Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive4

Within minutes of opening other noticeboard discussions (NPOV 20:14 and Fringe theories 19:35 -- that had received zero input when this FAR was added to the talk page at 20:23) -- this FAR was launched, ignoring the instructions for prior notification of several weeks. This is the second time Adam Cuerden has done this, so he is surely aware of the instructions and process.

Forum shopping

Most of what is on this page has never been raised on talk, and most of what is on talk is being resolved through normal editing processes. I have suggested in the past that work under FAR might help stem some of the disruptive issues occurring at the article, but WP:AE has not yet been engaged. FAR is not dispute resolution, and this second premature FAR is disruptive. Use of WP:AE would probably be more effective at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

That is untrue. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=1295109812 at 19:52 is a response directly encouraging me to post here and on WP:NPOVN, at which point I closed the FTN post and did as instructed. I would ask you strike your inaccurate personal attack. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Presumably when they encouraged you to bring it up here, they implicitly meant to follow the correct procedure.

The vast majority of the aspects you've brought up here would likely have been solved by discussing them on the Rowling talk page; it's only the trans-related stuff that tends to get stuck in a quagmire. TBicks (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This is what the NPOV noticeboard thread looked like at 20:21 when AC tagged the talk page with a FAR at 20:23 -- zero input, forum shopping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of it has already been discussed, although Adam Cuerden might disagree with the consensus. The transgender issues were being worked on. What hasn't been done is to make use of WP:CTOP and WP:AE for curbing behavioral issues. The normal process for claiming an article is POV wasn't used either. FAR is not dispute resolution, and this should be closed again as out of process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I would point out that many, many of us have been trying to engage on the talk page for months now. These aren't new issues. I've said there were major issues with the article's writing and structure months ago. Do you want links to me saying all these things? This article is problematic, and we need to deal with it. I do not think that sweeping this under the table, especially with wild accusations against the person raising the problems, is the proper way forwards. I would again ask you to strike your false comments above; posting at the two places I was directed to post is clearly not forum shopping. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 01:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

At this point, the NPOV noticeboard (where dispute resolution can be pursued) has one response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden please refrain from altering your posts after they have been responded to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You didn't actually respond to the post I edited. You just commented that the other place I was encouraged to post this had one response. Are you trying to claim that when I'm told to post two places, and I take the time to actually do a proper FAR post that doesn't waste people's time - because quoting the NPOVN post here would be wasting people's time; a full review of problems is a minimum standard for FAR - that I'm forum shopping by posting because I didn't wait on the NPOVN post that does not cover the vast majority of what I posted here? Because that's very much moving the goalposts from your original claim. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 02:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

"many many of us" is an overstatement. The entire rowling talk page consists of not many people, but those people are very loud, which can make it seem like there is a larger base of contributions.

The vast majority of things you've brought up here have never been mentioned on the talk page, so yes they absolutely are new issues. "Sa[ying] there were major issues with the article's writing and structure" isn't specific and so isn't actionable in the way that your points here are.

In fact, one of the only things listed here that actually has been discussed in the talk page is your problem with the transphobia denial sentence in the lead, and you are the only person who has expressed a problem with it. It was the product of compromise & contributions from people from both sides of the issue.

That you didn't follow procedure isn't a "wild accusation", it's just an observable fact. The procedure is literally listed at the top of this page, so i'm not sure how you're finding this so difficult. If you'd followed procedure, most of this would've been sorted out without the need to clog up the FAR page. TBicks (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've linked the section of the archive where I've pointed out the article's problems with writing quality throughout. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 12:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to quote a few comments from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Promotion_of_anti-trans_fringe_theories_on_J._K._Rowling:

• "change needs to come to the Rowling article. It's entirely non-neutral and is increasingly out of step with the real-world reception of this BLP."
• "I took a look at the article for the fist time and immediately saw similar tidbits like this all over it - the type of quick small fixes I typically enjoy contributing as I go - but then I checked out the talk page and edit history and just sighed instead. "
• "here is an impossibly high bar for making changes that reflect Rowling's transphobia. None of the defenders of the article have expressed any interest in doing the heavy lifting though. This is passed entirely back to whoever wants to make any changes. I will admit that I pretty much abandoned any concerted effort to move the needle after that. You will notice my participation at article talk drops off a cliff after that point. After all, why bother? Unless I want to become an effective SPA (which I do not) I would never have time to meet the very high standard being imposed by the people protecting this article."

I think this article is an interesting case of WP:OWN so very bad that it's basically made normal Wikipedia editng impossible. Procedures have been invented for this article seen no-where else. Further, as seen here, the editors of this article will outright lie (claiming that no edits were made on FTN before I closed the FTN section and opened an NPOVN and this as instructed; claiming that procedure wasn't followed when the problems with the article have been being discussed for months with no progress) in order to shut down any attempts to change the article. This is a unique state of affairs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 12:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a pretty ugly WP:AGF violation, which sadly has become more and more of a pattern.

We have quoted the FAR procedure which you didn't follow (which you are yet to adequately respond to). We didn't invent the procedure, it's literally written at the top of this page. That's not "outright lying". It also isn't "shut[ting] down any attempts to change the article" as we have already pointed out that the vast majority of concerns you raised here would likely be actioned if brought up on the Rowling talk page (which you have not yet done). TBicks (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The procedure says "Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page."

I think this has amply happened. I have been trying to engage on the talk page for months. The problem is that Talk:J. K. Rowling is, frankly, a toxic sludge where no sane person wants to go. It actively discourages participation. I linked the two month eleven draft situation where editors weren't allowed to edit drafts, and were expected to propose changes to a single drafter, for 11+ revisions (there's lettered variants of some of those numbered drafts). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Barely any of the issues mentioned here have been brought up on the talk page though. If 95% of the FAR complaints haven't been brought up in the article, you can hardly claim to have followed policy. TBicks (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The policy nowhere states that every issue must be raised in advance. I went through and found examples of the types of issues I've been saying the article has for years. This isn't a comprehensive list, and it covers literally the whole article. There are few to no sections of this article that reach a basic FA level of writing, and the organisation is random, bloated, and problematic. Like, this is not an FA, and shouting about your interpretation of a procedure not being followed (when the as-written procedure has been) is not going to make this article be of FA quality. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not shouting, and you can't seriously be suggesting that because it doesn't explicitly state that you need to raise every issue, that somehow means that not raising the vast majority of them is in the spirit of the policy.

The article may well end up needing a FAR, but until we've had a chance to fix the issues you've raised here via the standard talk page procedure, we won't know what does/doesn't need the attention. Prematurely adding it to FAR doesn't help that, it just bloats the job we'd end up having to do here. TBicks (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stop editing posts after they have been responded to. TBicks (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Second request: Adam Cuerden this FAR page is already the most convoluted I have seen in recent history. Please stop stop editing your comments after they have been responded to; it makes this page very hard to follow. See WP:REDACT. And besides the absence of a diff for talk pages notice of a FAR, you haven't done FAR notifications. Please read the FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• While I am sympathetic to the concern that there is a procedure and it is best to follow it, Wikipedia is the site of ignore all rules, especially when it comes to the fundamental charge of the encyclopedia being improved/being harmed. The person posting about this is arguing that there are fundamental NPOV issues with the article that have proven intractable. I see quite a lot of discussion on the talkpage where this is not being addressed. It might be better if someone who is completely independent of the conversation looked over this report and the associated talkpage and made a determination as to whether there is a path forward beyond "close -- out of process". Featured article review would to me, at least, seem to be the right venue to ask the question, "should this stay a featured article given the controversy?" It's okay if the answer is "yes", but to stop the question from being asked in the first place seems absurd. jps (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think anybody has said that the question shouldn't be asked; merely that it should be asked when the normal procedure for improving articles has failed to alleviate the issues raised. Given that almost all the issues haven't been raised in the talk page, I don't think that's an unreasonable point here.

  Ignore all rules refers to rules that "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". I find it hard to buy that following the policy prevents the desired improvement when all it asks for is a couple of weeks of discussion in the talk page before opening an FAR. You could argue it delays it by a couple of weeks I suppose, but the policy is there for a reason.

  Are there occasions in which it is okay for procedure to be ignored? Sure. I'm no procedure purist. But I like to see good reasoning for it, which I haven't seen so far from Adam. TBicks (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Then allow me to offer a kind of reasoning as I see it. The claim being made in the presentation of this review is that the NPOV problems with the article are so egregious that it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to keep the article identified as a featured article. I am fine if you disagree with that assessment, but I think the thing to do is say that you disagree with that assessment rather than worry about whether the venue the complaint was being made was procedurally correct. WP:NOTBURO. jps (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  The talk page is also an absolutely textbook example of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, particularly "behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions". See the comments at WP:NPOVN - or just skim a few archives of the talk page - and it's clear that the general tendency of the talk page is to shut down discussions with no changes, and to drive off people who do not agree with the status quo. This very review is an example of this: attempting to shut down the discussion before it can move forwards. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't expressed an opinion on whether the featured article status should be kept or removed, so let's avoid ascribing positions that haven't been stated.

  With respect, the FAR process is designed to review and improve articles that someone/people believe(s) no longer meet the featured article criteria, and yet the procedure in question was designed for exactly that process. So i'm not sure that the belief that the page has issues that should cause it to lose FA status is a reason to ignore this specific policy, because this situation is exactly what the policy was designed for. TBicks (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  If a user finds an article that is so poorly considered that they are appalled that it is considered a featured article, I would want them to sound the alarm pretty much like I'm seeing here. Sure, you could argue that there is WP:NODEADLINE, but we're talking about a featured article which, to the wider world, means it has a strong stamp of approval. FAs get higher weight in training sets for AI, their prose receive more Googlejuice than other prose (even other prose on Wikipedia), and its status alone encourages readers to think it is work of the highest standard. In a situation where a user believes that the situation is so problematic that it requires immediate reconsideration of this status quo, I think it is reasonable to argue that the stadnard procedure outlined does not apply per WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO, etc.

  This is essentially argued by Adam Cuerden to be an emergency. Again, you can disagree or agree with that position, but by refusing to address the substance of whether it is or is not an emergency and continually referring back to policy as though this is the most important thing going on, I think we are running the risk of elevating procedure for procedure's sake. Indeed, it would be preferable, as far as I'm concerned, if you were to make a judgement here rather than pointing to the rules. I understand completely that you have not articulated any position here -- it is exactly that I think you should offer a position.

  My position? I think there is a somewhat significant controversy over the NPOV status of this page and that would normally be disconfirming for FA status. I personally see no harm in (even temporarily) removing FA status while we work to see whether this is an intractable dispute or whether it is resolvable or whether it is a nothing-burger. I suspect that it is not a nothing-burger, but I have been wrong in the past. So my suggestion is that, even though the process was a bit scrambled, it would be fine just as a precautionary measure to remove the FA status.

  jps (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Except he claims that these issues have persisted for years, yet neither he, nor anybody else, thought it worth bringing an FAR since 2022. Either the problems have been there for years without being solved or considered an emergency (in which case what's an extra couple of weeks?), or its suddenly an emergency which can't wait an extra couple of weeks (which would be weird considering most of the sections he mentions haven't been edited in ages, and he hasn't brought up most of these concerns before).

  I'm not going to come to a position on FA status until i'm sure that this FAR is going to stand, because to do so would involve a deep dive into the reliable sources/literature and a full read of the article in the context of those sources. TBicks (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  TBicks, we don't come to a position on FA status in the Review phase of FAR; please see the instructions. In the review phase, we review concerns for several weeks (most often more than a month), and then decide whether to close or proceed to the Removal phase of the process, which also lasts at least several weeks, and more likely several months. FAR is not designed or intended to resolve content disputes; it is designed to be intentionally deliberative, to avoid some of what we're already seeing here, which won't result in the desired outcome (article improvements) if continuing down this path (with loads of off-topic personalization and discussion). Also, AC did bring another FAR (see archives 2 and 3 linked above), so was informed and theoretically did know the process and that there were other ways to address content concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  As I mentioned, i'm not coming to a position yet. Jps is the one suggesting I should express a position on that front. Edit: I note Adam's previous FAR attempts (thanks for the correction). Note that both had similar procedural issues, and indeed one was closed for that reason. TBicks (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's not at all clear to me what you think the next steps out to be for a person who is in good faith trying to sound the alarm. I myself remember getting told to go away and come back in six months after I pointed out that When God Writes Your Love Story was such a trash article it deserved removal from FA. I went away and it was eventually removed, but in hindsight I still see no benefit gained in delaying the discussion simply for the sake of procedure which was what was done in that case. jps (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  We aren't claiming that he should "go away and come back in six months". We are claiming that he should follow the policy laid out specifically for this process. That's not "delaying" the discussion; if anything, it's just not expediting it.

  I think the next steps are fairly clear. Explain your concerns in the talk page (which he is yet to do for most of the concerns given here), attempt to address and fix those concerns over a period of a few weeks, and if the concerns remain after good faith attempts to build consensus, open an FAR. Many of these concerns will be easily addressed on the talk page. It's generally only suggested edits relating to her views on trans women that polarize editors.

  This is basic FAR procedure, i'm not sure why you're acting like its controversial. Note that Adam has history with incorrect FAR procedure, which has led to at least one previous attempt (on Rowling) being closed for that reason, so WP:AGF can only extend so far. Also note that he's not bypassing procedure because he considers it an emergency; he's claiming he did follow procedure.

  As an aside, if we start allowing FAR requests where most of the issues cited haven't been addressed in the relevant talk page first, we open ourself up to this place being flooded with requests that would be better placed (and easily solved) elsewhere. TBicks (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  For me, it is how it comes across when telling people that they are wrong to start a conversation in venue A and instead should do it in venue B when, why does it really matter? I thought that WP:FTN was the wrong place to start the conversation and that WP:NPOVN and WP:FAR were the right places, but if I had been able to anticipate the icy reception, I might have advised differently (and, granted, I would have probably done things differently if it had been my own concern, but I don't like the officiousness of saying that procedures must be followed or else!). I guess I am less concerned with following procedure than I am with getting issues noticed and attended to. My reading of this discussion looks like there is at least implication that the procedure not being followed implies the complaints are not worthy of consideration -- even if that was not your intent. jps (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Some of the laundry list presented in the first post would have/could have gotten much quicker attention if they had been posted on talk, and responding to them on this bloated page is harder than would be on talk. Besides the transgender issues, which are being quite actively and productively re-worked on talk, the FAR-worthiness of the rest of the list is debatable in terms of whether this was the best forum for addressing them. There's also a lot of ranting taking over the talk page, rather than "focus on content" posts asking for specific content changes, and listing sources backing those changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's a misrepresentation of my comments. I'm not saying he's wrong to start a conversation here. Indeed if you scroll up, you'll see I say "The article may well end up needing a FAR". To fix your analogy, a prerequisite to posting an issue to venue A is that you need to have posted it to venue B first. He didn't post it in venue B, so I am saying he should do that before posting it venue A.

  Your comment suggests an either/or when it comes to 'following procedure' and 'getting issues noticed and attended to'. My question is, why can't it be both? If he follows procedure and his concerns aren't addressed suitably, he gets his FAR anyway. I see no reason not to do this properly. TBicks (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  As for "My reading of this discussion looks like there is at least implication that the procedure not being followed implies the complaints are not worthy of consideration -- even if that was not your intent", I haven't expressed a view on the veracity of his complaints, and it's rich for you to bring up WP:AGF while saying things like this. TBicks (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I am trying to explain how your rhetoric comes across to me. I'm not out to attack you or even argue that you are wrong.I am just trying to offer a perspective of someone who would like to see less sneering and more supportive collaboration when it comes to situations like this. jps (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  If you see the wish to conform to policy as 'sneering', then I don't know what to tell you. TBicks (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's called WP:Wikilawyering at its worst. I am not accusing you of that, but, yes, over attachment to policy can come across as obstructionist, just so you know. jps (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think pointing out that almost all of the points that he has raised here haven't had a chance to be addressed in talk as they've never been brought up there is a valid concern, especially when it comes to someone who has a history of invalid FAR requests procedurally. I'm not arguing a technicality here, i'm pointing out that he's ignored the entire first step of the procedure. Wikilawyering would be e.g. complaining if he had waited 13 days instead of the required 14 before posting here.

  It's hard to see how you're not accusing me of wikilawyering when you use phrases like "I am trying to explain how your rhetoric comes across to me". TBicks (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Got that in the wrong place, so here too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Agree with JPS here in that while it definitely is technically WP:FORUMSHOPPING, the article could reasonably have been brought to FAR at any point in the last few *years*, so the poor timing here doesn't really matter much. Loki (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  The process matters wrt (what is hopefully) everyone's desired outcome -- article improvement. FAR is for determining whether the bronze star is still warranted, and a poorly launched FAR isn't likely to address perceived content issues (even less so when there are co-occurring behavioral issues clouding the content issues). And FAR is a deliberative process that takes months, while dispute resolution can be more immediate to resolve specific content disputes. Evaluation of POV concerns, for example, is better handled through normal dispute resolution and editing processes, like the NPOV noticeboard, or RFCs, etc. I understand not everyone is happy with consensus, but FAR isn't the venue most likely to result in article improvement; for that, we have things like RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think that sometimes FA status can hamper improvements to the article because editors will (understandably) use it as an excuse to say that there really can't be a problem because the article has FA status. Would that it were not that way, but it seems that's the culture. jps (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't seen that here; I think almost everyone has acknowledged that updates are in order, and that we were hamstrung in 2022 by a recent and very well attended RFC, but that information becomes lost in long talk page rants that sometimes amount to IDON'TLIKEIT or occur sans sources, prompting reminders to use best sources and focus on content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm glad that people aren't being obstructionist in that fashion. It can, of course, feel that way when there are shoot-the-messenger points like the comment below arguing that the OP should be sanctioned for bludgeoning! jps (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)