was going to produce 11,000 words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the bigger picture, it's not hard to appreciate that some of today's criticism of the article is related to different sections being mostly written by different authors. I'm thinking that, to make this work, it may need to have primarily one voice, so you may have to be sure you want to be that voice :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the first bit! When it comes to the second, I'd probably say that the final output's voice will be consistent, concise summary style. If I and other collaborators do our job right, content produces by different people should be indistinguishable. Given the recent delist declarations, I'm going to make my own soon, hoping that might draw some others to roll up their sleeves with us. If I'd been working on this five months ago, I'd have so much more time... – ImaginesTigers 16:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to leave out Filmography? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all – complete oversight – I'll put it back in now. – ImaginesTigers 16:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IT, thanks for the lead analysis. In the interest of compromise, I would not object to a first sentence that only and simply described her as a British author. If we start adding in other labels, then philanthropist has to stay as one of her main activities enduring throughout most of her life, but keeping it simple -- author --is a good way forward in this case. Smith dedicated a chapter, and the more recent and scholarly Pugh gave philanthropy weight in bio paragraph structure, so even if we drop the Level 2 section heading, I'd not support removing a sentence about philanthropy from the lead -- so I hope that dropping the L2 section heading doesn't lead there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Sandy. If her biography is structured chronologically, the lead's overview of her bio should be a bit more chronological; it can be more comprehensive and tighter (especially when we tighten the HP material currently occupying 1 of 5! paragraphs). Rowling spent an absolute fortune on charity in that post-HP period (>200mil to date apparently). There's no world where I would support removing it—it was the most prominent way she spent her wealth for years. Current article says relatively little with a lot of words. We can make it say much more in the same volume (eg. mainspace lead completes neglects MS research/treatment, which Rowling has funded extensively due to her mother). Have some faith! – ImaginesTigers 14:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers, you aren't going to be able to move text around in Philanthropy, because what is there now is corrupted. All three biographical sources discuss how her interest in philanthropy started very early on, driven by her life experiences. Here's the FAR version (see Kirk, Pugh and Smith), before 2022 edits (to introduce Beira), then followed by a series of 2024 edits that removed the early context. With all context/connection to her life experiences from all three bio sources gone, now we also have Volant starting in 2020 rather than 2000 (an outright error). I suspect you'll end up re-writing most of this anyway, but this is the purge of context I mentioned earlier when we were discussing that the content isn't connected or placed in context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Sandy – I’ll take a look – ImaginesTigers 08:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers ... I've noticed these kinds of issues creeping in elsewhere -- I long meant to get back to that one, but repair got lost in the rapid-fire editing -- along with prose deterioration. If you give me a heads up on any other issues where you think content misrepresents sources, many editors went through to copyedit, and we sometimes switched out paywalled sources for freely available sources, so I may be able to pinpoint the problem, unless memory fails. The original point in Philanthropy (Kirk, Pugh, Smith: life experiences, wealth --> fame --> philanthropy) was completely lost, in case your new structure needs the connection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can just accept, in good faith, that sometimes mistakes happen. I really just want to fix it and move on. I just went to get a reasonable structure/sample text together ASAP so people can start something that moves us forward. You can see what I'm up to here. – ImaginesTigers 12:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re best way forward ... I don't have time just now to follow other sandbox (family visits which will be fraught), but may be able to catch up next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sandy. I know there's a lot on your plate at the moment, but I've put together a "transgender reception" section and would benefit from any feedback: User:ImaginesTigers/sandbox6#Public image. Thank you! – ImaginesTigers 17:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, rotten day/rotten week ahead ... not sure how soon I can get there. I did see your edit summary that there was a lot of failed verification, which doesn't surprise me as there was a lot of rapid-fire editing from the FAR version. I trust you fixed it! Will look when I can, no promises. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good Sandy. Hopefully some others can get back to me. Hope everything's alright.
The failed validation material was the stuff about fuelling debates on freedom of speech/cancel culture – I've found some material to replace it, though, so we shouldn't lose the gist of it. I need to add that back in – thanks for reminding me.
In this instance, not the FAR – I had a look at the Talk archives and can see these problems were introduced during the redrafting process. It's the write-by-committee problem we described before. It becomes a game of Chinese whispers. Someone doesn't like X, so simplifies it, then the original writer has no availability to help; someone else simplified it, and we end up with something very detached from the text. – ImaginesTigers 18:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy

IT, since you're prepping for a post to article talk tomorrow, there are two things that I want to highlight for historical purposes and in case they will help with how you approach article talk.

You wrote:[1] "Can you not acknowledge that's really powerful momentum that this article's never had?" That's not quite correct -- yet -- but I bring this up because I think you are working in the right direction to develop that momentum. There was much more engagement in the 2022 rewrite, with both involved and uninvolved (re the transgender controversy) editors engaging enthusiastically, and a very good percentage of those editors were neutral FAR regulars. Once work got underway, there was very little disruptive or tendentious behavior (one editor was later topic banned). The effort decidedly had momentum and enthusiasm and very broad participation, review and copyediting. Seeing the uninvolved FAR regulars re-engage would be a good thing. One step towards making that happen is to get FAR back to serving its purpose rather than being a repetitive pile-on for things that are being addressed on article talk. There is an analogy there to comments about how the NPOV noticeboard was used. Updates to the FAR page are for the Coords to know the overall status.

Thebiguglyalien queried the approach to writing about philanthropy and described PROPORTION -- exactly how the 2022 FAR version was built (a broad overview of her main philanthropic endeavors, described as such in and based on scholarly and secondary sources, even though we sometimes added in other sources to provide free full text for readers). The problems that developed in that section resulted from attempts to shoehorn in every news item related to the transgender controversy, or to compromise with those who wanted to do that. Your approach (going at it chronologically) is a valid attempt to avoid such recurring problems. But with respect to Thebiguglyalien's remark, the 2022 FAR version of Philanthropy well warranted a Level 2 section heading, based on sources. I am supporting removing that section, and merging the content chronologically, as a compromise and way to avoid future problems -- not because the sources do not support a separate Philanthropy section.

I don't know if any of this will help you approach talk tomorrow -- you're doing great so far -- but just adding these in case they help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right Sandy; I was being a bit glib and superficial because the time comment from Adam wounded me a bit. I reviewed the Talk archives back to 15 so I’ve seen how much work and collaboration went into previous efforts. Sorry if it felt like I downplayed the labour. Please do ping FAR regulars. I’ll leave some user talk comments to notify some editors I’ve collaborated with before at FAC/FAR before too; ideally we want to attract an ideologically wide spectrum of people.
I agree completely that there’s strong sourcing to support the philanthropy heading (I did say that at NPOVN). It’s a big part of who she is and her reputation over the years. I will make sure that’s represented in the first draft for #Public image section, too. In an ideal world I think it would still be there, but glad you think it’s an okay compromise.
I appreciate the issue of folks wanting to add every thing she’s said on Twitter/news item. I think enough time has passed that academic scholarship has developed prominently and we can briefly cover her actual views and satisfy due weight. It’s not going to be painless, but I really hope just spreading the material (for all topics) helps. If we get consensus for the structure overall, I’ll immediately pivot to source analysis but primarily with quotes / comments to show what comes up most often in books. I’ll post that source analysis really soon.
I’m quite worried about posting about structure and hope it don’t end up DOA. (The challenge of getting consensus for these changes was the main reason I suggested moving to FACR following my initial review.) Maybe this feedback period has helped/built some trust. I dunno. We live in hope – ImaginesTigers 15:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it a bit early to ping in FAR regulars; there is still too much deviation from how FAR ideally works, but that is starting to subside. I'm not a fan of pinging in general, so try to save broad pings for the best times -- but your judgment is sound, so do as you think best. I am also concerned that as you have tried to get others to focus for now on the structure, that hasn't yet happened in all cases. I do think you have built enough trust and momentum to carry forward now, but gentle reminders to stay on track may help ... that is, you are still asking about structure at this stage, and seeking buy-in on that, so folks shouldn't get overly focused on the content yet. And yes, you now have enough academic sources on the transgender issue -- which wasn't the case yet in 2022. We do live in hope, and you are restoring the faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've put together a basic source overview now but I'm pretty worried it'll produce a lot of noise about the current article. Plenty of material, too, to boost the existing sections. I'm very confident in rewriting the Style section now, for example. I'll get to work on the Talk post for structure now. – ImaginesTigers 17:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Side by side

Sirfurboy

Hello User:Sirfurboy. I really appreciate your willingness to weigh in. Broadly, I'm hoping to get your input on this sandbox (Version). At the top of this page, you'll find a bit of guidance I wrote as to what would be especially helpful. Please note all of this is just drafts – I still need to write a significant amount of new text incorporating everybody's feedback.

Following on from yesterday, I understand you're keen to label Rowling's views ("gender-critical" being your preference). If we want to make the article more stable, bringing the labelling debate to a close with compromise would be very powerful forward momentum. Culture war topics are ultimately, in part, about control over labels—so I think we should try and shift the debate off labels themselves. You raised Butler yesterday so I want to outlay how I see Butler using the term and why some editors might think it's contentious.

  • In the introduction to Who's Afraid of Gender?, Butler introduces Rowling (and Lawford-Smith) as "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" (Introduction).
  • Butler uses the term twelve times in the book (excludes footnotes). Of these, nine are in chapter five ("TERFs and British Matters of Sex: How Critical is Gender-Critical Feminism?"), a chapter virtually dedicated to "gender-critical feminism".
  • By my count, Butler uses scare quotes—rendering the term as "gender-critical" feminism"—eight times.
  • On two of those remaining occasions, she disparages the term (implying or stating outright that the group are not critical).

Ultimately, I can't stop you fighting on behalf of the term. I don't personally think it's too problematic... unless it makes a sentence fail a spot check. In my view, there's limited room for an own-words argument on a an already contentious topic (that is a BLP on top). Every sentence must be bulletproof against a spot check.

So we might try something like:

  • A brief statement saying that various labels have been given. This might be something like: Holly Lawford-Smith identifies Rowling as a "gender-critical feminist"; Judith Butler introduces her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist.
  • Following on from this, I want to provide more detail (and counterarguments) to Rowling's views, rather than less. For example, you've repeatedly highlighted that we don't mention Rowling tying her views to her experience of domestic abuse. Would you agree that including this alone would be controversial, but that with another perspective on this might be quite reasonable? (Wording can be refined—the goal is ultimately compromise, but there's lots of commentary on this in the source page. Being frank, I'm struggling to find gender-critical academics (hence the disappointment about HLS's book barely mentioning her), so you may be able to help me with that.

In principle, what do you think of avoiding the label debate and focusing on the views themselves? directly? Looking forward to your feedback! – ImaginesTigers 14:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had already looked at the sandbox version and it seems like an appropriate structure. My only question on that is what is meant to be in the Style section. Rowling's style in her adult works differs substantially from the Potter works, and other children's works differ again. Are you intending to talk about her literary style?
On the phrase "gender-critical", I do not have a strong preference over keeping that exact term and having no term at all. My suspicion, however, is that exact term would likely be the most generally acceptable compromise, considering how many people were opposed to having no labels. Nevertheless I'll be perfectly happy with a compromise as you suggest. I don't think anyone has really explained why the term is unacceptable, and I don't agree with its removal, since it was the status quo wording, and since the removal places the article in the state of RfC option 4. But okay, option 4 is where we are now.
I am unconvinced about using trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Although plenty of sources do use that term of Rowling, I note that they are either older sources, or else they tend to be hostile. This is because the acronym, TERF, has taken on negative connotations, as noted by, for instance, Willem et al. (2022). They say Since it was first coined, the use of the term TERF has changed and nowadays is imbued with strong emotions, leading to some of those who identify with TERF values to reject the label (Hines, 2019). We need to be careful of using that term, and yet if we are explaining the consequence of gender-critical ideology, it seems to me that it is quite appropriate to say that the effect is trans exclusionary (although, in fact, it only excludes trans women from female spaces. It has nothing to say about trans men and is not exclusionary of them).
All in all, my only real concern for this page, which is about an author and not about the core gender ideology issues (which pages I do not choose to edit) is that we need to show our neutrality as editors, not taking sides, but briefly describing what Rowling believes and why she believes it, and how this has created a furore and its effects. Butler is a good source, but a polemical one. I know you understand about handling such sources appropriately, just by your earlier comments, but I don't think we should ignore Lawford-Smith. She is describing Rowling's position, and it makes sense of Rowling's own statements, essays and actions.
Regarding additional sources, none are as good as Lawford-Smith on what the issue is, but please note that some of the references we previously discussed have been archived from the talk page. These are:
  • Chez, Keridiana. (2025). Potter Stinks: Gender and Species in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Series. University Press of Mississippi, 2025. Project MUSE, Available online [2].
  • Whited, Lana A. (2024). The Ivory Tower, Harry Potter, and Beyond: More Essays on the Works of J. K. Rowling. University of Missouri Press, 2024. Project MUSE, Available online [3].
  • Thomas, Ebony Elizabeth and Sarah Park Dahlen. (2022). Harry Potter and the Other: Race, Justice, and Difference in the Wizarding World. University Press of Mississippi, 2022. Project MUSE, Available online [4].
  • Konchar Farr, Cecilia. (2022). Open at the Close: Literary Essays on Harry Potter. University Press of Mississippi, 2022. Project MUSE, Available online [5].
References
  • Willem, C.; Platero, R. L.; Tortajada, I. (2022). "Trans-exclusionary Discourses on Social Media in Spain". Identities and Intimacies on Social Media: 185–200. doi:10.4324/9781003250982-15. Available online [6]
  • Hines, S. (2019). The feminist frontier: on trans and feminism. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(2), 145–157.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Sirfurboy – really appreciate your time.
Please forgive the length but this discussion is immensely valuable to me; I'm also not a GENSEX topic editor. On the final bullet point: aside from the domestic abuse part, what statements from Rowling's 2020 essay do you think are important to include that currently aren't? I think what has received the most coverage probably ultimately dictates this but it gives me something to look for.
I'm genuinely feeling optimistic—the tone across this page is very collaborative—but I am worried about time. I spotted you made changes to mainspace's #Later Harry Potter works a while back. Knowing I was pinging you, I accelerated some work on that section as I have some ideas for the rewrite. Would you be open to working on this? Obviously this is a lot of work for one person so any collaborators on any bits at all would be great. – ImaginesTigers 21:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sirfurboy. Would you give me your feedback on the transgender section I've put together at User:ImaginesTigers/sandbox6#Public image? Thank you! – ImaginesTigers 17:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have not done much with this this week. Things have been quite busy so I had less time for Wikipedia, and this section takes a lot of reading. I've looked at what you have written, and it is generally in the right direction, I think. I think the length is about right, and much of the information is there, without getting into the kind of litany of events that has threatened to mar this in the past. One thing I think is still lacking is a clear statement of what Rowling believes or has taken a stand on. It mentions her essay but then it is all reactions to the essay. I know this is not the page for a discourse on Gender Critical feminism, but the key issue is that Rowling has opposed the identity politics that sought to allow gender self identification to legally replace sex in all walks of life. Her opposition to the legislation is key information I think.
Also, while allowing for several voices criticising her essay, this doesn't mention that it won third prize for the Russell's prize for Best Writing, and was also well received as a contribution to public debate. We don't want to overplay that, but neither should we only be quoting those who disagree with her. Nevertheless my main concern is the first one. We need to be saying what she believes (succinctly) and not just presenting this as reactions to her stand on Forstater. Forstater was just the first indication we had that Rowling had adopted a a gender-critical position.
So how would you like me to proceed. Should I edit what you have? Should I suggest some sentences for inclusion here? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath

Hi TarnishedPath. I really hope you may make some time to talk with me about this. I'm hoping to get your input on this sandbox (Version). At the top of this page, you'll find a bit of guidance I wrote as to what would be especially helpful. Please note all of this is just drafts – I absolutely need to write a significant amount of new text incorporating everybody's feedback.

I understand you are quite keen to label Rowling's views in Wikipedia's voice ("anti-trans" being your preference). I don't think we can get consensus for that, so I'm hoping we might be able to meet in the middle. Ultimately, I think we both want to reduce fights on the article.

In principle, how would you feel about providing the "gender-critical feminist" label with attribution, alongside trans-exclusionary radical feminist (the label used by Butler). I think the way to reduce fights is to do that. We do already describe that multiple sources have characterised Rowling as transphobic/anti-trans—I don't think those should go anywhere but I do think we should probably provide some of Rowling's actual arguments (for comprehensiveness) and responses to those (to satisfy DUEWEIGHT).

  • We describe Rowling's activities, relating to transgender issues, using statements of facts.
  • Newspapers are a fine source for this type of coverage (see below), but academic literature is less likely to cover them simply because of the time it takes to write and publish them. I have an academic source page but not one for newspapers (maybe you could help with that?)
  • We cover Rowling's views in slightly more detail. It will be difficult and painful to describe the debate.
  • We let academic sourcing guide which views we cover: we examine various bits of scholarship (see here) and find what views are covered most often. When we describe Rowling's views, we use the considerable amount of high-quality scholarship on the topic to balance that out. We don't want people to complain that Wikipedia is simply another twitter feed for Rowling.
  • The reason I think newspapers are a worse source here is libel laws. Rowling is famously litigous when it comes to the press. British news outlets are particularly reticent when characterising her and will virtually never do so without attribution. A really easy example of this is the UK-based Pink News—often cited as a propaganda source, they've never called Rowling transphobic or anti-trans unless repeating what someone else said.

In principle, what do you think of avoiding the label debate and focusing on the views themselves? Looking forward to hear from you! – ImaginesTigers 14:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and make time to it tomorrow. If I don't respond in a few days ping me to remind me. It's 1:14am here so I'm not going to do any serious reading now. TarnishedPathtalk 15:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: No worries. Hoping to get something for the article Talk to discuss by next weekend. – ImaginesTigers 15:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Hey TP. We're thinking about posting to Talk tomorrow/Wednesday now. Still happy to get your feedback on the above, and sorry for rushing, but any chance you could get any feedback on the core structural proposal ASAP? (Sandbox associated with this Talk.) – ImaginesTigers 23:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's 10:24am here on Tuesday. I'll have a look after 9pm when my Children have gone to sleep. TarnishedPathtalk 00:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read a bit of that draft and to be honest I didn't find such an unfinished state to be particularly helpful (was that latin that made up large parts?). On your other question of attributing "gender-critical", I'm not in principal opposed to that, as long as it is inline attribution and it is used with due weight. For example my cursory overview of academic material lead me to believe that variations of anti-trans and transphobic are a lot more common, when describing Rowling, and so I would expect any proposals that were going to attract my support to reflect that. I would expect any worthwhile analysis of academic sources to predominantly focus on works that address Rowling as the main subject in determining weight. TarnishedPathtalk 12:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TP. It was really just the overall structure I was hoping for feedback on — as is, I think the article is a bit unbalanced by packing all transgender stuff into a single section. I want to distribute it out a bit (chiefly her bio, some in reception, literary criticism, and public image).
The Latin (lorem ipsum) was put there so that her inbox didn’t cut into her biography. Just a weird quirk from me.
The research I’ve done so far indicates that anti-trans characterisations are more common in high-quality reliable sources. I’ve asked a few editors so far for any HQRS that dispute that and, so far, none have turned up. I do want to make sure I have a source analysis done for every section. That will be what I present on the Talk after the overall structure.
But if people don’t think the structure proposal solves the problems I outlined in my FAR comments, or that it isn’t a problem worth solving, that source analysis becomes worth very little. My only real goal here is satisfying a majority of editors to get consensus and substantially reduce complaints. I know you think we should delist the article now but I feel really optimistic we can achieve that goal – ImaginesTigers 15:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TarnishedPath. Would you give me your feedback on the transgender section I've put together at User:ImaginesTigers/sandbox6#Public image? Thank you! – ImaginesTigers 17:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers. Firstly it is very brief at two paragraphs and secondly a full quarter of it is taken up quoting Caroline Davies or summarising the work from her. That does not seem WP:DUE to me. TarnishedPathtalk 12:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Hey TP. Sorry for the delay. At the time that I linked it to you, the section looked quite different. For material responding directly to Rowling's views, Victoria suggested we place that directly alongside Rowling's views, which I thought made a lot of sense—otherwise we end up with a lot of duplication. Have a look at that original section / let me know if you have feedback on where material should go / what viewpoints are missing. – ImaginesTigers 11:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde

Vanamonde93, have a look at the comment above in relation to this proposal (version).

  • Thanks for the ping. Noting at the outset that I'm both not very motivated to work on this (see comments at FAR) and am strapped for time. So please don't feel the need to wait on me at any stage. I also don't know that I will be able to engage deeply with cross-talk across sections. That said, I appreciate the effort being made, so I will attempt to offer commentary as best I can. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: Thanks a lot for this. I agree with basically everything you say... and where I don't agree, I simply don't have a strong view and need to consult the sourcing. I'm at the start of source analysis so once I start diving into the material, I can see where Rowling is more explicitly mentioned as the subject – I suspect it's stuff related to her cultural context/biography. I'd like to let that inform how we structure it, so I'll get back to you (hopefully soon). I suspect Victoria will have some thoughts there too as she might be familiar with sourcing. Thanks again for making the time – ImaginesTigers 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Hello again. We're getting closer to posting to Talk now about the new structure (probably tomorrow/Wed). We've reconsidered the headings for the literary sections and any more input would be grand. There's the main sandbox (attached to this talk) and, as an update, I've started merging bio and writing sample text for other sections too. Any feedback is welcome. – ImaginesTigers 23:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the slow reply. I have very little disagreement with this version. I think it handles the thorny views and politics sections well. My only remaining concern is the separation of literary criticism from "reception". Rowling has on the whole been more successful with fans than critics (sort of inevitably: to match her commercial success she'd need also to be the most well-received author of all time). If we only include commercial success in "reception" we're creating a POV divide of sorts. Also: the religious reactions aren't literary reception in the usual sense. One way to handle this would be to merge the two sections: do we have enough to justify separate ones? Alternatively, call them what they are: popular/commercial reception, and critical/literary reception. If the sections remain separate though I have to image the religious reactions goes with the commercial stuff: it's not coming from the critics. Also: where is influences going? Under style? fine by me, but there's some important material in there, a considerable volume of the literary sources look at her influences.
I applaud the effort you and others have put into this. I worry that it will not satisfy the reviewers, given that a large body of them are divided over whether the article is too charitable or too harsh to Rowling; their only point of disagreement is their dissatisfaction with the current version. Time will tell. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, and no worries on the delay. Breaking up replies:
  • My only remaining concern is the separation of literary criticism from "reception". Rowling has on the whole been more successful with fans than critics [...] If we only include commercial success in "reception" we're creating a POV divide of sorts. I would've agreed a few weeks ago, but I'm confident in this now. #Reception includes popular reception, but it also includes critical reception. We should keep that there. And there is a lot of new material, building and summarising what came before it. I'm not sure on social versus political yet but I promise I'll revisit the structure it isn't turning out right. (You can check out Dracula's reception and interpretation sections as an example here.)
  • Also: the religious reactions aren't literary reception in the usual sense. That section is for religious interpretation of Harry Potter, not the religious reactions – I'd cover the religious reactions in two places (#Reception, #Public image, and possibly #Life).
  • Alternatively, call them what they are: popular/commercial reception, and critical/literary reception: I wouldn't call analysis "reception" (although I'd agree it's a subset of it). I think there's so much criticism that we can do this right. Almost every author in the recent collections begins their essays by mentioning how important Potter was to them. You'll find some source analysis for the sections in here, and this of course all adds on top of what already exists.
  • Also: where is influences going? Under style? fine by me, but there's some important material in there, a considerable volume of the literary sources look at her influences. Agree. In fact, I found meta-commentary on that! Some of it I'd put under style, but others I'd locate under Genre. Take, for instance, the source title used for the bit about Arthurian legend: "Playing the genre game: generic fusions of the Harry Potter series" (Alton 2008). It also mentions Christian influence there, and I'd like to build that out under religious literary criticism as it's not alone in identifying Christian theme and inspiration.
The transgender material is going to eat up the most time, but I'm reading the new books we have right now and adding valuable stuff into that source repo as I go. Thank you for getting me thinking, and looking forward to hearing from you again. – ImaginesTigers 09:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your substantive points I'm happy to say: so perhaps my quibbles are with the titling, and to a limited extent with how the proposal summarized what text goes where. For instance, I would agree that the material about gender and social division, and religious themes, is appropriately placed not in reception, but the second and third paragraphs of the top section, including Bloom and Le Guin's commentary, does belong in reception. Similarly, I would placed religious reactions in reception, but analyses of religious themes in the literary section (the novelty for me from Dracula is the title "interpretation", which I prefer to "literary criticism": or perhaps even "literary interpretation"?) If that sounds about right then I think we're in agreement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bloom and Le Guin definitely belong in reception. I think we're in total agreement. I also prefer the title I used on Dracula, but Victoria suggested "Literary criticism"... and if anyone offers substantive agreement, I'm likely to take it and run. I'll hopefully have a draft for review in the next couple weeks and I'm really excited to talk more about it then. All the work preceding work done will make this much easier for me, so I'm grateful—usually I need to write from complete scratch and remove a dozen blogs. – ImaginesTigers 16:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on this proposed structure:

  • I like subsuming philanthropy, politics, and material on Rowling's views about transgender rights into a level 2 heading.
  • Separating public image from transgender views is a structural improvement, IMO, but likely to be a very difficult piece of writing
  • I don't necessarily mind explicitly titling the literary analyses as "...of HP", since that's the dominant material. I might suggest a level 2 section, with a small level 3 at the end for other works. But...
  • The source analysis has turned up critical materials on TCV (Victoria mentions this in her proposal too). Personally, I'd definitely prefer not include so much on HP... Give me some time with sources to give you something more concrete – I'll be very mindful with my suggestions. – ImaginesTigers 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Including more critical material on her other works is likely a good thing, while noting that due weight is going to be tricky: HP alone has more analyses out there than most authors receive in a lifetime. That said I agree there's room for tightening. I wrote a lot of the religious reactions material, as I recall, and I think it could be slimmed down: the Christian symbolism could be merged with what's in "themes", and the negative reaction just summarized a bit more. There's some listing of similarity in "themes" that could be removed. That said, I have to believe that two paragraphs on themes, one on critical reception is entirely DUE. I also think the ideas in gender and social division are essential - they are a repeated theme in the sources. But perhaps we can tighten by way of reducing examples or lengthy attribution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worry that retitling in that way will embolden people who want it dumped altogether. It needs to not read like an excerpt of our article on HP. An author's biography is expected to have material on influences, style, etc. It so happens that in Rowling's case that's material from a single work - it doesn't make it less significant. From that perspective I'm reluctant to support such a retitling, at least as a level 2 heading.
  • Yeah, I agree this basically reflects the problem with the content. A bit unsatisfying, but time with sources will help me. I think a lot of folks will pitch in so I'm optimistic we can get this right – ImaginesTigers 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more unhappy about calling all the literary analyses "reception". While that is a woolly term, on Wikipedia we have consistently used it to mean "here's what critics and audiences said about whether a work was good or bad", whereas analytical content with no judgement goes elsewhere, in "themes" or "style" or wherever. From that perspective I strongly prefer our current structure, which also allows us to update it if and when Rowling's other work receives more analytical treatment. I pushed for a structure I had previously used at Ursula K. Le Guin, but see our other FAs of authors: Chinua Achebe has a "style" and a "themes", Enid Blyton has a "writing style and technique", Kurt Vonnegut has an extensive section with similar subsections. I confess that I still fail to see a problem with the present structure of literary analyses. If I were compelled to abandon the present structure I would suggest just calling the section "writing", with a subsection for HP versus other works.
  • Same old story again but I need to read more sourcing for my opinions to crystalise here. The size of "themes", for example, is a bit of a worry for me. I personally would like to focus more on Rowling's historical context as it relates to the social/racial elements (e.g., the stuff we're likely to get from the recent Harry Potter and the Other). I'll get back to you – ImaginesTigers 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also strongly recommend against titling anything "scholarship". Scholarship isn't to be pigeonholed, we're basing the entire analytical material on scholarship.

Victoria

Victoria, have a look at the comment above in relation to this proposal (version).

Hi, ImaginesTiger. FWIW, pings don't work unless they are followed by a signature :) But I found my way here.
This is on track to what I have in mind but I'm thinking a all life and all career. I'll set up in my sandbox what I have in mind, but not crazy about having Casual Vacancy and the Strike novels in the middle and then followed up by "Life after Harry Potter". In my view it's best the career section include all books and possibly adaptations (or adaptations can go to a separate section), and life to be about life. In such a structure the we can mention in the life that from such a such period to such a such period she was working on the HP series and adaptations (without going into detail), etc. If that makes sense? This would allow us to bring her life to the late 2010s and then segue into the trans/twitter wars.
Not feeling great today but will try to cobble something together in my sandbox and post back. Victoria (tk) 00:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I stole your sandbox and tweaked a bit with some quick suggestions. Have a look at User:Victoriaearle/Rowling this version. I've added comments in some of the sections. Will check back later. Didn't realize we were doing this now??!! Victoria (tk) 00:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually having read through the comments above, if I'm not welcome, please let me know. Victoria (tk) 00:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Victoria. Left some responses at your Talk but want to reply directly here too. It looks like I fixed the pings for Sandy/Vanamonde93 so I can only apologise that yours broke (you'll see the trouble I had with them in the edit summaries). I'm really sorry to hear you felt the comments above/in the old Talk thread made you feel unwelcome. Not my intention at all (that's why there was a header for you) – your feedback is brilliant and I'd love to talk more if you're willing. – ImaginesTigers 16:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I'm interested in everyone's feedback. Btw - what I cobbled together was done on the fly, so not at all refined. For a good structure take a look at what we came up with (after a lot of stress) on Vincent van Gogh. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello hello. Thank you for taking the time. Lots to say so forgive the wall of text -
  • Highest level: I strongly agree with reducing the number of sections (e.g., #Philanthropy) and absorbing into the main biography. I'll add that #Religion can easily be absorbed into specific biographical sections because each sentence in the current section is tied to a particular time period (e.g., early life; remarriage). – ImaginesTigers 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it comes to sourcing, I said this to Sandy: I think there should be some kind of source-based framework. For example – if a subject is covered in detail in books/chapters/journals, it probably warrants a heading or subheading. If it's covered in biographies, place the content in the biographical section. If it's important for comprehensiveness but covered by newspapers, that's biography (i.e., statements of fact). – ImaginesTigers 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the ones we used that were written 20 or some years ago, there aren't any bios. I'd be very surprised if one were to be written anytime soon. We have Pugh, which is good and it does mention transgender views in the bio section, but a 2020 publication means, probably, written in 2019 and earlier. Lana Whited's 2024 intro (probably written in 2022), sort of fills in the 20 years since her previous compilation of essays, which covers writing (21 works in 25 years from 1997 to 2022), wealth, fame, and lots of space to the transgender issue. To be honest though we know very little about her life and there's no way to tell what will work until the text is shoved around. Either it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't another option needs to be explored. Victoria (tk) 14:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it comes to reception of her views, I do think that is a topic people will expect. We need to give some sample of her views on trans issues. I don't know where that belongs exactly. The question is: if we provide Rowling's views (and there is demand to on the Talk), we need to provide attributed rebuttals to satisfy DUEWEIGHT. Easy example is Butler's Who's Afraid of Gender?, which describes and respond to Rowling's positions many times (>30). That feels weird in her biography, which should largely be statements of fact. What do you thik? – ImaginesTigers 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Receptions usually come at the end above legacy. If I left it out, it was oversight. Putting transgender reception would be problematic in my view. I'd be opposed to it. But there are things such as some bookstores pulling HP of the shelves, that could be mentioned in reception - though I only read about that happening in Portland. Victoria (tk) 14:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    San Francisco: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-bookstores-drop-jk-rowling-titles-trans-rights/ (IT, if you wanted to keep others out of each person's section, feel free to move.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely welcome – just wanted to start everyone's feedback separately. – ImaginesTigers 16:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Victoria – might not have explained this properly. In the live article we give the following on Rowling's views: Her view is that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms, changing rooms, or what she considers "single-sex spaces". For comprehensiveness, we need to include some of her views, and balance will require some more perspective for balance (right now, it says some people think these views are trans exclusionary). Where would you put her views in the current section? Would you place it in biography with more or less the same text, for example? – ImaginesTigers 17:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to mull this over. Ideally I'd like to see the tg material in the bio, but I have a sense it probably won't work for the reasons you outline above. An alternative would be to place the #Views right after the end of the bio (currently the last section is #Childrens stories, but if we split life & career the last section might be #Wealth and remarriage), and then follow with #Views, which should be at level 2 in this scenario, and move the tg section to the top rather than have it tacked on at the bottom. Sorry to be so wishy-washy. I'm one of those people who can't follow an outline (having taught students who need them and others who hate them, I get the various ways of thinking). Drafting & redrafting works best for me fwiw, but these are good questions. Victoria (tk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wishy-washy at all for me—I'm following. In my head, we were removing #Views, but... it hews closer to the status quo, which probably makes the change less contentious for getting consensus.
    • In this scenario, I think we're both in agreement that the material in "Press" belongs elsewhere. I believe source analysis will turn up that very chapters/books/journal articles specifically cover Rowling's views on the press. I think the content can all find a home elsewhere: her dislike of tabloids can probably be mentioned in the literary analysis in relation to Harry Potter. Her being a "core participant" in the Leveson inquiry can go into the biography, and so on.
    • This means #Views would include ##Transgender_people and ##Politics.
    • For #Transgender_people, #Public_image would enable us to move some material out of that section, freeing up space to actually discuss Rowling's views. Other stuff (for example, her support for Forstater) could be moved into the biography.
    • For #Politics: I do like the idea of putting it below #Transgender_people, because it means it reads better on issues where her politics are impacted by her views on trans issues. But I still think there are some elements I feel belong better in her biography (for example, her relationships with Sturgeon and Regan). Her support for the Better Together campaign (some of this is in #Philanthropy for some reason) also feels more attuned to a very particular time period (and therefore maybe better in a biography).
    This one's definitely tricky. Maybe we need to see it to discuss more. Let me try updating the sandbox tomorrow. – ImaginesTigers 22:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically agree with all of this. This is kinda what I mean by shoving around text. It's hard to know what will fit where until trying, and sometimes it simply doesn't work and has to back to the original placement or elsewhere. That said, it seems that what you've delineated above is quite solid and workable. Victoria (tk) 00:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, still getting caught up. Many of the sources published in the past few years mention Roland Barthes's concept of Death of the Author. At one point I'd tried to get that into the tg section only because 1., it's relevant enought to be in the article somewhere, and b., it's mentioned so often that I think we need to mention it. I'm not convinced that #Transgender is the place. Maybe #Public image? Or, should there be a #Public image and reputation (too long!), something like that, or a separate #Reputation, b/c her reputation has changed since, say 2010 or so. Anyway, planting this here so I don't forget. Victoria (tk) 15:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the transgender section wouldn't feel right for this. It is an interpretive theory (and I assume you're finding it in academic literary criticism), so it might be useful for an introductory paragraph for #Literary criticism? In any case, it sounds like a good find to me.
    I think #Public_image is likely to be a very hard section to write, and the division between public image and reputation seems a bit blurred to me. More specifically – I think that division would make the section harder to initially write and harder for stewards to maintain in the long-term. I was generally envisioning Public image would simply mirror the trend of biography – i.e., being generally chronological. – ImaginesTigers 18:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Better Together info in Philanthropy is the edit last week I've been asking about for days ... it completely duplicated content already in Views, where it is a better fit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably elaborate briefly – I want to help rewrite the literary bits, but presumably we're going to hew as close to the status quo as possible for the transgender material (or people will oppose the changes). Do you think we just move all of that into biography? Or does some go into Public image (for example, the last paragraph)? – ImaginesTigers 17:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we do this, how would you feel about including the years covered in the subheading title? Being real, there is obviously reader appetite to understand this new stage of her life – years might do that in a less inflammatory way (although I think 'social media use' is fine from a description POV, she has used the internet a long time).
  • Years are nice and I thought about it - or, perhaps places too. Only thing is, I use Vector22 with a tiny gutter on the left for the TOC (well, I'm working on a laptop), so I've been moving towards shorter headers. Keep in mind too, that mobile has no TOC. Victoria (tk) 14:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good point. I think they look very ugly when they're too long too (and it makes them harder to easily type out) when linking to them for discussion). – ImaginesTigers 17:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggestion that the writing of book one belongs in that section is persuasive, but I'm worried about what the HP section will include without it. If we look at the the section in mainspace, it would mean the paragraph probably opens with a new first sentence about HP's publication date. Then we'd summarise the release dates for the following books? In my head, I wonder if this section would simply be better if we drop another section (the #Adaptations you suggest) and use material from there to build out. Rowling obviously has some specific notes during production (e.g., All British cast; or "don't do that - Dumbledore is gay" is margins). I'm sure there's others I don't know about – this would enable a pretty comprehensive section about Rowling's involvement in Harry Potter from the publication of the first book to the release of the final film. I think adaptations of TCV/CS make sense to include briefly in the sections on those books, too - from a summary style POV. What do you think? – ImaginesTigers 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree, it's problematic and it's hard to know until the text is shoved around. To back up a bit, before work started on the previous FAR the article looked like this, and the structure is essentially unchanged except some sections have been added. When restructuring, I need to see the text and see how it flows to know how to proceed, but when I imagine it in my head I'm thinking we split out all the writing career after the point of publication. The exact wording can be finessed. BUT - another option would be a truncated #Life followed by #Writing career and so on, followed by #Personal details at the end, which might be best for a living person. Another alternative is to follow the model in Ursula K. Le Guin which is quite perfect in my mind. Also, I think much about adaptations should be shoved over to Harry Potter. This article has been mentioned a few times at FAR so I took a look. It's the perfect container article for all the books and adaptations, opening up for more use of summary style in the bio. But that article needs a lot of work. Still, something else to think about. Victoria (tk) 14:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of this makes sense, including the adaptations bit. I found one book (British Children's Film, I think it's called) that does go into fair detail in Rowling's activities on the films, so I'd just want to be sure we don't miss anything useful for the HP section first! Her requirement that the cast be all British, for example, seems like a very important requirement.
    On Le Guin – I like that a lot for Le Guin. If we follow that model, which I do think is perfect for Le Guin, we'd probably end up with a lot of Talk posts asking us why JK Rowling's views on trans issues are in the same section as her funding children's charities ("Views and advocacy"). Based on the #Reception section (which covers the reception of HP), I think the scholarship they had to work with about Rowling just looks superior to what we're working with here, where most of the coverage seems to be more about Potter. Unless we're missing a lot of in-detail coverage about Rowling specifically, I just don't think it's framed as being about Rowling's legacy. We can revisit this soon. – ImaginesTigers 22:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the same and kinda had dismissed as unworkable here, but then wondered if simply the placement of views without advocacy is workable. But I'm not convinced. Revisiting is a good idea. Victoria (tk) 00:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm torn.
    • On the one hand, retaining "Views" is problematic if we move political activity into the biography. It leaves it as a one-topic subheading (transgender). I do think her political activity (largely statements of fact) fits better in her biography, particularly because it is so inflected by the trans topic as time goes on.
    • On the other hand, "Views" is currently so troublesome because it is so loadbearing. If it focuses squarely on Rowling's views, we're much more able to provide a variety of alternate positions to balance out Rowling's views (reducing fights).
    Tricky, tricky... – ImaginesTigers 18:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we probably need to workshop #Reception of Harry Potter. I do think the literary stuff needs new work, explicitly centring Rowling. To know what these sections should be titled, I want to know what sources actually say. "Themes" is obviously very shallow as a section – what is covered in detail as it relates to Rowling in HP analysis? "Genre" might be a good fit for one, I imagine. These subheadings are the ones I think are weakest (see Vanamonde93's feedback). – ImaginesTigers 19:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's usually been used here. I believe I stole it from a Moni3 article. I'm not crazy about genre. When we were developing it I had some idea that we'd do a short section on style (because there are sources about her style and we should not discount all the many sources written in the aughts), so it was something like "Style" and another section called "Themes". Generally I'm not bothered by section titling and imo it's too far in the weeds, too soon, to be considering. There's quite a bit of it, it's generally good, and from what I've read in the newer books much of that material is better suited to the daughter articles about the individual books or the HP article. I do believe the existing text should be finessed, but those sections require the most reading and are more labor intensive than shoving around text and restructuring with an eye on replacing content in those sections. As those sections stand, they are a little bloated and choppy and can use tightening. I don't have access to a lot of those sources and for that reason wouldn't be opposed to replacing with more readily available sourcing. Victoria (tk) 15:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add: sorry, I misunderstood re genre and struck a sentence above. Yes, agree that the section should be split along genre lines, re childrens lit (HP), and something else. In the sample sandboxed lit crit section I'd linked (with updated link here looks like it's #Harry Potter series and #Contemporary fiction. #Contemporary fiction so as to fit The Casual Vacancy, but it could be anything else along those lines. Victoria (tk) 14:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can access the sources used in this article, so I'd like to dive back into those, introduce new scholarship, and see where we can tighten and add new sourcing. Being honest, I'm still quite concerned about these from a structural perspective, but it might be this is something we hammer out in Talk with other participants as I think we're further apart on this than, say, redoing the bio! – ImaginesTigers 17:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm short on time today so was thinking on the fly (and will be mostly offline tomorrow). Yes, as it stands #Reception is problematic in my view. I would expect to see info re number of sales, huge numbers of kids (and their parents) showing up for midnight book releases for the Potter series, plus reception of the other books, plus how reception has changed since say the aughts to 2025. Is that what you mean?
    Re crit analyis (by whichever label we give it) I'll need to revisit the sources. Basically, except for #Reception there shouldn't be that much of a structural issue - usually the discussion is more about how space to give lit. crit. When I first arrived here the prevailing philosophy was to have #lit crit, but I've seen author bios get through FAC without those sections. Some people are opposed to seeing #lit crit in the bio; I'm not one. Essentially this means more discussion down the line, but as I indicated somewhere the #lit crit is the most labor intensive because of the reading. I do have a sandboxed draft here (see #Literary analyis - it didn't make the cut or got overwritten, can't remember) but essentially that's all I envisioned for critical analyis. The stuff that's currently in the writing career-ish subsections, is misplaced imo, i.e, I wouldn't have lit crit in #Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith or any others. If that makes sense? Victoria (tk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really must sleep for work, but: yes. I agree with you on what Reception should represent, but a shorter overview. #Literary_criticism is a perfect name for handling this material and I strongly prefer the way you structure this to the way we currently do it. My main problem is that the L2 heading (#Reception) suggests it's about all her work, but both L3 headings are very specific to HP. That's the structural challenge I'm hoping to address (and what, I think, produces mine and others "Why is this all about Harry Potter in Rowling's article?" reaction)
    On that draft, it reads very well, but the Harry Potter section only mentions Rowling 6 times. To me this would feel brilliant for Harry Potter for for Rowling's article – it places her in context, but doesn't address her in detail. Does that make sense? I hope this is not taken poorly—It's strong work.
    It's possible I am just overestimating the sourcing. I would have thought there was so much more scholarship exploring the books in relation to their author / her cultural context – I mention above the Prophet and her feelings about tabloids, for example. Similarly there are clear parallels with the wizarding world press & the UK courts/gov control over the British press, too, with gag orders (compared to the US). I don't want to say anything too strong here because you know the sources better than me. Please bear with as I get up to speed. – ImaginesTigers 22:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick-ish answer: depends completely on when the source was written. Mendlesohn, for example, (which is good and highly cited) was published in 2001, before Pottermania exploded. In the sense of placing books in context w/ cultural context we'll definitely need to look for post-2015 or so literature. Yes, agree about Rowling's lack of presence in that draft; it's one of many, and I believe I grabbed it recently from history to park and refresh my memory, but I also remember going through, either drafts or mainspace, adding Rowling's name throughout because she is the topic. I'd have to revisit the sources to remember why it's written that way, but generally what I meant to demonstrate is that's how I envisioned the extent of the lit crit. Also, there's now more about the novel (Casual Vacancy), and about the Galbraith books. Victoria (tk) 00:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm never against Mendlesohn. I actually created Rhetorics of Fantasy recently! – ImaginesTigers 18:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow! Really nice work! I'm happy to see that article.
    In terms of JKR, I'm not sure how much I'll be able to help (difficult weekend) and won't be able to be here much this week. I want to tidy my sandbox, retrieve and organize (and maybe annotate) sources that may/or may not be helpful, as well as retrieve/organize text that may or may not be helpful. I see that I wrote a bit re The Casual Vacancy that I'll try to move over to that article, and perhaps work there a bit, so as to make it easier to produce a short summary style entry re Vacancy in the bio page. But I can't promise anything, other than being available as a sounding board whenever you might need one. The discussion above crystallized thoughts for me; hopefully it was also helpful for you. I'm seriously impressed with the work you're doing. Victoria (tk) 14:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really kind Victoria, means a lot – thank you.
    I've got a lot of questions right now but I'm hoping to feel my way through them. It's very possible I will just end up writing a lot of content / waste some time doing so but it helps. I'm a bit frozen and dragging my heels on the transgender sections honestly, even though I know that's what I should be doing.
    I'm hoping someone else will roll up their sleeves for a first draft :( The lowest-friction answer is just to replicate the article's existing material but it doesn't feel viable to me. I'm optimistic we'll have enough sample text to post at Talk about the new approach in the first week of September. – ImaginesTigers 14:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your approach so far seems to lend itself more to rewriting as it unfolds. On the other hand, some text is salvageable, so feeling your way through is the way to go.
    First draft for the #Transgender section? It's the most difficult, more so than the literary criticism section, so maybe put it off for a bit? I still believe there's a way of getting some of that material into the #Life so as not to weigh down the tg section so much. I.e the material re Beira's place that I just boldly moved - that that might work in #Life.
    Re questions, feel free to bounce them off here. Sometimes I'm slow to reply but I am watching and do get around to replying, although often not right away. In the meantime, give yourself a huge pat on the back! This is what we used to refer to as a Big Page and back in the day I was told those sorts of pages couldn't be written, Hemingway, Pound, van Gogh. Yet, it's been done. Victoria (tk) 14:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think moving some stuff into #Life is straightforward. It becomes a little tricky if we cover what Rowling says in that section—to satisfy folks, there will be an expectation that we fulfil due weight by balancing what she says with an alt view.
    I have been thinking a lot about this and I think we should consider presenting the structure on Talk sooner. It's occurred to me that if we can't get consensus for the structure, the whole endeavour's a moot point.
    If there's general positive consensus, we could start getting discussion going one at section a time after that? I don't think the literary sections are likely to be controversial, so we could push that back and bring the trans material stuff forward for wider deliberation. Then we can refocus on the literary sections – which I think will actually take longer than the trans stuff due to sheer volume/length – while that discussion/iteration takes place.
    The one difference is that I need to complete the literature survey before I do that. I'm really struggling to find HQ scholarship by GCFs aside from Holly Lawford-Smith. An editor has requested we use her book, but it barely mentions Rowling in Gender-Critical Feminism (aside from her explanation of why Rowling's received so much abuse, which we can obviously include). I asked them if they knew of any and they pointed me towards Whited, etc, but none of them approach being allies to Rowling on trans issues/danger posed by trans people.
    Any input on this would be appreciated, although I acknowledge it's not the bit we'd rather be talking about :( – ImaginesTigers 21:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So here goes. Whited (2024) writes on page 7, But in June 2020, Rowling’s manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as "gender critical." with a footnote (22) which is on page 17 and says, For an explanation of how the term TERF originated and how its use has evolved, see Flaherty, " 'TERF' War." Those who labeled Rowling as a TERF include both those who read her lengthy "J. K. Rowling Writes" blog. So there's that. But there's a lot of "some" and "those who labeled" language. There more in Rebecca Sutherland Borah's article "Accio Jo" (Chapter 21) starts on p. 363. All the way down on p. 372 Borah delineates the tg controversy (as she calls it), and the term TERF is raised by respondents to a survey Borah conducted, but her article is about fanfic and fandom, and I'm not terribly convinced it works for our needs. Nonetheless, during last summer's annual rewrite of the #transgender section we went around in circles for a very long time and finally decided to go with "gender critical". (My https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_19#Third_draft_(3.2) submission] that didn't gain consensus uses both terms) At around the same time or so our article Gender critical was moved to that name. But, it's not a term that has much meaning in my view. I did notice that the NYT called her anti-trans in an article published last week (also about fanfic and fans) which was interesting. I have to presume that some extent authors are tied to their editorial policies and I feel that gender critical was in vogue for a short while and now less so.
    Agree re presenting on talk sooner than next week. I kinda thought so over this past weekend. Also agree w/ bringing stuff re trans forward now & leave lit crit (boring!) for later. It's the best transition from current discussions. Also agree re discussions per section. Victoria (tk) 23:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you immensely for this writing out Victoria, it's incredibly helpful. Good to get some confirmation that I'm on the right path.
    I think a big point of contention is over labels, so I was intending to provide a briefly provide each label with attribution (trans-exclusionary radical feminist, trans-exclusionary feminist, and gender-critical feminist), then never mention them again. I can't see Rowling self-describing anywhere. It seems like an easy way to side-step the debate. Another editor gently suggest I avoid the TERF acronym so I'd be fine doing that unless something really compelling surfaced. Just avoids fights, if you get me. The NYT comment is interesting. My understanding is that we are more likely to see US media sources call Rowling anti-trans or transphobic because they don't have to worry about UK libel laws.
    I'll draft up a Talk post for tomorrow evening about structure. My mid-week is a bit harder because of work, so might be able to post it but it also might need to be on Wednesday. I'll keep populating the bio when I can (I added quite big chunks today). If you haven't read it yet, I really recommend Brummitt 2025 (it's available via TWL's De Gruyter collection).
    I guess as 2 final comments/queries.
    • I'm still not sure on whether we should retain #Views. I can see arguments for both sides. A dedicated section enables us to give more of Rowling's views (and more commentary about them). But there are no actual sources with Rowling's views as the sole topic (unlike, say, her public image/literary criticism/her biography).
    • I'm still not sure on whether Galbraith/Casual Vacancy should have their own subheadings in #Reception, or be folded under "Adult fiction" (excludes children) or "Later works" (includes) instead. (I'm pretty happy with the #Literary_criticism subheadings now if you're good with them.)
    – ImaginesTigers 23:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To your last point, let's fold into "Adult fiction" or "Later works". I meant to say something about that b/c I'd mentioned it earlier, but I think I wasn't caught up yet, so ignore that comment re Casual Vacancy until I do get caught up. Will think about the other points. Having #Views section is asking for accretion so to speak, the daily digest of tweets, which would be nice to avoid. How to avoid, is the question. Will try to get to Brummitt but am working very very slowly. Victoria (tk) 23:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Whited 2024 available online anywhere Victoria? I'm struggling to track it down (but I have Whited 2002). – ImaginesTigers 17:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Project MUSE via TWL. Or I can send the full book to you via email if you message me first. Whichever saves you the most time. Victoria (tk) 18:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please. Thank you! – ImaginesTigers 18:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I have Konchar-Farr and Pugh from the same database. Let me know if you need those too. I'm on my way out for a bit. But will check back when I'm online again. Victoria (tk) 18:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Victoria. I've put together a transgender reception section at User:ImaginesTigers/sandbox6#Public image and would love any thoughts. Thank you – ImaginesTigers 17:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to back up a bit, I'm still stuck on the structural issues, what goes to #life, #views, #reception, because we need to try to avoid repetition across sections. Looking at your draft in sandbox 6, #Life includes support for Maya Forstater, death threats, writing of long essay, etc. Should the #Views section outline what she opposes/supports and/or believes, i.e opposition to gender self-recognition laws; belief that biology is immutable; concerns about spaces such as bathrooms; opposition to self-designation, particularly in adolescents (close paraphrase of Whited p. 7 here)? If so, the #Trangender people in #Public image might lend itself to being slightly condensed. A more general topic sentence signaling that the section is only about public reaction/reception might be needed and (sorry I'm brainstorming as I write), maybe it can follow the existing structure, or be structured along lines of support vs. condemnation (or the other way around), or any other logical structure. I'm not sure and still thinking about it. I need to revisit Schwirblat, but my knee-jerk reaction is to delete the clause re Trump's first impeachment. My sense is that maybe that particular section #transgender reception can be tightened a bit if info get shoved into the various other sections. Also, to avoid confusion, we should work in links to the #Views section and #Gender identity section in #Life so that readers are aware that there's more elsewhere. Sorry for a very wishy-washy post. Generally not worried about looking at it on a sentence-by-sentence basis but rather how to fit together the various sections. Victoria (tk) 01:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Victoria (not wishy-washy at all). Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay – my availability's a bit stretched this week so wanted to get this down to produce some feedback! Big response here so please bear with me. I'll sign messages separately in case you want to respond in that way (may make it easier to digest).
  • #Life – Rowling's support for Forstater. Her use of Twitter in this time. Her 2020 blog post. Her post-2020 political contributions/disputes with politicians/Beira's Place/ etc.
  • #Views – Some of the material in Public image absolutely belongs in #Views. For example, the bit in Whited 2024 about her earlier (lighter) position on transgender people. We need to place her views "in context"—i.e., state when she aired them (either in tweets as a response to something that happened like legislation; or in the 2020 blog post etc). This is important "to place the subject in context". Agree on intra-article links, but we lean on the biography to do this.
  • #Public image – Rowling's reputation; responses as a direct result or to her.
  • We could absolutely include how it changes readers' reactions to the books in here, but part of me thinks that belongs at the end of #Reception. A bit like how I think a sentence or two on interpretations by transgender scholars in #Literary criticism makes sense for the ##Social paragraph.
– ImaginesTigers 09:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like both her actions relating to her views being covered in "Life", then these views being zoomed in in "Views", and then further digested within "Public image" is unnecessary and protracted. Consistent with my comments elsewhere, I would fold any discrete "Views" content into a (properly long and nicely detailed) "Life" section detailing what she did when she did it, based on which views of hers that she had at that time, and what the immediate consequence of this action was. —Alalch E. 12:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So basically I used a lot of words to say what you said in your second bullet point: Some of the material in Public image absolutely belongs in #Views. I am sorry, and to reiterate what I said at the bottom, wasn't feeling well but wanted to get in a reply. It might have been better to have waited. Anyway, I think we're basically in agreement. Just to be clear, I'm fine with how the section is now written. The only tiny suggestion is to preface with a clause along of the lines of Rowling's reputation (blah blah blah) ... as a signal to the reader. Also, yes, reactions to books in my view goes to #Reception. P.s I answered from the bottom up, edited/clarified a lot, so these might seem a bit out of whack. Victoria (tk) 14:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it right now, one of our goals is to make the article stable (i.e., increase stability). That means we absolutely must provide an alternative viewpoint when we provide Rowling's views (chiefly, in #Views); otherwise the section will be weighted towards Rowling. I think some of the material, then, does belong in #Views – but not all of it.
Yes, of course. Agree. Wasn't questioning that. Victoria (tk) 15:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the subheading in #Public image is only there to make it easier for me to draft but I think that heading should be a large, contiguous section. The topic sentences that make sense to me are the best ones we have (which "place the subject in context")—her support for Forstater and Rowling's reputation taking a "startling turn". – ImaginesTigers 09:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per Whited's words. That makes sense! Victoria (tk) 14:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to preserving existing text, I believe we can keep some of the essence (e.g., cancel culture/response by Putin/her response to Putin), but using the text as-is doesn't seem an option to me. Large amounts of it fails verification – this is a big part of why I believe writing by committee doesn't work for FAs. (This issue was not in your first draft; I checked.) The urge to condense has resulted in the text being supported by wild extrapolations of sources. Simple example:
We've got plenty of material about Rowling now. We can use existing sources better—e.g., for Whited 2024, we don't mention "the damage has proven extensive" to Rowling's reputation or that it changed her previously very positive relationship with fans. I'd like to build out the earlier section of #Public image on that very topic—fan communities, Rowling Q&As with them, etc, to convey has presence as a singular cultural force. Right now, this section really relies on newspaper articles/trivial mentions in HQ scholarship. Schwirblat is another example – lots more we could use in there but don't. – ImaginesTigers 09:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've meant to suggest writing more about fans. There's a lot about her relationship with fans now and it really needs to be built in somehow, so that's good news. Victoria (tk) 14:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me removing the bit about Trump, but maybe it could be a footnote? And finally – agree completely on moving some of this stuff around. (I really wish her 2020 essay had its own article.) Also agree with you on in-page links. – ImaginesTigers 09:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I mentioned the impeachment is that I'm not convinced it's a great metric (no one understood; no one cared); it's often difficult to know what will take off in social media, but I've not looked at Schwirblat yet. But it's a very very minor point it's basically irrelevant. I'm really sorry, but I've had a difficult few days and will try to keep up as much as possible. Victoria (tk) 14:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gramix13

I don't have experience with Featured Articles to give my own feedback on the rewrite (especially on BLP articles), but I did want to ask if it might be a good idea to place the {{Workpage}} template on the page to make it clear it's not the actual article but that it could be incorporated into the article someday (which is the goal for maintaining FA status)? Gramix13 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gramix13! Just a personal opinion from me but I don't really like those templates. I've worked on material at considerable length in sandboxes for years and never had a confused reader turn up, in part because users can't find sandboxes accidentally. There's a very prominent page title (User:ImaginesTigers/sandbox3) right above where the template would be, which shows it isn't the article. Most of the content discussion will occur on article Talk, with only draft text creates here (hence the refs)—I'll blank sections regularly when they become outdated by new discussion. – ImaginesTigers 11:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loki

Mostly just here to say that I'm glad you're doing this and in particular I'm glad you're improving the structure of the page. One of the issues the old page had is that it didn't seem to go in a logical order: it was very hard to predict the next section from the previous. Loki (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Loki; that's really nice. This page has been a little paradise – I read recently, in The Marriage Plot, that paradise means "walled garden". Tone of Talk isn't great but everyone has been sympathetic/willing to compromise here. Genuinely optimistic this article is an easy FAR rescue, but time consuming to review existing sourcing. – ImaginesTigers 22:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment about the public image section that's being discussed above:

The transgender image section relies too heavily on direct quotes from the sources, and IMO on attribution in general. I think that where possible we should be trying to say things in Wikivoice and when that's not possible due to source disagreements we should try to paraphrase. Quoting sources heavily makes the section hard to read and tends to, in my experience, be a way of importing phrasings into an article that we couldn't otherwise add any other way.

I volunteer to improve this if you're okay with me editing your sandbox. Loki (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some unforeseen personal stuff came up over the weekend and I'm taking a few days off right now – I'll be back working on it full-steam later this week. If I'm honest, Loki, I'd like to pass for now.
There's a few reasons:
  1. The primary reason is that this is a V0.5 (a proof-of-proof-of-concept, if you will)—it's already subject to more rewriting, and I just wanted to get some quotes in directly from my source page.
  2. What I really need right now is folks to agree on the structure at Talk:J. K. Rowling, or this content will never reach mainspace in any case.
  3. I believe wiki-voice is basically no bueno for anything in the inflammatory sections, so I hope you can understand that I'm a bit reticent to hand over something that could kill 30 hours of work dead. I agree with you on paraphrasing, but this is a very early content draft, so just hold tight.
If it's okay, please bear with me – I'm relatively confident I'll have a V0.9 draft of almost every major non-literary section by Monday 15 September.
I would be really grateful if you'd weigh on structure/headings on the article's Talk. No objections at all if you want to copy-paste the sandbox into yours and share what you were thinking that way. – ImaginesTigers 19:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again Loki. Hope you don't mind this but I saw your post and wanted to offer some advice. From a pure consensus-building POV (the only way this goes anywhere), I think you're far more likely to get somewhere if you build on others' responses/engage with people's perspectives directly rather than just posting your own radically different take. That's what I've been doing at least and it's been going well.
If I'm honest, I think your post is more likely to produce moody/combative responses than an friendly/collaborative dialogue—for instance, you say what you're keen to do rather than building on what the group are trending towards. If you think about how you would respond to your own post, it's most likely going to be some variant of "Well, I disagree with what you "want to preserve". In this respect I think your response resembles a bomb more than "I see what you've all been discussing and here's my on that – also what do you think about X?"
Only posting this because it's been a lot of work so far and I don't want it to fall apart on what should be a discussion that's the least contentious.
I'll provide my feedback directly here instead of on Talk as I don't want to dominate the Talk/have others respond to me.
  • I think the side-by-side-by-side a bit hard here because many of these changes were made primarily by me because of looking at/discussing what sources were important. I realise this sounds a bit wishy-washy but I think we need separate reception sections.
    • Easy example: IMO there should be a brief mention of the cross-dressing stuff from Cormoran Strike.
    • That is not going to happen if it's one big reception section: it is utterly minute compared to the Potter reception.
    • But there's not much on The Casual Vacancy (which we have sourcing saying) – hence, the combination into "Adult fiction".
  • Rowling's #Style is a high-level topic of her as an author and absolutely belongs there—the article can't be comprehensive without it, and discussion of Rowling's literary style is different from political/social interpretation of the actual texts: That's her prose quirks like too many adverbs; her use of perspective; her narrative tendencies; her distinctive naming conventions. It's also the genres she writes in and the prose tropes she pulls from them are a subset of that, too (have a look at this sample material for the section).
  • I think Legacy (i.e., as as author—her and her books' legacy on, for example, the publishing industry) is meaningfully different than her public image.
Hope you take this in the friendly way it is intended and please forgive any issues with tone – I'm just writing quite quickly. – ImaginesTigers 20:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also mean this respectfully: I specifically chose to not respond to the existing dialogue.
First, the existing dialogue was hard to follow. If every response is saying "we should modify the thing you said before by doing X instead" then as someone new coming in I need some kind of version control to figure out what the latest responses are actually saying.
But more importantly, the existence of any single section in the structure can't really be evaluated outside the context of the whole structure. So I don't really think what the dialogue was doing made a lot of sense. What you asked for originally, and what I think makes sense to do, is for people to make comments about the structure in the sandbox. Instead what the dialogue was doing was making comments not about that structure but about a compromise structure the participants agreed to but which none of them could actually see. In my view that was causing people to be overly focused about whether such-and-such a section sounded good to have in theory instead of whether it actually worked in the context of the structure of the article as a whole or whether it was well-implemented.
These reasons are also why I posted the side-by-side: it was difficult to figure out what people were talking about until I laid out the full structure. When I did that I saw pretty quickly that, for instance, the Life+Works split as it was currently laid out didn't make sense to me, and that what the discussion seemed to regard as an evolution of a "single life section" structure was something very different from that in the actual sandbox version. Now, I think that's largely because the sandbox is a bit behind the discussion, but that's kind of my point: it doesn't make sense to talk about having a "Life+Works" structure until we're clear what goes in Life and what goes in Works. A reasonable person could totally say "We should have Life be non-career stuff and Works be career stuff even if we have to jump around in time a bit to make that work". Loki (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar I disappeared for a few days because I basically lose all sense of proportion when my mood's dipped. Things are getting a bit better now but I expect I won't be my bouncy/collaborative self until the funeral's done. I'm going to stick by staying off the Talk for now and just respond here. I want to apologise for my message to you above.
In my head, there is inclusion criteria for #Life and #Works. I probably haven't clearly articulated what I was going.
  • #Life includes uncontroversial statements of fact. Rowling did X; Rowling did Y. Don't include her views (i.e., avoiding the requirement for due-weight responses). It is the only section in my head that works this way.
  • #Works has some statements of fact but also commentary (i.e., take a look at #Later Harry Potter works and Wizarding World). The more I've thought about it, I think calling that Rowling's "Career" is outright wrong—it isn't her career. It's commentary on her work (which is a much bigger focus on sources) with outright reference to her.
Ultimately I can't judge consensus on my own, so I have to go with my gut just to get things finished, and hope we can hammer it into a desired shape later easily enough. On my previous work I've never had to take feedback in this way so it's definitely hard. I really hope a completed article can make people say "Yeah that looks pretty reasonable" instead of "No, this is subpar, redo XYZ". If I do need to redo XYZ by the end, though, I can/will. – ImaginesTigers 11:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ImaginesTigers/sandbox3&oldid=1310047793"