Misplaced Pages

Talk:J. K. Rowling: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:44, 16 June 2020 editBodney (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,998 edits Reactions (criticism and support) to J. K. Rowling's views on transgender issues: belated apology← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:34, 22 January 2025 edit undoAdam Cuerden (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers52,554 edits Move phrase "which left transgender people feeling betrayed": ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talk header|search=no}} {{Talk header}}
{{JRowling}} {{Controversial}}
{{Article history
{{UK English}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
|action1date=11:06, 3 June 2006 |action1date=11:06, 3 June 2006
Line 26: Line 25:
|action4oldid=176585208 |action4oldid=176585208


|action5 = FAR
|action5date = 2022-04-15
|action5link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1
|action5result = kept
|action5oldid = 1082873609

|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=April 11, 2008 |maindate=April 11, 2008
|maindate2=June 26, 2022
|topic=Langlit |topic=Langlit
|otd1date=2017-07-31|otd1oldid=792890911
|currentstatus=FA
|otd2date=2021-07-31|otd2oldid=1036292258
|otd3date=2022-07-31|otd3oldid=1101432981
|otd4date=2024-07-31|otd4oldid=1237824142
}} }}
{{section sizes}}
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Writers|class=FA}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|class=FA|blp=yes|listas=Rowling, J. K.|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=FA |a&e-priority=Mid |a&e-work-group=yes |listas=Rowling, J. K.}} {{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=Mid |a&e-work-group=yes }}
{{WikiProject Bristol |class=FA |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Children's literature |class=FA |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Women writers |class=FA |importance=high}} {{WikiProject Women}}
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=high|fantasy-task-force=yes|fantasy-importance=high|harry-potter-task-force=yes|harry-potter-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Women|class=FA}}
{{WikiProject Novels|class=FA|importance=high|fantasy-task-force=yes|fantasy-importance=high|harry-potter-task-force=yes|harry-potter-importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Women in Business|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Literature |class=FA |importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Gloucestershire|importance=Top}}
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |class=FA |category=Arts |WPCD=people}}
}} }}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-07-31|oldid1=792890911}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|brief}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Oberlin_College/GSFS_101_(Fall_2017) | assignments = ] }}
{{Talk:J. K. Rowling/FAQ}}
{{press|small=yes|author=] |date=2009-02-03 |url=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title=Is Misplaced Pages cracking up?|org=] |section=February 2009}}
{{Press|author=Stephen Foley |date=2009-02-03 |url=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title=Is Misplaced Pages cracking up?|org=] |section=February 2009


|author2 = Hava Mendelle
== Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2019 ==
|title2 = JK Rowling puts Misplaced Pages’s neutrality to the test

|date2 = April 22, 2024
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=yes}}
|org2 = ]
in the Childhood part, can you change it from 23 months to 1 year and 11 months ] (]) 08:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
|url2 = https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/04/jk-rowling-puts-wikipedias-neutrality-to-the-test/
:{{not done}} - it's common practice to list anything less than two years as combined months. Changing to years and months breaks the flow of the sentence and adds unnecessary complexity. ] (]) 08:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
|lang2 =

|quote2 =
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019 ==
|archiveurl2 =

|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=yes}}
|accessdate2 = April 22, 2024
Charlton Athletic fan. ] (]) 11:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
}}
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> &#8209;&#8209;''']'''&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 13:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
{{Backwards copy

| title = JK Rowling Net Worth
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2019 ==
| year = 2023

| author = Fehintola Ambali
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=yes}}
| display-authors =
Please can you change the key image to this image? I have permission to use the attached image, the credit should be: Photography Debra Hurford Brown © J.K. Rowling 2018
| url = https://gatekeepersnews.com/2023/04/16/jk-rowling-net-worth/
] ] (]) 10:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
| org = gatekeepersnews.com
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> That photo does not exist. ]]] 12:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
| monthday = 16 April
:::More to the point the photo has not been uploaded with the correct permissions. I suspect you were trying to link to an offline image, or one that is somewhere on the web - but not hosted either by Misplaced Pages or on Commons.
| id = 1139578915 <!--
:::I suggest you upload the image first, apply the necessary permissions for what seems to be an image with specific copyright details, and then try again. ] (]) 12:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
| title2 =
::::? <b>]+]</b> 13:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
| year2 =
:::::If it is, I'd be willing to bet that the licensing info is incorrect and needs changing/correcting before it can be considered. ] (]) 07:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
| author2 =

| display-authors2 =
== WorldCat data in error for Pegasus article? ==
| url2 =

| org2 =
The data for an article mentioned in the section on Rowling's education is wrong. It says the year of Rowling's article "What was the Name of that Nymph Again?" from Pegasus, the journal of the University of Exeter's Classics department is 1988. However, I found a PDF of that article which clearly dates it as 1998. Not to mention that Rowling mentions Professor Binns in the article; the Potterverse wasn't even a gleam in her eye in 1988.
| monthday2 =

| id2 = -->
I think whoever wrote the citation got the date from WorldCat. 1988 is written in the Publisher field, but I don't know that necessarily means the article should be dated 1988.
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
A Princeton library has the correct date for it online. I suppose I could just change the citation to the Princeton library instead of WorldCat, but I find that untidy.
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K
Should I try to change the WorldCat data? It seems like you have to be affiliated with some library in order to request changes.
|counter = 22
] (]) 01:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 1

|minthreadstoarchive = 1
== Education section ==
|algo = old(20d)

|archive = Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive %(counter)d
The Education section notes J.K. Rowling's "What was the Name of that Nymph Again? or Greek and Roman Studies Recalled" as being published in 1988, but it appears to have been published in 1998 as found within the Journal of the University of Exeter Department of Classics And Ancient History on a University website at: https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf
}}

__TOC__
<ref>https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf</ref>

] (]) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Andrew Heagle
{{reflist-talk}}

== Why add the the maya forsater situation and TERF accusations with biased sources ==
{{hat|This is clearly a case of ], ] and also ]. Reasoning has been explained several times with no change to the OP's attitude. This will clearly go nowhere.}}
Is it because[REDACTED] editors are now toxics SJWs .

I mean, brie larson gets a free pass with her man hating views on[REDACTED] but Jk Rowling is accused without proof . People cant add man hating to brie Larson article because[REDACTED] isnt a gossip rag but TERF can be added to Jk Rowling ? With one tweet and biased sources ? Talk about hypocrisy. This should apply to brie as well- if you add Terf to JKR you should be able to add Man hating to Brie . Gossip rag argument is moot point if your willing to vilify one person on the bases of poor gossip sources but not the other.

People can't make edits to articles of other celebs like brie Larson because of poor sources and[REDACTED] not being a gossip rag YET here we are with gossip sources for Jk Rowling. Even if people change the maya situation, it will be reverted by some SJW editor . Don't get me started on Johnny Depp being abused by amber heard and online tapes being released - someone on wiki said these tapes were doctored. Anything to believe woman as if woman cant do harm. Their are woman criminals.

Hypocrisy 101 is showing and it must end . Social justice doesn't equal to equality but reverse revenge . Hpdh4 12:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

:Discussion on this talk page should be limited to ''this'' article. A tangentially related situation on an unrelated article cannot be addressed by assuming they are somehow related or should be handled in a way that you deem to be "fair".

:Comments attacking editors (individually or as a group) are neither productive nor acceptable.

:If you feel there are sources used which are not reliable sources, please specify which sources and in what way(s) you feel they do not meet the criteria outlined at ]. You are ''very'' unlikely to find support for arguments that CBS News, ''The New York Times'', ''Vox'', and ''Forbes'' are "poor" or "gossip sources".

:If you feel the coverage of that material is beyond its coverage in the sources, such that it is a ] issue, please explain. Note it is two sentences, citing four very reliable sources.

:Please note that the article does ''not'' say Rowling is a ]. Instead, the two sentences say she "faced criticism for supporting Maya Forstater" (which is certainly true), "after a court ruled that Forstater's anti-transgender views were not protected beliefs" (again, true and verifiable), "Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident," (it is inarguably true that the media outlets made those statements) "with some describing her as a trans-exclusionary feminist whose views are transphobic" (again, it is true that some described her that way). - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 18:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

::Theirs something called consistency and fairness. Even if you and others like you feel otherwise . If things like this can be added to Rowling, then it can be done for anyone that's controversial.
::I'm not going to add contrevercial things said or done by people like brie Larson or Amber heard or delete the terf accusations . I know my contributions will be reverted. It appears as if The truth only matters when its factual in its support for specific agendas.
::Hpdh4 13:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

:::This article is about Rowling. If you feel something in another article is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, discuss THAT issue THERE. If you feel you have similar quality sources about another issue on another subject, you will need to take the issue up there: Provide the sources, show they are reliable (most of the sources here have been covered in ]) and provide a ] summary of what they say.
:::The TERF accusations in THIS article are very well sourced. If you feel any of the sources are not reliable you will need to be specific as to which source and how it fails ].
:::What our article says is -- unless those sources are lying (for some reason) -- true: Rowling faced criticism, outlets said she had been controversial in the past and some described her as a ] with trans-phobic views. Which of those statements do you feel are not ]? If you feel Rowling was not criticized, was not accused and was not described, you will need to explain. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to bother doing shit.
::::You and the rest of the Toxic SJW editors can keep on using[REDACTED] T&C to pretend it's all about adhering to the rules. We all know what it is : an agenda. Anything controversial said or done by any living person should be added to their respective articles irrespective of weather the sources are verifiable or not - that's what controversy is- generally unproven rumors . Isn't it strange sources deemed "appropriate" by some editors spew the same rhetoric yet with some ( I say some ) sources "not appropriate" actually have the truth .
::::I'm done . You lot win
::::Just trying to point out fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles.

::::Hpdh4 23:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

:::::No, controversial claims about living people require high quality sources. If you don't like it, Misplaced Pages isn't the place for you. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>]</sup> 23:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::No , controversy requires clickbait journalism. The kind of thing people like you prefer to support. When she actually starts supporting hate groups and saying negative things like Trump then I will believe that shes a Terf .
::::::How can clickbait journalism be supported over actual speech like in the case of Brie Larson and the Johnny Depp tapes of amber's abusive behavior. Actual spoken proof matters more then your agenda based sources .
::::::Hpdh4 09:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}A specific BLP article is not the place to discuss general claims about "fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles". ] (]) 11:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
|}
== Similar controversies ==

I recently edited this article to remove the line {{tq|Similar controversies have arisen with regards to her liking tweets which some considered to be transphobic}}. This line was initially supported by a PinkNews source, which I removed per ], and by articles from Vox and LGBTQ Nation, both of which can be considered reliable sources. However, neither article would appear to effectively support that sentence. The Vox source was in fact previously used to support this sentence {{tq|Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident, with some describing her as ]}} which I removed in this edit as it appeared to be a generalisation, not supported as per ]. Retrospectively, this source does not adequately support the remaining sentence, as it principally covers the Forstater case, with the rest of the article being social media speculation, making it ] as a source for the sentence. The LGBTQ Nation source relies entirely on speculation regarding social media. I do not believe that there is enough reliable coverage to support the sentence, per ] and that to include it based on the sources given would be ] for a ]. <s>I would therefore propose to revert to the edit here .</s> ] (]) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

:Thanks for discussing. It won't be hard to find additional Rowling's opinions on transgender issues, and I'll happily add them over the next couple of days. Minimising coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues and activism seems to be a particular interest of yours, but coverage of such opinions does seem to be on the increase. Note that social media such as Twitter can be used as a ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC) --- Huh. . She and Gl*nner seem to do this ''a lot''! ]<sup>]</sup> 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
::{{re|Bastun}} References to news coverage of the tweets and subsequent commentary will be better than linking to ] tweets and snippets. Should wait before expanding on the recent controversy, though the previous Forstater controversy needs some better expansion itself. ] (]) 04:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

:::Oh, absolutely. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

:::: Clearly current events have overtaken things here, hence my strike through. From a Misplaced Pages perspective, Rowling's latest comments, and the subsequent coverage they have generated, should prove helpful to editors. I would suggest that editors refrain from throwing aspersions at other Wiki editors, as has been done on this talk page. My aim, as I would hope is the aim of most editing here, is to edit Misplaced Pages and particularly BLP's fairly, keeping balance and context in mind, and attempting to avoid personal bias/agendas. Passing judgement on others supposed motivations is neither helpful, in the spirit of collaboration or general politeness. ] (]) 20:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

:::::I stand by my comment. Your contributions speak for themselves and appear to be aimed at minimising, specifically, coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues. That is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policy of ]. You could of course prove me wrong by supporting the inclusion of coverage "the subsequent coverage they have generated", which you say above that you support. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is far from reliable unless it comes from proven sources making use of Twitter like for example a journalist. When your information comes from multiple tweeters its incorrect. Hate to see[REDACTED] fall to tabloid standards over unproven allegations and virtue signaling. Hpdh4 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Per ], especially ] and ], and keeping in mind the reasoning at ], we should not include every single flash-in-the-pan piece of commentary. As of , regarding her June tweets, we have what the tweets were about, their criticism, and, for ], the ] subject's response, all covered by ] sources. This is more than enough coverage of this extremely recent incident. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

:Agreed, we should not include every flash in the pan response. I added some criticism of Rowling's most recent anti-trans tweets yesterday, made by several notable people not directly associated with her, which were subsequently removed, and on balance, that's probably the correct decision. Keeping in mind ], ], ], however, the criticism of her tweets by Daniel Radcliffe which was reported today most certainly is proper to include. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
::Why? Because he's Harry Potter? What about Evanna Lynch's response? Should we include it too? <b>]]<span style="color: #00b;">]</span></b> 23:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
:::No, because he's responding via the Trevor Project after years of collaboration with them, making it pretty much their official comment, even if his name is on the open letter. Why is GLAAD okay but The Trevor Project not? ] (]) 04:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
::::We don't need ''two'' advocacy groups' detailed comments. Remember, this is a flash in the pan source-wise. It should be kept brief. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 04:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::So why does her reply belong here? Just state the outline of the controversy and link to ]. Why is her reply significant enough for the main article, but ]'s is not? Especially if the latter got more media attention? ] (]) 04:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::Because: and <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::That explains quite well why we shouldn't include stuff like ]'s brilliant reply, and also why we probably shouldn't include Rowling's reply (to your notice). But not why we shouldn't have The Trevor Project. I mean, GLAAD's response is quite clearly not news, and therefore is included. Same for the Trevor Project. ] (]) 04:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

:::::::That explains nothing. :-) No valid reason for excluding Radcliffe's response on behalf of the Trevor Project has been presented. Given the inextricable links between Radcliffe and Rowling, excluding any mention of his response - especially given - would actually seem perverse. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::I added a mention of Radcliffe's comments before seeing this conversation. Sorry, I would've discussed the issue first if I had known it was controversial. Radcliffe's and Redmayne's comments are included in more than enough RS to show they are notable. I believe it also belongs according to ] as well since this seems to be more than a routine reporting and are not overemphasized in the article. ] (]) 20:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
{{od}} Thinking about this more, and looking at the coverage now, if editors want to mention commentary from Radcliffe via The Trevor Project, then I suppose that makes sense. Still, I think the June 2020 material that is critical of Rowling should be kept short enough to be a single paragraph that is not unusually long, per ] and ]. I also don't think we necessarily need to mention Eddie Redmayne and Evanna Lynch's responses, as they are individuals who say basically the same things as GLAAD and The Trevor Project. But my main issue is watching out for excessive length or detail. Rab V, your version of it was summarized well. But let's see what others say on including the mention of the Lynch and Redmayne comments. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
:Thanks. Agree about how long it should be. I'd also say the current version is too long when discussing her blog post per ] and seems to be written with a bit of a slant. Right now it's seeming like Redmayne's comments are getting a lot of traction in RS but not Lynch so I think a brief mention of Redmayne may be due though it is similar to other comments. ] (]) 21:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
::My main concern is also keeping things brief. I would probably cut things down to two paragraphs, one about Rowling's views and one about the backlash. That is roughly how organizes things, focusing largely on Rowling's views in the first half then the backlash in the second. Regarding the criticism from ''Harry Potter'' actors: I think it's worth including, as long as it's kept as brief as possible. 's, , , and 's criticism have all gotten headline coverage. ] (]) 03:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I prefer the current ordering, which is the same as the Reuters piece.
:::Regarding Rab V's tweaks to the summary I wrote of the :
:::1. The bit about {{tq|some of which had been in the form of abusive language and threats of violence}} should be mentioned. Reuters, as a news service, is a superior source to various entertainment magazines, and they saw fit to mention this. It gives context to what she goes on to say about having suffered violence, and is part of the background complexity of the situation.
:::2. It was claimed that {{tq|She expressed concern that some young women were being persuaded to escape womanhood via gender transition, noting her own struggles as a teenager.}} was {{tq|confusing and not in source}}. I don't feel too strongly about including this sentence, even though Reuters emphasizes this point, but I need to address the claim it was not in the source. Here is the supporting text: {{tq|Rowling, 54, explained in detail her research and beliefs on trans issues, and the concerns she has about how women’s rights and some young people’s lives were being impacted by some forms of trans activism....“I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition,” she wrote. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.” She said that as a teenager she had struggled with severe Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and that she now believes that had she found community and sympathy online, she could have been persuaded to turn herself into the boy her father said he would have preferred.}} I'm not sure where the confusion lay, but adjustments can be made of course.
:::3. She <s>never stated</s> <u>didn't just say</u> {{tq|that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces dangerous}}. Note the Reuters source carefully: {{tq|she did not want girls and women to be less safe, and she gave some examples of where she thought demands by trans people were dangerous to women. “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to '''any and all men who wish to come inside.'''”}} (Emphasis added.) She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons ''who are not trans women and do not '''actually''' identify as women'' to gain access ''for other reasons'' ("any and all"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held.
:::4. On {{tq|She stated that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning, comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women.}}, the {{tq|comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women.}} portion was cut off. I think this should stay because so much of the recent commentary revolves around the "people who menstruate" phrase, which we already quote, we should mention why specifically she objected to it beyond vaguely calling it "demeaning". <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 07:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC) <small>correcting <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)</small>

::::Agree with keeping this brief, to two to three paragraphs. Expanding as necessary when there is another such controversy (the current controversy did not exist when this talk page section was started). Re Crossroads' comments, (3), her quote not only misgenders trans women but absolutely '''does''' imply that allowing trans women are dangerous. Re (4), I do know for a fact that those remarks insulted and demeaned . That should also be covered. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

::::I see the Radcliffe/Trevor Project material was removed again. Consensus now seems to favour inclusion. I propose including a sentence about the criticism from Radcliffe, Watson and other HP stars, including reference to the Trevor Project. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::If there is ever another such controversy, I don't support adding another paragraph, per NOTNEWS. Since the topic is politically charged and entertainment sources cover every little thing celebrities say (both Rowling and each person reacting), we get a bunch of different flashes in the pan that say nothing new substantive. I'd say this section should max out at three reasonably sized paragraphs, one of which is about her response(s), rather than adding another paragraph in August and another in January and so on. If new incidents occur, we can make it less about specific incidents and more about comments that sources have made about the overall pattern of statements. Regarding point #3, she does do that, but it also is about men as I explained. Regarding #4, you can't know that for a fact as that is an opinion. That opinion is not of any note - it's just some random person on Twitter who never even said they were a post-menopausal woman or a woman with a hysterectomy. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, re-working the section next time there's a controversy works too. As long as it's not "there can never be more than we have now", obviously. Looking at other biographies, when you stop being notable for your former field and are now mainly known for your new area of interest, that latter topic will be covered in increasing depth. That's only proper, per ]. Re 4, I can't know what for a fact? NME covered one tweet out of dozens or more that replied in exactly the same fashion to Rowling's tirade - many, ''many'' cancer survivors, menopausal women, etc., responded. It's not hard to find those tweets. I suspect you're aware of them, though, and your removal of that response was disingenuous. Reuters is not the gold standard as sources go, and NME is a perfectly valid source, by the way. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Responding to the comments Crossrads made about my edits: They are mainly done since the paragraph was overlong considering NOTNEWS. (1) The phrase from the source "At times, the criticism has taken the form of abusive language and threats of violence" is incredibly vauge. What is abusive language, when was it used, who is saying it, was this why she wrote the essay? Later in the source it goes on to describe her being compared to Voldemort as abuse. Also Reuters is not a superior source necessarily, we have to decide which parts of this story are featured prominently across RS in general to figure out what is appropriate to share and what isn't ]. (2) The source talks about her worry about how trans activism imapcts her life and whether she might've transitioned. It doesn't explicitly state young people now are transitioning now who shouldn't. The phrase "escaping womanhood" is an unusual and confusing wording for transition to male and calling people who transition to male "women" goes against[REDACTED] policy. (3) 'A man who believes or feels he is a woman' is a charged way to refer to a trans woman. I don't think the article or the preponderance of RS support that she isn't talking about fears around trans women. (4) Sentence was overlong for NOTNEWS, not sure the removed material signigicantly to readers' understanding of Rowling's position. ] (]) 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

{{od}}X-posted from ] and directed at Crossroads: "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. . ] is '''not''' a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
:Your reply there was to a days-old comment. I stopped objecting to an addition about Radcliffe and the Trevor Project. Other editors, though, also have a say. You need to actually read ]. Once you do, you'll see that "It's literally news" is a very poor argument for inclusion. Don't forget ]'s twin, ]. And you are hereby warned to stop attacking me. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." - ]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

::Can I ask, what's your obsession with Reuters? It's no more or less reliable than any other reliable source, such as ''Variety'', ''Entertainment Weekly'', or ''The Guardian''. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
:::See ]. Obviously, outlets that are mainstream journalism are more reliable than entertainment magazines. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

::::I'm very aware of ]. It quite often makes subtle distinctions for specific outlets, but y'know what? It's perfectly valid to use sources other than Reuters, especially when they're listed on ] as reliable. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
{{Reply to|Abbyjjjj96}} the reasoning behind giving weight to Radcliffe's response is overlayed here. ] (]) 06:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

:Rowling's lack of enthusiasm for the English language bending in until-recently-strange ways, and making it clear that having lived as a woman in the entire biological sense has shaped who she is and what she does, while also repeatedly making it very clear she's supportive of trans rights and was way ahead of the curve on that – this is not "transphobic". Even some trans activists are saying it is not and that labeling her that way will hurt their own cause. It's just extremist noise and is not encyclopedic material. Every time someone somewhere gets mad at some tweet, we do not need to write about it in the encyclopedia. This is not EmpheralMessagesAndEmotionsPedia.<p>Activism organizations and publication may be reliable sources for certain things, but they are absolutely not for their activistic messages and labeling; that is pure ] material, by definition. That ''Variety'' published everything I just summarized, yet still put "transphobic" in their headline, unqualified, as if this were a world-wide consensus instead of a minority and extreme and self-defeatist opinion, simply means that the magazine needs a better editor. Entertainment magazines (which is most of the sources for this stuff) are not reliable sources for socio-political matters, anyway; they're reliable for things like whether so-and-so celebrity got divorced from thus-and-such other celebrity, and for what whatshername was seen wearing at her movie premiere last week, and how unhappy whatshisname says he is with his album being a flop because the pandemic killed his promo tour. As for the spousal-abuse thing, there has been a little bit of press about this, but it's more using her as an example, not making an example of her, as it were. The incident is not central to Rowling as a public figure, as an encyclopedia subject; rather, people are using her celebrity to draw attention to the overall social problem of domestic violence. It's not our job to dwell on the old private-life matters of bio subjects (especially living ones), even if some other publishers are doing so. If we mention this at all, it should be in-context, in the material about her marriage and divorce; not in some "controversies" section that is getting more and more like a drama-mongering trivia section.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)</p>

:: Rowling claimed trans people are trying to erase the concept of biological sex, which is false and a TERf dogwhistle. She claimed trans women are a threat to cis (or as she said in another TERf dogwhistle, natal) women, which is super transphobic. She claimed most trans men are just confused girls, which is both wrong and transphobic. She claimed trans people are trying to "convert" gay men into trans women, which is again wrong and transphobic. When I read the essay I counted at least 8 falsehoods and 19 direct quotations of TERf rhetoric, and similar breakdowns by medical and psychological professionals found even more. If Rowling decided to stop working on her book to write this 3600 word transphobic manifesto, I believe it's only just that we include a single sentence about how she was criticised for that. ] (]) 07:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

== Should Transgender Essay be Included in Non-Fiction? ==
I vote yes; it is a much talked about piece, and seems to have been written more as a true essay, rather than simply as a blog post. ] (]) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
:In my view, no, it should not be listed in the "non-fiction" section at this time; it's better handled in the "views"/"gender identity" section. If it gets continuing coverage, and/or coverage ''as'' a significant non-fiction work rather than just a(nother) expression of her views on gender identity, then I would re-evaluate it at that time. ... Frankly, the fact that we're listing even some individual ''Guardian'' articles also seems questionable; I did not think these sections were intended to be comprehensive lists of everything a person had ever written, but only of notable/important works, but I may be mistaken there... ] (]) 03:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

== Jacobs / Sun paragraph ==

The paragraph about the ''Sun'' publishing, and being reprimanded for publishing, her husband saying her slapped her ... is currently in the "Views"→"Transgender issues" section, but does not ever mention or relate itself to transgender issues. So, it seems like it should be moved. Perhaps the sentence which says "Biographers have suggested that Rowling suffered domestic abuse during her marriage," which was recently expanded with "which was later confirmed by Rowling herself", should be further expanded with "...and by her first husband" + whatever additional details are actually DUE ''here'' (and we might want to discuss whether someone who is not the article subject reprimandng a paper for publishing something by someone else who is not the article subject is DUE ''here'' as opposed to in the article on e.g. the newspaper which was reprimanded). ] (]) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
:I agree on moving the Sun paragraph. ] (]) 20:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

:It was me who created this paragraph, I am not necessarily against moving it, but where do we move it to? Although your last sentence was very convoluted, not sure I followed it, sche. ] (]) 20:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

:OK, I the paragraph up, into the part of the article that talks about the marriage and about the domestic abuse. For now, I left in the sentence about Jacobs reprimanding the ''Sun'', although it's kind of ... straying off of the topic of this article? (But I don't feel strongly enough to remove it. Another idea for consideration is to make it a {{tl|efn}}, though.) ] (]) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

:: Hi all. I added the bit about Jacobs and believe it should stay as context pivotal to a full understanding of the outcry against The Sun. Without that statement from Jacobs, it's not in itself clear why The Sun's publishing choices have been formally found to be reprehensible (the quote from the ex-husband is not enough... "he slapped her and he's not sorry" does not in itself adequately convey that his actions are domestic violence and therefore criminal). Thoughts welcome. ] (]) 01:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

=== "who lost her employment tribunal against (x)" ===

:: {{re|-sche}} to answer your question in Contrib comments... "tribunal" (no need to follow with "case") is correct in British English. ''Her loss in the tribunal inspired Ms. Doe to advocate for better protections for pregnant women.'' ] (]) 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

::: "Her loss in the tribunal" is grammatically very different from "who lost her tribunal against ", though, are you sure the latter phrase is also grammatical? One can also say "her loss in court inspired Ms Doe", but not "she lost her court against X". I see all of eight(!) google hits for the phrase "lost her tribunal against", and while I know ] aren't an argument for titling or deleting an article, it does make be wonder if the phrase is standard English. ] (]) 21:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

== Support for Rowling on Trans issues ==

Support of Rowling's stance on Transgender issues should be included as much as critique is included. Excluding support for her comments is indicative of an obvious bias in support of the gender narrative and isn't conducive to wikipedias main purpose. Some would debate adding any information is controversial and that adding support that doesn't come from Potter cast isn't proper. Support is support no matter who it comes from as in the case of Transgender pop singer ] who spoke in support of Rowling.
I will add the supporters to counteract the detractors who are motivated by publicity reasons . Hpdh4 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
:I think that would apply to an article on the controversy surrounding Rowling's tweets, should we decide we need one. <b>]]<span style="color: #00b;">]</span></b> 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
::Please read ]. Positions should be represented proportional to their weight in RS. Including Dana when HP stars only get brief mentions would be ].] (]) 17:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Mermaids, an LGBTQ+ charity, gets a single sentence, and the CEO of GLAAD doesn't get a mention, despite her not insignificant response to Rowling's essay. With all due respect to Dana, her opinion doesn't matter for the purposes of this article. ] (]) 18:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


== Rowling and Barbra Banda ==
Dana's opinions matter more then Radcliffe,Glaad,Mermaids, Watson,Lynch,Redmayne,Wright . Dana is actually transgender. Opinions of the person from the actual group matters more then that of controversial organizations like mermaids or PR driven actors . Plus it's a situation of Us vs Them . Having only Rowlings detractors is bias as it assumes Rowling is entirely wrong when people like Dana agrees with her to an extent. Support as much as critique should be included . Even a neutral sentence should be included like : Rowling's claims have garnered some support and then have the Reuters/dana article used as a citation. Hpdh4 19:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
:: Mermaids is a major nonprofit transgender advocacy organisation, and therefore carries much more weight than that of a single random trans person. Furthermore, you seem to still be misunderstanding what a neutral point of view means in relation to Misplaced Pages and transphobia. Transphobia is a fringe position, and therefore should be given less weight on this website than the opposite. ] (]) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


Times and again, Rowling has exhibited transphobia like her recent claim that ] doesn't look feminine enough.
No
I am starting to understand one thing from this: theirs a bias against Rowlings comments. I still stand by my original position; Both CRITIQUE and SUPPORT should be included to avoid being seen as giving creditability to one side only. It isn't neutral if theirs only critique from PR driven actors and a controversial transRIGHTS organization.
Neutral is this : Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues have generated controversy and have garnered both criticism and support from an assortment of celebrities and organizations. Hpdh4 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
::please consider ]--] (]) 22:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Hpdh4, can you please sign your posts with 4x ~ so we can find our way to your talk page? As you were asked to do ] ] (]) 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


This is my reason for adding ] here. ] (]) 10:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, there likely ''is'' a bias against Rowling's comments in the real world - LGBT rights issues have included the 'T' since - well, Stonewall, actually and literally, if not before. They're pretty key. To have someone who wrote the HP books apparently miss the point of her own writing by such a distance, and to have her punch down on trans women, women who've had hysterectomies, and post-menopausal women, was shocking for many. Radcliffe's response explains why far better than I can. So it is entirely ] to feature the response of GLAAD, The Trevor Project, and Mermaids, all significant organisations, plus the reaction of the actors synonymous with the HP films. Dana International is relevant to JK Rowling how, exactly? You're new here - please read ] and ]. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


:Putting aside the misrepresentation of Rowling's issue here, and the fact that her comments on Banda are not even related to trans issues, the article does not classify Rowling as an 'anti-transgender activist', meaning it is not appropriate to put the article in such a category.] (]) 15:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
You prove my point Batsun. This site is supposed to be neutral and report things as is. Agendas are left at the table .
::" billionaire author J.K. Rowling is attacking yet another cisgender African female athlete</nowiki>]" ] (]) 21:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Fairness demands both criticism and support exist in the same article section. Dont play the new card when your blatantly against Rowling. I'm neither against her and nor am I with her. I just want both criticism and and support to be included. Information should not be excluded on the basis of whose relavent or not and definitely not be excluded on the basis of a editors personal agenda.
::Per Daff22. Arbeiten8, please have a look at a broader sampling of unbiased sources, along with the scores of times the same discussion has been had on this talk page, and in particular, the high quality sources required for a Featured article. {{pb}}And I believe we have the same situation . ] (]) 23:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Somebody else will include Dana's support and I can't wait for the blow up . Hpdh4 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::Rowling is the textbook definition of what is transphobia. She has
:The proper point of comparison is with the comments of the Harry Potter actors. Including those, and not those of a notable transgender woman, whose comments were treated as noteworthy by (and ), and creating the impression that all celebrities condemned Rowling, is what creates ]. Simply having played a character in the Harry Potter movies ''does not'' give one special authority in this matter. It takes some sort of intellectual ] to say that their opinions need to be included, but those of an actual transgender woman do not. It's still clear that many other trans people do not feel the way Dana International does because we have comments from groups like GLAAD. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 03:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::<nowiki>#</nowiki>Misgendered trans people
::That's one sentence only in the Reuters source suggests this isn't as notable in RS as the other actors, especially those with many RS dedicated to their opinions. ] (]) 05:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::<nowiki>#</nowiki>Misgendered cis people who she perceived as the wrong gender like ]
::<nowiki>#</nowiki>Authored the book ''Troubled Blood'' & ''The Silkworm'' claiming that trans women are supervillains wanting to rape women casting "" according to GLAAD
::The only reason the first sentence of this article doesn't describe her as a transphobia activist is by the dint of fanatics with an like ] ] (]) 15:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/harry-potter-hbo-series-jk-rowling-transphobia-1236215642/
:::{{cquote|
:::Rowling, meanwhile, has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona. On Sept. 10, she posted the U.K. open casting call for the roles of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley to her 14.2 million followers on X. That was an exception: Over the next two months, Rowling posted or reposted more than 200 times (excluding replies) about trans-related issues to support her conviction, as she posted on Oct. 7, that gender identity “is defined by little more than a person’s subjective feelings, or (more accurately) their claim to feel those feelings.” Within the same time frame, she posted or reposted about Harry Potter just eight more times, [...[
:::The industry has never quite faced a scenario in which the sole creator of a beloved, multibillion-dollar global franchise has plunged so unabashedly into one of the culture’s most contentious social issues. She’s effectively made herself toxic to many within the core fandom, whose devotion began 25 years ago when they were children and has sustained the franchise long after the books and the film series concluded. It’s placed those fans in a vexing dilemma: How can they engage with the new show, or any other iteration of the franchise, if they vehemently disagree with Rowling’s views on gender identity?}}
:::I mean, even ''Variety'' is saying it now.... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 17:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This debate has been had a number of times now, and it has become abundantly clear that there is no consensus for adding that label. ] (]) 00:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


I know we've had this discussion multiple times before and the consensus prior is that, despite Rowling's actions over the past few years, it doesn't relate much to her overall career and ongoing notability. As of yet. And the latter sentence was noted in those discussions as well. I do wonder, though, at where that line is and how long is needed of her continuing this ongoing bigotry that had been all she's gotten reporting on for years now before we can actually change or add to the article about this being a new main part of her ongoing notability. There is a time amount and line where that would be true, right? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean, in theory I have no problem with the inclusion of Dana International's opinions, it's just that there are quite a few trans people's opinions that disagree with her, and there's no reason to give her more weight over them. So if Dana's opinion gets included, it is only fitting that we include quite a lot more of trans opinions, making this chapter the longest in the article. Also, there is no need to defend Rowling more than her own defence if several professional organisations (the Trevor Project, GLAAD, Mermaids) condemn her entire behaviour in this controversy. ] (]) 06:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


:Probably? Assuming reliable sources start commonly calling/alluding to her being an anti-transgender activist, I don't see why not.
:It's Bastun, not Batsun. My ''point'', person whose username is about Harry Potter and wants to include an additional defence of Rowling but is neutral and doesn't stand with her, is ]. Organisations working with, by and for trans people, amongst others, including GLAAD, Memaids and The Trevor Project have all criticised Rowling's comments, but if you look at the page history here, their criticisms were all removed at one point or another. We still have nothing in the article about the criticism she received for equating sex with menstruation (apparently you stop being a woman after menopause or hysterectomy; and keep being a woman even if you're a trans man?). I have no objection whatsoever to including support for Rowling, if its relevant and satisfies ] and ]. The HP-associated actors satisfy that. A random singer, not so much. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
:The problem in past discussions seems to have boiled down not to whether she is anti-transgender (I think she's made her gender critical views clear by this point), but to if she is an activist. Few of the RSs previously discussed actually describe her that way, and there's no consensus thusfar as to if simple speech on Twitter constitutes activism (especially given the absence of campaigning elsewhere).
:Anyhow, it's only been a couple of months since the last time this was discussed, and in the absence of new developments, we can't keep reigniting this every time someone wants to link some poor quality sources (LGBTQ Nation is hardly unbiased on this issue). ] (]) 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:"In the past, . "
:2 books claiming trying to create a stereotype of trans women as male murderers and rapists; (Rolling Stone)
:Rowling also indicated that Trump's 2024 electoral win is because of the triumph of transphobia (]): According to her, the only reason that she couldn't positively declare ""Trump's win was down to the gender stuff" is because she isn't an American voter
:Also, would I be wrong in stating that if Rowling were a WP user engaging in this unrepentant rhetoric, then she' be banned?
:We have articles like <nowiki>]</nowiki> claiming that the subject is a white supremacist in spite of Fuentes's denial. On the other hand, when Rowling is accused of transphobia, she retorts that she doesn't care and is "."
:I think people can common sense. We don't need a hundreds sources to run a headline to the effect "Rowling is the great transphobic author of all time in human history" to decide that 2+2=4 ] (]) 02:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think the goalposts keep moving. We have reliable sources directly talking about it now. But they'll probably insist on peer-reviewed papers, and if those are presented, will say they're not as good as ones from 10 years ago, which don't mention her transphobia. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::A little more AGF, please, {{U|Adam Cuerden}}. At least a few of us insist on good sourcing because we believe in enforcing FA standards - please look through the FAR archives, if you believe I am doing so out of some loyalty to Rowling. I note that we last exhaustively revised the relevant section five months ago. Has Rowling done enough since then to merit another revision? I'm inclined to think not. Also: the splashiest headlines of the last few months have been ostensibly unrelated to trans people: she has criticized Imane Khelif and Barbra Banda for not appearing feminine enough, despite them being cis-women, as far as the world knows. This could arguably be worked into her views, but it would really be stretching a point to use this as justification for "anti-transgender activist". ] (]) 16:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No, @]... although featured articles should have a higher quality requirement for sources, as long as the preponderance of reliable sources (of any variety) suggest something, there is no reason not to add it. The goalposts have remained firmly in the same place.
:::As already mentioned, there is little mention of her being an activist in reliable sources. I don't think people are seriously suggesting that she isn't anti-trans any more, but to label her an '''''activist''''' requires more than just RSs pointing out that she says mean stuff on twitter. ] (]) 16:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Like, the Variety piece says anti-trans activity is the central focus of her online persona. I don't think that's particularly ambiguous, and if the only objection is exact wording, we could literally quote theirs. "In 2024, ''Variety'' wrote that Rowling 'has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona.'" <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 15:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm not opposed to adding that sentence into the relevant paragraph on her trans views.
:::::That's different to actually labelling her an "Anti-trans Activist" in wikivoice, which is what was suggested by Arbeiten8. As I mentioned, simply quoting a single RS like Variety would be insufficient for that change - it would require much more significant usage in RSs than has been presented thusfar. ] (]) 16:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm not actually opposed to inserting that quote in the body, because it is summarizing what the popular press has to say about her online presence in a way that most sources don't do. It remains insufficient for the "anti-trans activist" label, though. ] (]) 16:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I believe Adam's arguments has met all the criteria to label JK a anti trans activist. ] (]) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Lead weight ===
::The post above says that: ''"We still have nothing in the article about the criticism she received for equating sex with menstruation ('''apparently you stop being a woman after menopause or hysterectomy'''; and keep being a woman even if you're a trans man?)."''
Separately from not seeing consensus for to the lead (there was some support for adding it to the body), it takes the transgender portion of the lead to 72 words of readable prose out of a total lead size of 450 words (16% of the lead). In an article of 8,861 words of readable prose, the transgender section is 488 words, which is less than 6% of the article. The lead is giving undue weight to the transgender content, and if that quote (which I believe to be excessive) is to be included, some trimming of the overall lead content about the transgender issue is needed. The edit also adds content to the lead that is not mentioned in the body. I have , and to respect ] and ] 2c. ] (]) 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:I think that it massively improves the lead. We can cut other parts of it, but compare:
::That's not what Rowling said; regardless of what one thinks of her views, let's not put things into her mouth that she never said, that's a ] issue. Saying that "only women menstruate" does '''not''' equate with "only the persons who menstruate are women" (ie. what she says is that men don't menstruate, '''not''' that women who don't menstruate aren't real women). What she means is: "Not all women menstruate, but only women menstruate." The part on transmen may be indeed her view, but not the bolded part about menopause/hysterectomy.] (]) 10:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
:A.
::Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about ], and in 2024, '']'' wrote that Rowling had "made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Vary |first1=Adam B. |title=HBO Says ‘Harry Potter’ Series Will ‘Benefit’ From J.K. Rowling’s Involvement: She ‘Has the Right to Express Her Personal Views’ |url=https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/harry-potter-hbo-series-jk-rowling-transphobia-1236215642/ |website=] |access-date=14 January 2025}}</ref> Her comments, described as ] by critics and ], have ], fuelled debates on ] and ], and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector.
:B.
::Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about ]. Her comments, described as ] by critics and ], have ], fuelled debates on ] and ], and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector.
:The sentences that are the problem are all the other ones, because they say exeedingly little. "her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights" says basically nothing. The way it's phrased, she could be a huge trans ally. And then "Her comments, described as ] by critics and ], have ], fuelled debates on ] and ], and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector." - again, a lot of talk, of questionable weight, (did she really "divide feminists", or was there an extant division she highlighted. The phrasing of "prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector." is also odd.
:The whole transgender section, without the ''Variety'' quote, is written in this weird passive voice, where it's stated that Rowling said... something about transgender people, no comment whatsoever about what, and the rest of that section is solely about the reactions to it, again written in vagueness.
:The ''Variety'' quote, however, makes it clear ''why'' talking about her views on transgender people is important enough to be in the lead in the first place. We can trim down the reaction to her statements sentences far more profitably. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Cmon, there was no consensus for adding this to the lead. A few of us were okay with adding it to the body, but there certainly wasn't any suggestion of the lead changing in the talk page.
::As for "her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights" not being clear, I think the fact that it's immediately followed by "Her comments, described as transphobic by critics" pretty much clears up which way her comments lean. ] (]) 16:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Citation consistency ===
:::Cool, so you support the addition of criticism about her implicit claim that trans men are women, and her saying that those who say otherwise are trying to erase the concept of sex? ] (]) 11:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Re, :
::Also, why did you change the capitalization of the article title to different than that that ''Variety'' uses? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 09:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


I have moved this comment to its own section, so the substantive discussion isn't derailed, and so I can reply at length when I next get a free moment. This is standard ] 2c, and ]; Misplaced Pages, like most outlets, has its own ]. I have a very busy day, will reply at more length over the weekend. ] (]) 14:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, what is a BLP issue? I haven't implied that she said anything that she didn't write. She wrote what she wrote. What she wrote about menstruation , and it's on the record. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


== mermaids == == Related JKR discussion ==


Is the uk times a reliable enough source to label mermaids as controversial? From my understanding it's up there with the daily mail in terms of manufacturing fake controversies. EDIT: see also the wikipedia page about ] which does not refer to them as such.--] (]) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) In the light of the above discussion, there is a discussion of the treatment of Rowling's political views at ] that may be of interest to editors at this page. Thanks. ] (]) 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:to expand on this further: should we call a charity controversial if the subject it raises money for is already controversial? I feel the current wording implies that there is something nefarious going on with this charity beyond it dealing with potentially controversial subject matter, which, going by the charity's[REDACTED] page and my knowledge of it, doesn't seem to be the case--] (]) 23:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
{{Reply to|Britmax}} pinging you since you reverted my edit on this --] (]) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


=== JK Rowling and the Nazi Book Burning comments ===
== Summary of J. K. Rowling's essay on transgender issues ==


I believe a general overview of her comment on this topic should be added to the main page. It garnered considerable attention from both the general public and media. This holds as much relevance as other inclusions, like her disaproval of the phrase "people who menstrate." My suggestion would be to add the following statment, including the Telegraph article as a source as it lacks bias against Joanne. Although, it does contain some mischaracterising of events about the reasonings of Brown to defend Rowling's comments so I would be open to an improved source as it does bias towards Joanne.
The section ''Transgender issues'' reads like this:


In March 2024, Rowling questioned the ] of the research into ] at the ] as a potential "fever dream" in reply to a user on Twitter, officially known as X.
::Rowling later published an essay on her website in response to the criticism. She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women, while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. She also wrote that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/jk-rowling-holocaust-denier-allegation-rivkah-brown-novara/ ] (]) 21:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
This is such a poor summary of Rowling's essay that it's almost a caricature of that essay. For some reason, the summary focuses on single-sex spaces access of transwomen although that is only a minor part of that essay (and as somebody else pointed it's not even clear if Rowling has a problem with access of transwomen as such, rather than with broad regulations which would allow ''any man'' to enter such spaces). There are so many other issues she addresses in that essay, including medical concerns re MS (she is involved in MS activism), concerns regarding huge increases in teenage girls transitioning in recent years, inability of women to define themselves as a class; Rowling sees these, as well as many other issues, as problems. If we choose to summarize Rowling's essay we should do it properly, without misrepresenting what she says; if we can't do that, than we shouldn't comment at all on the essay, instead we should simply say that she wrote an essay in response which sought to clarify her positions on trans issues, with a link to the essay so that readers see for themselves what the essay contains and make their own minds.] (]) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
: I'm okay with something along the lines of "Rowling later published an essay... In which she opposed several transgender rights, such as changing the gender marker on IDs and letting trans people enter the same toilets as their gender." Which includes more of what she said there. You may also add that "she claimed trans women in women's toilets are a threat to women, an that the transgender community is trying to erase the concept of biological sex, forcing doctors to ignore it when treating them." All of these are claims in that essay, all of them are false. ] (]) 07:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


:I don't know what that sentence even means. She 'questioned it'? The Nazis were a pretty questionable bunch{{cn}}! I think I see what you're getting at but even so, she didn't explicitly say "That Nazi book burning of the research into transgender healthcare at the Institut für Sexualwissenschaftevent was a fever dream", neither does your source say that's what she meant, to read that into it is ]. ] 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also let's not forget that she claimed trans men are confused women and that trans people are trying to "convert" cis gay men. You wanna include that too? ] (]) 07:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::"Rowling had last month questioned a claim made by one social media user who said: “The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”"
::It uses the term "questioned" in the article and refers to the Nazi book burning. The only thing being "read into" is that it's only about the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. We should make the statment more general then as needed. We should then add a new source to show the connection between trans research and the Nazi book burnings. The Misplaced Pages article for the institue should have a source that would suffice (not the article itself as that doesn't suffice) as it has sourced that one of the focuses of the institute included trangender healthcare.
::Also, I am still open to a better source as the telegraph is biased towards Rowling. Open to suggestions.
::-
::In March 2024, Rowling questioned whether or not the Nazis practised book burning in regards to research into transgender healthcare as a "fever dream" in reply to a user on Twitter, officially known as X. The Nazis did burn the research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, which had a focus on transgender healthcare. ] (]) 23:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In March 2024, Rowling questioned the claim that Nazis burnt research on transgender healthcare, referring to the claim as being a "fever dream" in response to a user on Twitter, officially known as X. The Nazis did burn the research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, which had a focus on transgender healthcare. ] (]) 23:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: At first glance this strikes me like "nothing burger" and misrepresentation of the given source (being primarily about false holocaust denial claims). So presumably she was not aware that that transliterture/research was burned at the book burning as well and due to her antitrans bias assumed it was not the case and dismissed an according claim offhand without checking? Is that the core issue here? I neither really observed much of "considerable attention" (outside a social media bubble maybe) nor do i see any eny encyclopedic value. This article needs to ''shortly'' summarize her antitrans views and not collect any individual antitrans remark she makes.--] (]) 23:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I disagree that denying recorded Nazi crimes is a "nothing burger" just because she may have actually believed she was in the right due to ignorance. We potentially shouldn't assume the motive behind her action, but if we do assume that, the core issue would be her non-retraction and continued rebuttal of criticism. This would show pertinent "antitrans" views in her unwilligness to admit error when trans people are concerned which I believe would still warrent mention. ] (]) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:A discussion was already underway at the sub-article, and already mentioned on this talk page in the section just above this one. {{pb}} This article is a broad overview of JKR, and conforms to ] in terms of ] and high-quality sources. ] is given according to reliable sources. {{pb}} In an article with 8,800 words of readable prose, of which 250 words total were dedicated to JKR's politics (due weight in accordance with high-quality and scholarly sources), 117 to her relationship with the press, and 488 in the transgender issues section, added 209 words on a subject that is mostly absent in mainstream sources, and not treated at all in scholarly sources as far as I can tell. Due weight for the sub-article-- much less this article-- has not been established.{{pb}} {{u|Pink Pyra}} when you have been reverted once -- and particularly on a contentious topic which is also a BLP and also a Featured article -- you should avoid edit warring and not reinstate without consensus. It will take much more than a few reliable sources to establish due weight in this broad overview article; you should first work on whether the content belongs at the sub-article, where even there it appears UNDUE in terms of the number of sources that mention it. You were reverted once, yet without gaining consensus on talk. Please take greater care when editing a ]; I suggest pursuing the discussion already underway at the sub-article before continuing here. ] (]) 23:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've already acknolwedged my error and shortened my proposed addition so I'm not sure why your response is towards only my prior (very lengthy) error on my part.
::The Telegraph article gives direct quotes to the original tweet and her response quesioning it. What claim am I giving undue weight by noting what happened? Comments relating the whether or not a person deny the recorded actions of Nazis are a thing that should be mentioned. ] (]) 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2025 ==
Bias against Rowling is showing
This site is full of SJW editors.
Pity ,[REDACTED] is regressive not progressive.
Both points of view should be included.
Arguments of the things Rowling is right about
Arguments of the things Rowling is wrong about
But you editors won't allow that just to fit the gender narrative. Wonder if she could sue - I would if I could . Indeed this site is misrepresenting Rowlings ideas by not including some support for her or the points shes right about and their are people who support her . Hpdh4 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=1}}
== Reactions (criticism and support) to J. K. Rowling's views on transgender issues ==
change "...is a British author and philanthropist." to "...is a British author, anti-LGBT+ rights activist and philanthropist." ] (]) 10:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


:This has been the subject of a lot of discussions recently, and there is no consensus for adding this label. Given the short period of time between the last discussion and now (a matter of days; see the Barbra Banda section for example), I don't think it's worth starting another one for the moment. ] (]) 11:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I see there has been a lot of controversy regarding whose reactions on Rowling's views on transgender issues should be included here, but the question is should any reactions be included at all in this article? There's a section ''Views'' with four subsections: ''Politics'', ''Religion'', ''Press'', ''Transgender issues''. For some reason, the first three subsections just explain Rowling's views on those issues without giving any reactions or response from other people or organizations, although many of those issues are highly controversial; whereas the ''Transgender issues'' is almost half about response/reactions from others. We already have the ] page where we can (and should) detail how her views were received.


h] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> (]) &#124; (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 12:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
On the other hand, if we do include reactions from others, we should only include those people/organizations who had commented ''explicitly'' on Rowling. Some of the actors cited as "criticizing her views" didn't actually say anything on Rowling. They have only posted support for trans rights in general, without any mention of Rowling. Of course, given the timing of such postings, it can be inferred that they were indirectly criticizing Rowling, but we are not allowed to engage in ] here. ] (]) 07:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


== Move phrase "which left transgender people feeling betrayed" ==
:This section is justifyingly long, because it's the biggest controversy Rowling has been part of (just as a way of measurement, the only thing Rowling tweeted since that stream of tweets on 7 July was the link to that 3600 word essay). Rowling's claims were denounced by several major LGBTQ+ organisations and by the entire main cast of Harry Potter. You can't ignore that. The actors other than Radcliffe (who's special in this case) were only mentioned in a single sentence, so that this chapter doesn't become too text heavy.
:I understand why you are concerned, but the current status of this chapter is entirely justified. ] (]) 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


Currently, in the Views --> Transgender People section, the final paragraph contains the sentence "In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left transgender people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault."
:You're right, there has been a lot of controversy. We're discussing how it should be covered in a couple of sections above, already. Starting a new one implies you probably haven't read the talk page, where your points have already been addressed. Can we keep discussion to the sections that are already open, please? ]<sup>]</sup> 12:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::yep it is confusing and repetive... I do apologise for replying when someone starts a new thread and I felt the need to reply. This talk page has become very messy. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


The phrase "which left transgender people feeling betrayed" feels very out of place in this paragraph, in which her views, and the basis for them, are explained. Personally I find the phrase a little problematic (e.g. nonspecific; which trans people?), but if it is to be included, I think it would fit better in the 2nd or 4th paragraphs, which list the reactions to her statements/views.
== This is a biographical article ==


Wanted to get opinions on a) if this sounds reasonable and b) if so, how it might best be done. ] (]) 11:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
If this controversy is important enough to include alternate views, then it probably needs an article of its own. <b>]]<span style="color: #00b;">]</span></b> 09:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
:This could be taken as an argument for keeping the section as short as it is. Per ], and the fact that most of the sources on this are low-quality entertainment sources that are usually about flash-in-the-pan things like what so and so wore to such and such premiere, a new article is not warranted. Such an article would be a ] and would not survive AfD. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


:The current phrasing doesn't allow for her opinion to be presented neutrally. It should be split up as you stated. A quick way to solve this could be to move the reaction to the end of the paragraph, or right before the assertion of Whited? ] (]) 15:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::It may scare you but there are plenty of sources that are certainly not 'low-quality entertainment sources' which Misplaced Pages considers very reliable that have reported on this issue, or maybe the Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Forbes, Variety etc should be treated as unreliable on the ].]<sup>]</sup> 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::Yeah, it actually fits quite well with the final sentence regarding Whited. I'd support moving it to the end of the paragraph. ] (]) 15:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Doesn't scare me at all. Note that per RSP, though, "As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source '''in its field'''." (Emphasis added.) And in any case, just because several outlets cover something at the same time does not mean it warrants its own article. Per ], "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia". Tweets are trivia. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::I think it should be made a bit more specific though. I can't access the source unfortunately, but the current wording could mean every trans person in the world or a small group of them. If the source says something like 'transgender fans of her books', that would be a better wording I think. ] (]) 15:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Firstly I should say I actually do share your concerns regards article forks, I prefer for the event to be treated properly and accurately here.
:::Maybe someone with access stops by and joins the discussion, but until then, just splitting the sentence up should be fine as well. ] (]) 17:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Most peoples Tweets are indeed total trivia, but these tweets are by a high profile sociopolitical commentator which have been reported in the serious press, so they have become elevated to more than just tweets. Tweets can be notable in themselves, (]).
::::If the reaction is specific to the essay, it'd be better to mention it there, rather than having to reintroduce the essay later.
:::: I do think the notable reactions against her tweet AND the lengthy essay with which she released to the world as a famous social-political commentator (which contained several additional erroneous fallacies regards transgendered people), should not be dismissed away as some loopy trans activists with their knickers in a twist in the low-quality entertainment press, it deserves to be treated with accurately neutrally respectfully, with full knowledge about the words and topics she chose to use.]<sup>]</sup> 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::::I don't think the section is particularly organised, but moving one sentence phrase isn't going to help. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 20:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Moving it takes care of the immediate issue of neutral presentation though. ] (]) 21:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure it's more "neutral" to give her unchallenged attacks on transgender people. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:34, 22 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the J. K. Rowling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 20 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Featured articleJ. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED] This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008, and on June 26, 2022.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 8, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
April 15, 2022Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 31, 2017, July 31, 2021, July 31, 2022, and July 31, 2024.
Current status: Featured article
Section sizes
Section size for J. K. Rowling (36 sections)
Section name Byte
count
Section
total
(Top) 5,129 5,129
Name 1,002 1,002
Life and career 23 61,377
Early life and family 7,122 7,122
Secondary school and university 5,894 5,894
Inspiration and mother's death 3,823 3,823
Marriage, divorce and single parenthood 8,563 8,563
Publishing Harry Potter 7,525 7,525
Films 6,877 6,877
Religion, wealth and remarriage 4,154 4,154
Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith 8,733 8,733
Later Harry Potter works 4,584 4,584
Children's stories 4,079 4,079
Influences 3,576 3,576
Style and themes 89 4,838
Style and allusions 2,826 2,826
Themes 1,923 1,923
Reception 6,846 14,612
Gender and social division 4,904 4,904
Religious reactions 2,862 2,862
Legacy 4,948 4,948
Legal disputes 2,855 2,855
Philanthropy 11,419 11,419
Views 308 25,714
Politics 4,783 4,783
Press 3,283 3,283
Transgender people 17,340 17,340
Awards and honours 7,524 7,524
Bibliography 14,630 14,630
Filmography 18 5,804
Film 3,542 3,542
Television 2,244 2,244
Notes 31 31
References 35 35
Works cited 29,211 29,211
External links 3,070 3,070
Total 195,775 195,775
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconChildren's literature Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Things you can do edit
WikiProject iconWomen writers Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
WikiProject iconNovels: Fantasy / Harry Potter High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Fantasy task force (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Harry Potter task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconWomen in Business High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGloucestershire Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
  • J. K. Rowling's ethnicity/nationality has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Current consensus is that she is British, and that whether she is also English, Scottish or Welsh has no bearing on her work or her biography, and is best not discussed.
  • The topic of her middle name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Her full name is simply Joanne Rowling; she contracted the first name and chose the middle initial K from her grandmother's name, Kathleen, in order to remove the gender association from her own name.
  • Her married name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She uses her married name, Murray, for private business, but her maiden name, "Rowling", is used here, as it is the one by which she is most widely known.
  • The pronunciation of her name has been discussed here, here, here, here and here. She has commented that her name is pronounced like bowling and not like howling.
  • Allegations that she supports communism in the series have been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She has not publicly espoused any such views; attempts to describe such views in her works have been rejected as original research of published material.
  • If you have a question relating to the spelling in this article (such as "instalment"/"installment") remember that this article is written in British English.
  • Topics relating to accusations of plagiarism against Rowling, in court or otherwise, are discussed in Legal disputes over Harry Potter and Harry Potter influences and analogues.
    V · T · E
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:

Rowling and Barbra Banda

Times and again, Rowling has exhibited transphobia like her recent claim that Barbra Banda doesn't look feminine enough. J.K. Rowling harasses African soccer player for not being womanly enough

This is my reason for adding Category:Anti-transgender activists here. Arbeiten8 (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside the misrepresentation of Rowling's issue here, and the fact that her comments on Banda are not even related to trans issues, the article does not classify Rowling as an 'anti-transgender activist', meaning it is not appropriate to put the article in such a category.Daff22 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
"Transphobic billionaire author J.K. Rowling is attacking yet another cisgender African female athlete" Arbeiten8 (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Per Daff22. Arbeiten8, please have a look at a broader sampling of unbiased sources, along with the scores of times the same discussion has been had on this talk page, and in particular, the high quality sources required for a Featured article. And I believe we have the same situation with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Rowling is the textbook definition of what is transphobia. She has
#Misgendered trans people
#Misgendered cis people who she perceived as the wrong gender like India Willoughby
#Authored the book Troubled Blood & The Silkworm claiming that trans women are supervillains wanting to rape women casting "trans women as a threat" according to GLAAD
The only reason the first sentence of this article doesn't describe her as a transphobia activist is by the dint of fanatics with an agenda to profit off her like Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD) Arbeiten8 (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/harry-potter-hbo-series-jk-rowling-transphobia-1236215642/
Rowling, meanwhile, has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona. On Sept. 10, she posted the U.K. open casting call for the roles of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley to her 14.2 million followers on X. That was an exception: Over the next two months, Rowling posted or reposted more than 200 times (excluding replies) about trans-related issues to support her conviction, as she posted on Oct. 7, that gender identity “is defined by little more than a person’s subjective feelings, or (more accurately) their claim to feel those feelings.” Within the same time frame, she posted or reposted about Harry Potter just eight more times, [...[
The industry has never quite faced a scenario in which the sole creator of a beloved, multibillion-dollar global franchise has plunged so unabashedly into one of the culture’s most contentious social issues. She’s effectively made herself toxic to many within the core fandom, whose devotion began 25 years ago when they were children and has sustained the franchise long after the books and the film series concluded. It’s placed those fans in a vexing dilemma: How can they engage with the new show, or any other iteration of the franchise, if they vehemently disagree with Rowling’s views on gender identity?
I mean, even Variety is saying it now.... Adam Cuerden Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
This debate has been had a number of times now, and it has become abundantly clear that there is no consensus for adding that label. TBicks (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I know we've had this discussion multiple times before and the consensus prior is that, despite Rowling's actions over the past few years, it doesn't relate much to her overall career and ongoing notability. As of yet. And the latter sentence was noted in those discussions as well. I do wonder, though, at where that line is and how long is needed of her continuing this ongoing bigotry that had been all she's gotten reporting on for years now before we can actually change or add to the article about this being a new main part of her ongoing notability. There is a time amount and line where that would be true, right? Silverseren 00:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably? Assuming reliable sources start commonly calling/alluding to her being an anti-transgender activist, I don't see why not.
The problem in past discussions seems to have boiled down not to whether she is anti-transgender (I think she's made her gender critical views clear by this point), but to if she is an activist. Few of the RSs previously discussed actually describe her that way, and there's no consensus thusfar as to if simple speech on Twitter constitutes activism (especially given the absence of campaigning elsewhere).
Anyhow, it's only been a couple of months since the last time this was discussed, and in the absence of new developments, we can't keep reigniting this every time someone wants to link some poor quality sources (LGBTQ Nation is hardly unbiased on this issue). TBicks (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
"In the past, JK Rowling stated that she would prefer ‘two years’ in jail over using a trans person’s correct pronouns. "
2 books claiming trying to create a stereotype of trans women as male murderers and rapists; J.K. Rowling's New Book Features Character Murdered Over Transphobic Views (Rolling Stone)
Rowling also indicated that Trump's 2024 electoral win is because of the triumph of transphobia (Kamala is for they/them): According to her, the only reason that she couldn't positively declare ""Trump's win was down to the gender stuff" is because she isn't an American voter
Also, would I be wrong in stating that if Rowling were a WP user engaging in this unrepentant rhetoric, then she' be banned?
We have articles like ] claiming that the subject is a white supremacist in spite of Fuentes's denial. On the other hand, when Rowling is accused of transphobia, she retorts that she doesn't care and is "indifferent to your disapproval."
I think people can common sense. We don't need a hundreds sources to run a headline to the effect "Rowling is the great transphobic author of all time in human history" to decide that 2+2=4 Arbeiten8 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the goalposts keep moving. We have reliable sources directly talking about it now. But they'll probably insist on peer-reviewed papers, and if those are presented, will say they're not as good as ones from 10 years ago, which don't mention her transphobia. Adam Cuerden Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
A little more AGF, please, Adam Cuerden. At least a few of us insist on good sourcing because we believe in enforcing FA standards - please look through the FAR archives, if you believe I am doing so out of some loyalty to Rowling. I note that we last exhaustively revised the relevant section five months ago. Has Rowling done enough since then to merit another revision? I'm inclined to think not. Also: the splashiest headlines of the last few months have been ostensibly unrelated to trans people: she has criticized Imane Khelif and Barbra Banda for not appearing feminine enough, despite them being cis-women, as far as the world knows. This could arguably be worked into her views, but it would really be stretching a point to use this as justification for "anti-transgender activist". Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
No, @Adam Cuerden... although featured articles should have a higher quality requirement for sources, as long as the preponderance of reliable sources (of any variety) suggest something, there is no reason not to add it. The goalposts have remained firmly in the same place.
As already mentioned, there is little mention of her being an activist in reliable sources. I don't think people are seriously suggesting that she isn't anti-trans any more, but to label her an activist requires more than just RSs pointing out that she says mean stuff on twitter. TBicks (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Like, the Variety piece says anti-trans activity is the central focus of her online persona. I don't think that's particularly ambiguous, and if the only objection is exact wording, we could literally quote theirs. "In 2024, Variety wrote that Rowling 'has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona.'" Adam Cuerden Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to adding that sentence into the relevant paragraph on her trans views.
That's different to actually labelling her an "Anti-trans Activist" in wikivoice, which is what was suggested by Arbeiten8. As I mentioned, simply quoting a single RS like Variety would be insufficient for that change - it would require much more significant usage in RSs than has been presented thusfar. TBicks (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not actually opposed to inserting that quote in the body, because it is summarizing what the popular press has to say about her online presence in a way that most sources don't do. It remains insufficient for the "anti-trans activist" label, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I believe Adam's arguments has met all the criteria to label JK a anti trans activist. 2600:8806:340C:EC00:956A:F27D:3920:D86A (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead weight

Separately from not seeing consensus for this edit to the lead (there was some support for adding it to the body), it takes the transgender portion of the lead to 72 words of readable prose out of a total lead size of 450 words (16% of the lead). In an article of 8,861 words of readable prose, the transgender section is 488 words, which is less than 6% of the article. The lead is giving undue weight to the transgender content, and if that quote (which I believe to be excessive) is to be included, some trimming of the overall lead content about the transgender issue is needed. The edit also adds content to the lead that is not mentioned in the body. I have moved the quote to the body, removed content that was mentioned twice in the body (?!), and repaired the citation to respect WP:CITEVAR and WP:WIAFA 2c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that it massively improves the lead. We can cut other parts of it, but compare:
A.
Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights, and in 2024, Variety wrote that Rowling had "made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona". Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector.
B.
Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector.
The sentences that are the problem are all the other ones, because they say exeedingly little. "her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights" says basically nothing. The way it's phrased, she could be a huge trans ally. And then "Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector." - again, a lot of talk, of questionable weight, (did she really "divide feminists", or was there an extant division she highlighted. The phrasing of "prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector." is also odd.
The whole transgender section, without the Variety quote, is written in this weird passive voice, where it's stated that Rowling said... something about transgender people, no comment whatsoever about what, and the rest of that section is solely about the reactions to it, again written in vagueness.
The Variety quote, however, makes it clear why talking about her views on transgender people is important enough to be in the lead in the first place. We can trim down the reaction to her statements sentences far more profitably. Adam Cuerden Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Adam Cuerden Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Cmon, there was no consensus for adding this to the lead. A few of us were okay with adding it to the body, but there certainly wasn't any suggestion of the lead changing in the talk page.
As for "her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights" not being clear, I think the fact that it's immediately followed by "Her comments, described as transphobic by critics" pretty much clears up which way her comments lean. TBicks (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Citation consistency

Re, these citation corrections:

Also, why did you change the capitalization of the article title to different than that that Variety uses? Adam Cuerden Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 09:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have moved this comment to its own section, so the substantive discussion isn't derailed, and so I can reply at length when I next get a free moment. This is standard WP:WIAFA 2c, and WP:CITEVAR; Misplaced Pages, like most outlets, has its own manual of style. I have a very busy day, will reply at more length over the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Related JKR discussion

In the light of the above discussion, there is a discussion of the treatment of Rowling's political views at Political views of J. K. Rowling#Comments on trans people in Nazi Germany that may be of interest to editors at this page. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

JK Rowling and the Nazi Book Burning comments

I believe a general overview of her comment on this topic should be added to the main page. It garnered considerable attention from both the general public and media. This holds as much relevance as other inclusions, like her disaproval of the phrase "people who menstrate." My suggestion would be to add the following statment, including the Telegraph article as a source as it lacks bias against Joanne. Although, it does contain some mischaracterising of events about the reasonings of Brown to defend Rowling's comments so I would be open to an improved source as it does bias towards Joanne.

In March 2024, Rowling questioned the Nazi book burning of the research into transgender healthcare at the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft as a potential "fever dream" in reply to a user on Twitter, officially known as X.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/jk-rowling-holocaust-denier-allegation-rivkah-brown-novara/ Pink Pyra (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what that sentence even means. She 'questioned it'? The Nazis were a pretty questionable bunch! I think I see what you're getting at but even so, she didn't explicitly say "That Nazi book burning of the research into transgender healthcare at the Institut für Sexualwissenschaftevent was a fever dream", neither does your source say that's what she meant, to read that into it is WP:OR. JeffUK 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
"Rowling had last month questioned a claim made by one social media user who said: “The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”"
It uses the term "questioned" in the article and refers to the Nazi book burning. The only thing being "read into" is that it's only about the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. We should make the statment more general then as needed. We should then add a new source to show the connection between trans research and the Nazi book burnings. The Misplaced Pages article for the institue should have a source that would suffice (not the article itself as that doesn't suffice) as it has sourced that one of the focuses of the institute included trangender healthcare.
Also, I am still open to a better source as the telegraph is biased towards Rowling. Open to suggestions.
-
In March 2024, Rowling questioned whether or not the Nazis practised book burning in regards to research into transgender healthcare as a "fever dream" in reply to a user on Twitter, officially known as X. The Nazis did burn the research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, which had a focus on transgender healthcare. Pink Pyra (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
In March 2024, Rowling questioned the claim that Nazis burnt research on transgender healthcare, referring to the claim as being a "fever dream" in response to a user on Twitter, officially known as X. The Nazis did burn the research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, which had a focus on transgender healthcare. Pink Pyra (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
At first glance this strikes me like "nothing burger" and misrepresentation of the given source (being primarily about false holocaust denial claims). So presumably she was not aware that that transliterture/research was burned at the book burning as well and due to her antitrans bias assumed it was not the case and dismissed an according claim offhand without checking? Is that the core issue here? I neither really observed much of "considerable attention" (outside a social media bubble maybe) nor do i see any eny encyclopedic value. This article needs to shortly summarize her antitrans views and not collect any individual antitrans remark she makes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that denying recorded Nazi crimes is a "nothing burger" just because she may have actually believed she was in the right due to ignorance. We potentially shouldn't assume the motive behind her action, but if we do assume that, the core issue would be her non-retraction and continued rebuttal of criticism. This would show pertinent "antitrans" views in her unwilligness to admit error when trans people are concerned which I believe would still warrent mention. Pink Pyra (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
A discussion was already underway at the sub-article, and already mentioned on this talk page in the section just above this one. This article is a broad overview of JKR, and conforms to Featured article standards in terms of summary style and high-quality sources. Due weight is given according to reliable sources. In an article with 8,800 words of readable prose, of which 250 words total were dedicated to JKR's politics (due weight in accordance with high-quality and scholarly sources), 117 to her relationship with the press, and 488 in the transgender issues section, these edits added 209 words on a subject that is mostly absent in mainstream sources, and not treated at all in scholarly sources as far as I can tell. Due weight for the sub-article-- much less this article-- has not been established. Pink Pyra when you have been reverted once -- and particularly on a contentious topic which is also a BLP and also a Featured article -- you should avoid edit warring and not reinstate without consensus. It will take much more than a few reliable sources to establish due weight in this broad overview article; you should first work on whether the content belongs at the sub-article, where even there it appears UNDUE in terms of the number of sources that mention it. You were reverted once, yet reinstated content without gaining consensus on talk. Please take greater care when editing a Featured article; I suggest pursuing the discussion already underway at the sub-article before continuing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I've already acknolwedged my error and shortened my proposed addition so I'm not sure why your response is towards only my prior (very lengthy) error on my part.
The Telegraph article gives direct quotes to the original tweet and her response quesioning it. What claim am I giving undue weight by noting what happened? Comments relating the whether or not a person deny the recorded actions of Nazis are a thing that should be mentioned. Pink Pyra (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "...is a British author and philanthropist." to "...is a British author, anti-LGBT+ rights activist and philanthropist." Riteofspring1234 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This has been the subject of a lot of discussions recently, and there is no consensus for adding this label. Given the short period of time between the last discussion and now (a matter of days; see the Barbra Banda section for example), I don't think it's worth starting another one for the moment. TBicks (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

h Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. (3OpenEyes' communication receptacle) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 12:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Move phrase "which left transgender people feeling betrayed"

Currently, in the Views --> Transgender People section, the final paragraph contains the sentence "In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left transgender people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault."

The phrase "which left transgender people feeling betrayed" feels very out of place in this paragraph, in which her views, and the basis for them, are explained. Personally I find the phrase a little problematic (e.g. nonspecific; which trans people?), but if it is to be included, I think it would fit better in the 2nd or 4th paragraphs, which list the reactions to her statements/views.

Wanted to get opinions on a) if this sounds reasonable and b) if so, how it might best be done. TBicks (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The current phrasing doesn't allow for her opinion to be presented neutrally. It should be split up as you stated. A quick way to solve this could be to move the reaction to the end of the paragraph, or right before the assertion of Whited? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, it actually fits quite well with the final sentence regarding Whited. I'd support moving it to the end of the paragraph. TBicks (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it should be made a bit more specific though. I can't access the source unfortunately, but the current wording could mean every trans person in the world or a small group of them. If the source says something like 'transgender fans of her books', that would be a better wording I think. TBicks (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe someone with access stops by and joins the discussion, but until then, just splitting the sentence up should be fine as well. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
If the reaction is specific to the essay, it'd be better to mention it there, rather than having to reintroduce the essay later.
I don't think the section is particularly organised, but moving one sentence phrase isn't going to help. Adam Cuerden Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Moving it takes care of the immediate issue of neutral presentation though. TBicks (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's more "neutral" to give her unchallenged attacks on transgender people. Adam Cuerden Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  1. Vary, Adam B. "HBO Says 'Harry Potter' Series Will 'Benefit' From J.K. Rowling's Involvement: She 'Has the Right to Express Her Personal Views'". ]. Retrieved 14 January 2025.
Categories:
Talk:J. K. Rowling: Difference between revisions Add topic