Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:32, 18 June 2020

Criticism and Controversy

I’m proposing a Criticism and Controversy segment for this article. Nowadays I hear nothing but bad things about her.

Left wing?

The idea that J.K. Rowling is left wing needs a lot more context. She might appear left wing to many of her US readers (some of whom have probably been contributing to this article), but things like supporting the National Health Service don't necessarily make you left wing in the UK. Furthermore, Rowling has been a fierce critic of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, when Labour shifted from a soft neoliberal party to a social democratic party (in line with most comparable European countries). I would say "centrist" is probably a better brief summation (a mix of centre-left and centre-right views), but if we're going to have this article, let's get into the details rather than offer reductive summaries. And let's make sure there isn't an implicit US-centrism here.

78.145.246.168 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I just read the introduction piece on this and wanted to second the previous comment. I believe Rowling can be reasonably described as "left of center", as is her friend, former prime minister Gordon Brown. Rowling was notably a long-time critic of former hard-left, Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Describing her as "left wing" I believe would be incorrect without also providing more context about the political environment in which that description is made. Indieshack (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

TERF

Is Jk Rowling a proven Terf . A few misconstructed or misinterpreted tweets isnt proof enough . Misplaced Pages can add terf to jk Rowling but not abuser to amber heard. Talk about SJW culture prevailing.

Hypocrisy 101 Hpdh4 09:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Please see Talk:J._K._Rowling#Why_add_the_the_maya_forsater_situation_and_TERF_accusations_with_biased_sources - SummerPhD 18:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

JK Rowling has basically the same view as Janice Raymond or Donald Trump: womyn-born womyn philosophy.J.K. Rowling defends her anti-trans comments as Eddie Redmayne condemns them--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:833:B57:898E:7C9C (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. She's a TERF. Bastun 14:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Why GLAAD yes but The Trevor Project no?

Crossroads, I would really like an explanation why does GLAAD get a pass and is included in the article, while The Trevor Project does not? Why doesn't the recognised media advocacy group which got more attention than anything in this controversy get to appear in the article? Or maybe you think we shouldn't include GLAAD as well? Maybe delete the entire paragraph? Because at least you should be consistent. YuvalNehemia (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's see what develops at the other article talk page. Perhaps both groups could be mentioned and very briefly summarized in a single sentence. But at great length? No. And again, I want to see what others say at the other article. Crossroads 04:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Let's see what develops" apparently means just cutting out the material. This article is specifically about Rowling's politics, but you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. 1.6 million ghits right now. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. Bastun 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Replied here. Crossroads 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That one sentence fragment

@Abbyjjjj96: FYI, this is what I am referencing:

"What I am saying is that you, like I said when I reverted your edit, are making a distinction without a difference. It is an argument specifically designed to instil fear about trans people existing in public spaces and we should treat it as such. I think including the quote reduces the quality of the article as a whole, as it is better to express a summary of what is being said, something the previous version does a much better job at. if you insist on altering the status quo, please take care not to leave it without the proper context.

furthermore, expanding on me mentioning "proper context" I think it is disingenuous to suggest this argument, presented in a whole manifesto aimed specifically at trans people, is not about trans people. It is clear from the rest of the manifesto that JKR's point is not merely about bathrooms. Would she have made this argument in isolation, I may have been more inclined to agree with you, but it is not. It is merely one of the more notable arguments in a barrage of transphobic talking points. And I repeat: We should treat it as such. To "take it literally" in the sense that you are suggesting cannot be done without taking the rest of the document into consideration."

We're not talking about a quote here, but the situation is identical, you are ignoring the entire rest of the document in favour of focusing on one specific sentence, without considering the context it is presented in. That is not a honest way to go about it. Furthermore your accusation that Bodney's quote is selective is bunk anyway, because you can't break that quote in half. The entire quote is about "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" e.g. any trans woman. the next sentence segment: "then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside" Does not change the constraint set by the first sentence fragment. She's still talking about "men who believe or feel they're a woman" implying that some transgender women are just men who want to get into woman's bathrooms, which is exactly the sentiment Mermaids is refuting. It's a slippery slope argument, yes, but it's a slippery slope argument about trans women. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This! And put much more eloquently than I managed on the BLP noticeboard on that dodgy RfC this morning. Bastun 08:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the compliment, and also for mentioning that that RFC, might not have found out about it otherwise, since it wasn't advertised anywhere. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, clear and very well explained. ~ BOD ~ 09:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

'Predatory' insertion

Repeated addition to "of a charity organisation for gender non-conforming children" of the phrase ", who refuted the notion that trans people are predatory," serves no purpose as a back-and-forth exchange. The insertion requires a rationale - what does it mean, why is it relevant and how is it supported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.250.197 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Nuanced views on abortion

I added the text "Rowling's views on abortion are nuanced and do not encompass pro-choice support in all circumstances, evidenced by an alliance with prominent Irish anti-abortion activist John McGuirk, head of Youth Defence and editor of Gript Media, with whom she is a listed author. ". This is an accurate reflection that Rowling permitted her article to be published by Gript Media, a US-funded anti-abortionist and right-wing hate site. The site now lists her as "J.K. Rowling, Author at Gript". This is a notable agreement between Rowling and Gript editor John McGuirk. Perhaps Bastun or another experienced editor can find acceptable wording.

Can you sign your posts by typing four tilde (" ~ ") characters, please? You wrote "Rowling's views on abortion are nuanced and do not encompass pro-choice support in all circumstances, as evidenced by an alliance with..." but have offered no actual evidence of her having "nuanced views" or what they might be; or anything to back that she is not "pro-choice in all circumstances". Similarly, you have offered no evidence of an "alliance" with McGuirk. All that appears to have happened is that Gript reprinted her anti-trans essay, with permission. That's not evidence of anything (except, perhaps, of Gript supporting her anti-trans views, but I've not looked through McGuirk's blog to see if it published anything supporting her). The inclusion of her on the author page is odd, but probably says more about McGuirk looking for publicity by association than it does about Rowling. In short, we could say Gript republished her essay (but wouldn't, because it'd be undue). Anything more would be synthesis and original research ("Rowling wrote for this site; it's anti-abortion; therefore Rowling must be anti-abortion") . Bastun 11:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Both Gript (on several occasions) and "Alive!" have published lengthy articles in support of JK Rowling's anti-trans views, combining them with denouncements of "gender ideology". She must (she corresponded with McGuirk on open social media) have been aware both of this support and of the nature of Gript at the time she granted John McGuirk permission to re-publish her article. Repeal campaigners are widely horrified. Publication on Gript is an noteworthy evolution of the public expression of her views on abortion - no, she did not denounce choice (yet), but yes, her support is limited in expression, and is now impacted by this association with Youth Defence. 78.152.250.197 (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Request for Comment

Editors should be aware that a Request for Comment (RfC) about aspects of the J.K Rowling and Politics of J.K. Rowling articles has been posted on the BLP Noticeboard, here. Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. Bastun 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

1. "J.K. Rowling writes for Pro-Life Gript Media". Gript Media. 12 June 2020.