Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

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 [anti-trans] 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 ^(talk)_{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^C 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 [[Nick Fuentes]] 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 ^(talk)_{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 ^(talk)_{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.

Sources
References

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 ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{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 ^(talk)_{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; Wikipedia, 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)

Back to finish; sorry for the delay, my husband has been hospitalized.

Like most outlets, Wikipedia has its own house style, but unlike other outlets, Wikipedia does not prescribe, rather accepts different options on some elements of its house style. As an example, MOS:DASH prescribes some uses of emdashes and endashes, but we can use either an unspaced emdash or a spaced endash in running text. And if a source uses a dash style different from that established within an article, we can alter it to reflect the established style. Similarly, MOS prescribes some uses and elements of title case versus sentence case, for example, in article titles and section headings (sentence case) and book titles (title case).

Because of "anyone can edit", Wikipedia articles may then have internal inconsistencies in formatting. The criteria for Featured articles require a "professional standard of writing, presentation, and sourcing" and 2c calls for "consistently formatted inline citations", while WP:CITEVAR tells us not to change an established citation style. Before clearing FAC, articles are supposed to be checked for a consistent citation style.

The established style on this article includes, among other things, journal and news articles in sentence case. Publishers are linked, authors have a certain format, page numbers are expressed a certain way, etc. The goal is internal consistency.

It is usually expected that established editors will assure their additions respect CITEVAR in a Featured article and their citations are complete. I'm unaware of any FA where the established citation style is to do whatever the source does, even if that results in inconsistent citations or unprfoessional presentation -- they may exist, though.

I'm sorry to take space on an FA talk page to explain a basic element of Featured articles; if there are still questions, Nikkimaria might explain further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 24 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 ^(talk)_{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 ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes no sense. To present neutrally, we should first share one opinion and then include other perspectives or criticism. This applies to any topic. I see you have a strong opinion about this, but it might help to take a step back for a moment. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

We're considering moving a phrase to a different place in a paragraph. I have no idea what you're talking about.

For what its worth, and not that it has anything to do with paragraph organization, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:WIAE), not a place to challenge views you don't like (see WP:ADVOCACY). If you're so prejudiced in this area that you don't think wikipedia should maintain a neutral POV, it might not be the right WP topic for you? TBicks (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I am fully aware. But you're acting as if transphobia isn't WP:FRINGE Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

No, i'm suggesting moving a phrase to a different place in a paragraph to better faciliate a neutral presentation of her views. I haven't even mentioned transphobia, let alone stated an opinion on its validity. TBicks (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it's not really a neutral presentation of her views to treat them as non-controversial, then bring in criticism afterwards. It seems like a lot of newspapers have taken to including a discussion of her views in pretty much any reporting on her. Just searching J.K. Rowling news:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/ed-sheeran-jk-rowling-new-years-eve-party-instagram-b2684736.html "Rowling has been met with strong backlash in recent years over her outspoken stance on trans women, which many, including LGBT+ spokespeople, have deemed transphobic. [continues on from there]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14308263/JK-Rowling-backs-Donald-Trumps-crackdown-gender-ideology-saying-Left-overseen-calamity.html "The writer, who now dedicates much of her time to clashing with people online about gender issues, posted on X about the US President's order."

https://www.cbr.com/jk-rowlings-cb-strike-season-6-everything-we-know/ Box at start: "It's important to remember the ongoing controversial statements by the creator of the Harry Potter franchise..."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czr37d76rzgo [No mention]

It feels like discussing her transphobia is becoming more and more the mainstream view of her, while this article is minimising it more and more. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nobody is treating her views as non-controversial. The paragraph in question is preceded by several paragraphs which explain the mixed reactions to her views.

We're talking about moving a 6 word phrase to a different place in a paragraph. I have already elucidated the reasons I feel that is neccesary, none of which have to do with the content of her speech/views. It has nothing to do with "minimizing" anything - i'm not even suggesting we remove the phrase, simply move it to a more suitable position.

If you're seriously unable to WP:AGF when it comes to simple paragraph organization, I think you should consider avoiding this topic in the future. TBicks (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that it feels like it'd be awkward to realise the point later, and that it may mischaracterise the essay if it's not done very carefully. The section is a disorganised mess, but at least it doesn't first cover the whole situation from Rowling's perspective then again from the outside perspective, like a sequential WP:POVFORK. I don't like the suggested change outside of a full rework, as I think it'll make the section worse. It's also a basic rule of journalism that the higher up on the page material is introduced, the more weight is being given to it, which I suppose you may be unaware of. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The last sentence already describes the reaction to the essay and her speech on the issue, making the end of the paragraph a more natural place to put the phrase. We wouldn't be creating a POV order change, merely adding to a preexisting one.

The way it's currently written interjects other people's POV into a sentence about her POV, which is bad practice for neutral presentation. TBicks (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Briefly -- my husband has been hospitalized for a week; I'm aware I still have to answer #Citation consistency above. (Done, 13:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC) )

I think the suggestion to combine the questioned clause somewhere around the Whited sentence would work. I also agree the section became somewhat haphazard when a few months back there was some rapid-fire nonconsensual editing; slow and steady wins the race. I'd also like to remind Adam Cuerden to aim for a collaborative approach to work on this talk page, lower the POV statements on a BLP talk page, and that sources like the Daily Mail aren't relevant here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that SandyGeorgia. Hope he is on the mend.

I have temporarily relocated it to avoid the neutral presentation issue, but frankly the section as a whole could so with a redo, and that seems like a good opportunity to place it better. TBicks (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia ah okay, i've just tempororarily removed it until we can clear up which source is correct. I don't have access to either. We should seek some consensus on location ASAP though. TBicks (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I found Whited and checked ... it was verified, so I'll reinstate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone First Edition, First Printing, Wrong

I believe this page to have an error in regards to the first printing of the first Harry Potter Book. The page says over 5,000 books were printed in the first run. However, any book collector knows there were only 500 books printed in the first run of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. 300 were given to Libraries and the remaining 200 are some of the most sought after book collectibles available. These 200 are considered the "Holy Grail" of Harry Potter book collecting and are worth six-figures in some circumstances. The original 500 books have many uniquities including the author listed as Joanne Rowling, not J.K. Rowling. 173.248.10.123 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this somewhere in archives -- it may take me a bit to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, it's right in the footnote (m), according to Errington, a high-quality and authoritative source: According to Errington, 500 hardbacks and 5,150 paperbacks "were published on the same date and neither has bibliographical priority". It was previously believed that the initial print run was 500 copies total, but this number is "woefully inaccurate". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Yikes

Thanks, Bazza 7; I plead pneumonia, not enough sleep, and too many drugs.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

In fairness, changing it to "public expressions [...] have" might be marginally better wordage. TBicks (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Radical feminist

Is this category actually correct? The "TERF" label is mostly used facetiously by many women, many of whom are not radical feminists. 89.242.181.99 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Not sure that anyone who makes edits like this deserves a reply. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

IP has now "blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further vandalism." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Overly Detailed

Am I crazy for thinking this page is overly detailed, especially in regard to her 'Life and Career'? It reads like someone watched a movie on her and inserted the whole thing straight into her Wikipedia page. Comparing with authors of similar note, Ursula K. Le Guin, J. R. R. Tolkien leaves a lot still on the table still.EVorpahl (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I think there's been a natural increase in reporting on the lives of celebrities in recent decades, and she wrote the best selling book series in history. So i'm sure it's just a consequence of there being more known about her life than equally successful writers of different eras. TBicks (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Transgender views

I propose that the second paragraph in the transgender views section to be worded like this with these citations since it is currently worded in a biased way:

Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she made statements deemed "anti-trans", who is the subject of Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe. Thedayandthetime (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources
References

Please explain why it is worded in a biased way. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC).

Actually, I can see an issue with the current wording. It states that Forstater made "anti-trans" statement. That fails NPOV and probably BLP, as Forstater went on to win her tribunal, and her conduct was not found to be discriminatory. It should probably be "allegedly anti-trans" or "statements considered to be anti-trans". I am sure someone can come up with better wording, but it really should be changed. Daff22 (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I have just read through the case article, and Forstater's own article, neither of which label her views as "anti-trans". There is definitely a BLP issue here. It should probably read made "gender-critical statements", with an added caveat "which some considered anti-trans", of editors prefer. Sources wise, the NY Times article doesn't refer to Forstater as "anti-trans" (only in the headline, which obviously doesn't count), but I don't have access to the Whited source to know how that describes her. However, given the outcome of the case, it really would seem like a BLP violation. Daff22 (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, @Daff22. Thank you.

@Xxanthippe, that's the explanation. Thedayandthetime (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Not an improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? This is in the BBC source: Ms Forstater believes trans women holding certificates that recognise their transgender identity cannot describe themselves as women. That seems clearly to be saying Forstater's views are anti-trans to me. Loki (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The BBC source does not call her views "anti-trans", that's your personal interpretation. WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Thedayandthetime (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

We have to stick to the facts of the source, not the words of the source. Loki (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Except this is not 'sticking to the facts" it is assigning a non-neutral POV label to a BLP. Labelling Forster "anti-trans" in the context of her court case implies that her behaviour was discriminatory. The courts did not find this to be the case, in fact they found the opposite, with her being the one discriminated against. Per WP:BLPSTYLE, Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Your "clearly" is a POV interpretation, and not how Wikipedia articles should be written. Daff22 (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Her behavior was transphobic. The original court case found that and we have plenty of reliable sources backing that up, such as CBS, PinkNews, and the NYT.

Like, this is a pretty straightforward interpretation of what she said. It really shouldn't surprise you that I was able to easily find sources saying so in those words. Loki (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Her behavior was considered transphobic by some. Her statements were not considered transphobic by several sources including BBC, The Guardian, The Times, Sky News. Also notice how most sources calling her statements "anti-trans" or "transphobic" are from the US. Thedayandthetime (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

All three of those articles are following the origin hearing, which the subsequent appeal and merits hearing found to have mischaracterised Forstater's views. And the NYT article does not label her as anti trans or transphobic beyond the headline, which again is discounted when considering use as a source on Wikipedia. This isn't about interpretation, it is about factual representation, and BLP. I agree with the recent change made to the article, per my previous suggestion.Daff22 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

She won the tribunal case on appeal, as mentioned by Daff22. The CBS and NYT articles were written before the appeal was lodged, and PinkNews isn't exactly a reliable source on this issue. TBicks (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Bear in mind that not even Forstater's own WP page mentions her being transphobic or anti-trans. TBicks (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

That seems to be an oversight. We definitely should say that much more clearly than we do over there. Loki (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

If/when it gains common usage in reliable sources, perhaps. Not at present, though. TBicks (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, there are many reliable sources already that call her transphobic or anti-trans, including the NYT.

That the British press specifically is squeamish about this shouldn't affect our coverage. Loki (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You linked to two articles written before her (successful) appeal was lodged, and one article by a biased publication on this particular topic. Not exactly gold standard source material. TBicks (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinknews is green at WP:RSP and the dates of these articles don't matter. A court saying her opinion is protected doesn't make it not transphobic. Loki (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSP green doesn't mean it should be used with impunity. The nature of the publication means that it has obvious bias here, which should be given due weight. WP:RSP itself states that caution should be used for PinkNews.

If they were basing their usage of that label on the finding of the tribunal, the dates absolutely do matter. There's an easy litmus test for that: look at the language used in RS before and after the successful appeal. I'm yet to see you provide an example of her being called these labels after the appeal in RSs. TBicks (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Pink News has its own workplace-abuse problems. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/dec/10/claims-against-pinknews-bosses-of-sexual-misconduct-very-concerning-says-no-10 It's not quite correct that Forstater won her case on appeal. The preliminary hearing under James Tayler found that gender-critical views failed the Grainger V test and were 'unworthy of respect in a democratic society', denying Forstater a full merits hearing. This was obviously partisan and was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The case then proceeded to a full merits hearing, not an appeal hearing, at the Employment Tribunal proper, where Forstater again won. The employer chose not to appeal this substantive ruling and damages were duly awarded. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Ridded with useless opinions

This looks more like someone's opinion rather than a Wikipedia page. Eww. V 2samg (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific if you want changes to be made. Give some examples. TBicks (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the {cn} tag was added by another bemused editor. I am guessing that the V 2samg means the entire article. But who knows. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

No. The whole article is true. 2600:4040:5378:F500:6CBC:2B23:B8F0:CB24 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure about the photo?

Is it just me or the photo used to depict Rowling in this article is kind of "not the best". With a quick Google search you can find more "good looking" let's say photos of her. Donboss21 (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This page may help: Wikipedia:Image use policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

no Im not saying that your image does not follow the guidelines, im just saying like i feel like it was chosen on purpose by someone that does not like her, maybe im wrong Donboss21 (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem you read the page I linked; images have to be freely available. If you can find an alternate image that meets policy, by all means, upload it. No one else has found any other image that meets Wikipedia policy, and copyright is a legal concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Unlocking to add pertinent information

Can this article please be unlocked so responsible editors are able to add the controversies about the author? Including her funding UK anti-trans groups?

It appears Wikipedia is not allowing negative but accurate information, which is not only not in the purview of an encyclopedia but also against Wikipedia’s own guidelines.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.43.23 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

yeah, i was very surprised to learn that there is no Controversy heading. i recognize that some editors may consider this WP:UNDUE but the very first sentence in that heading is "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints" and i struggle to come up with how such a culturally significant author going full mask-off about her transphobia is not significant RachelF42 (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

See WP:CRITS. Also, this is an encyclopaedic article written in summary style, not a news report. What adjustments to the prose on the page are you suggesting? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with the IP and Rachel that this article should mention her anti-trans activism much more significantly (and have for a long time). (Unprotecting the article of a politically controversial BLP seems obviously dumb to me, though. Sorry.) Loki (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh look, more WP:PROSELINE. In a featured article, no less. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

If we're covering this, I'd prefer to start with the 2024 donation, describe the court decision a bit more carefully, and end with her celebration of the result. Since the "VE Day" stuff is Rowling quoting her husband, I think it's not worth the words. I'm not sure about the best way to describe FWS, but "anti-trans activist group" seems too much of an NPOV stretch based off a brief glance at some sources. Though I'd prefer something shorter, and preferably more grammatically and thematically connected to the status quo ante, my first attempt version would look something like

Rowling donated £70,000 to the gender-critical group For Women Scotland and then celebrated its 2025 legal victory in a UK Supreme Court ruling that the Equality Act 2010 does not consider trans women to be women.

I think the current version is problematic enough that it'd be better to have nothing while we workshop, but I don't care to edit war over it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That sentence is better for removing the PROSELINE, and being more neutrally worded (although as we link to an article on For Women Scotland, we don't need to describe them at all). But the first question is whether this bit of news reporting is even due in the article (which you seem to question too). People want it in because it is current, but that is not the way encyclopaedic articles work. If it were due, I would attach it to: She opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis. Perhaps: She opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis, and donated to the legal challenge brought by For Women Scotland against the Scottish Ministers in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled in 2025 that the Equality Act 2010 does not consider trans women to be women for purposes of the Act. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers and others that the content inserted "is problematic enough that it'd be better to have nothing", and have removed it. The content is UNDUE NEWSY PROSELINE and *if* something is to be included, should have better sourcing with wording developed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Some sources:

1. The Guardian
2. The Independent
3. The Times
4. Reuters

These sources present the issue in a way that is more aligned with the proposed text from Sirfurboy, and without the sensationalized and UNDUE focus on "TERF V-E day". Sifurboy's text provides a better starting point for developing content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's a tip. Why don't you all take a chill-pill for a few months. Edits undertaken in hot haste are rarely constructive, and are likely to be reverted, so you're simply wasting your time as your life drips away, when you could be using it for something lasting and more enjoyable. 2001:8003:548A:A100:717F:A22D:D642:5756 (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The tendency on this article is that every time JKR makes news (and she makes it a habit to make news often), a slew of editors want to add UNDUE, NEWSY, poorly-sourced PROSELINE, ignoring WP:WIAFA, high-quality sourcing and other policy considerations, and ignoring that there is a sub-article for such additions (Political views of J. K. Rowling). We should probably have a standard answer to these situations in the FAQ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Short description

Why is this being added (it's the second time). Is there some concern that she is confused with another JKR? Or some policy reason to add her birth year to the short description? @Segagustin:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:SDDATES encourages birth year for articles like this wherever doing so aligns with the other parts of the guideline. Since the date takes the short description over the suggested 40 character limit, I would suggest leaving it out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Anti-transgender activist

Given reports from RS like here here and here about Rowling's support and funding for For Women Scotland who got the UK Supreme Court to define only biological females as women, isn't it time add this category? I've looked at past conversations about this and people argued that no RS outright calls her an "anti-trans activist" which seems like a ridiculous standard. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"Anti-trans activist" seems to me ambiguous: it could mean "an activist against transgender people", which JKR says she isn't, or "someone who opposes trans activism", which probably does fairly describe her view. I suggest the phrase "anti-trans activist" is best avoided. -- Alarics (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

What so you call getting woman to be defined only by biology? We have Matt Walsh and Candace Owens under that category why not her? LittleJerry (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Walsh and Owens are both far-right extremists across the board - anti-gay, antisemitic, anti-vaccine, etc. etc. You can't put JKR in that category. -- Alarics (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

What's your answer to my first question? LittleJerry (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "What so you call getting woman to be defined only by biology". Perhaps you could rephrase the question. -- Alarics (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

i mean, how does actively supporting having woman legally being defined to exclude trans women not being an anti-trans activist? LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Because anti-trans activists argue trans women don't exist and thus they're not *against* anything because anyone who is trans is, in their view, lying. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous game of semantics. Someone who does not believe in the valid existence of transgender women and engages in activism against their desired rights as transgender individuals is very obviously acting against transgender individuals and their interests. You cannot magically whisk away the fact they're advocating against their desired rights by trying to loophole the idea they can't be against something they don't think exists. The fact she thinks that her opinion is evident truth and not discrimination has absolutely no bearing on the fact that she definitionally opposes the movement for transgender rights. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, for what it's worth, I agree with you. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

How exactly is her views on anything else relevant for whether or not she's classifiable as an anti-transgender activist? That category is obviously predicated upon whether or not the person is outspoken against transgender rights, not whether they approve of jews or vaccines or immigrants or anything else. It's an especially ridiculous standard when transphobia is well known to have one of its most vocal bases not in the far right but within TERF circles that approaches the topic from a (theoretically) feminist point of view. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

There are 2 issues which are yet to be suitably addressed.

1) Activist is a difficult word to assign on wikipedia when the person does not self-describe that way. Particularly in this case, where she insists she's not "anti-trans". Anti-trans is also extremely unspecific; as a category, it seemingly contains people who are more moderate and simply have concerns about where trans rights and womens' rights clash, but also the people who just hate trans people, without any distinction. This makes it somewhat of a WP:CONTENTIOUS label. It just lumps the person in with a group of people whose views on the same issue may abhor them. That is why this sort of label is best approached within the article itself, where appropriate context can be given.

2) Speech/commentary on an issue doesn't make you an activist. The fact she donated to a group doesn't necessarily make her an activist either. Under that logic, i'm an anti-cancer activist because I regularly donate to Cancer Research (before certain bad faith people start, i'm obviously not analogizing trans people to cancer - just happens that CR is the only charity I regularly make donations to). Its not like she was a party in the case or attended court, which would conceivably provide stronger evidence that this was her engaging in activism. It was just a donation. TBicks (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

"Speech/commentary on an issue doesn't make you an activist" Of course it can, especially if you are promoting a group or making calls to action. You can advocate a policy via words and writing. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it can't, I said it doesn't. Particularly in this case, where she just posts snarky comments on twitter (or X or whatever silly name we're supposed to call it now). TBicks (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

She doesn't just post snarky tweets. She talks about it constantly and funded an anti-trans group. LittleJerry (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

On Twitter. Snarkily.

See above for why I don't think a donation is sufficient for activism. TBicks (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It isn't just funding. Its Both her words AND funding. If a person constantly talked about cancer research AND funded it, they should be called an anti-cancer activist. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with him, does seem like your(Tbicks) desperately trying to avoid the fact your wrong, just put them under the category and stop bringing petty reasonings to the mix, plus you've doubled down quite a lot recently, and that says alot about your character. 75.248.212.252 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Holy mother of WP:AGF violations. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. TBicks (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the funding part, but that's fine.

Are there RSs which describe her as an anti-trans activist? I'm reluctant to add anyone to a category with as little explanation as this one, but would at least find it easier if there is sourcing that suggests it is warranted. TBicks (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"Anti-trans is also extremely unspecific; as a category, it seemingly contains people who are more moderate and simply have concerns about where trans rights and womens' rights clash, but also the people who just hate trans people, without any distinction." You can't reduce things to just "I hate X people". I think trying to define woman as just biological females crosses a certain line regardless of "hate". LittleJerry (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not reducing things to just "I hate X people". I'm doing the exact opposite. I'm pointing out that there are people who genuinely hate trans people and deny their existence etc, and then there are people who just have concerns about the clash between trans rights and womens' sex based rights. Lumping them together into one "anti-trans" category when they clearly have 2 different ideologies is silly. TBicks (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"and then there are people who just have concerns about the clash between trans rights and womens' sex based rights". You really think JK is just doing that? Again, funding a group that pushed the supreme court to define woman as only biologically female. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure plenty of people will also try to claim Graham Linehan isn't an anti-trans activist too. As I was saying above there is a tendency to try to void the category. Rowling is obviously an anti-trans activist. It's a mockery of WP:NPOV that this page says otherwise. And as long as this article makes a mockery of WP:NPOV its GA status should be revoked. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no comment on Graham Linehan as i'm not familiar with him (though I doubt its relavant to Rowling), but the category itself even has the warning "This category may inappropriately label persons" with , so we should be very careful before adding anyone to it. Contentious labels should be "widely used in reliable sources" if we are to add them, regardless of your personal opinions on the subject. TBicks (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say JK was doing that - I didn't mention her at all when it came to my criticism of the category. This is the second time you've claimed i've said something that I haven't, so i'll ask you to kindly stop putting words in my mouth and engage with what i'm actually saying. TBicks (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"there are people who genuinely hate trans people and deny their existence, etc., and then there are people who just have concerns about the clash between trans rights and women's sex-based rights. Lumping them together into one "anti-trans" category when they clearly have 2 different ideologies is silly." -- Quite so. This is exactly the point I was trying to make near the start of this thread. -- Alarics (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Then we should get rid of categories like "Anti-communists" such they broadly include supporters of liberal capitalism and Nazis. Sorry this is a bad argument. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

literally the best reply you could've cooked up 75.248.212.252 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Indeed, we should get rid of all kinds of categories. Perhaps all of the categories. Categories attempt to create taxonomies of articles, but the Wikipedia taxonomy is one anyone can curate, and so they are systematically skewed, incomplete, and over large. Many an edit war has been fought over what they include, and whole libraries of words have been spilled. That they can be useful is offset by the fact that they are, (apologies Douglas Adams) mostly harmful. Not everyone reading this will agree on that - and therein lies the problem. There will be arguments and counter arguments about placing articles in categories that no one uses and no one cares about. Is it really about allowing someone to work their way through a list of antidisestablishmanetarianists by country and hair colour? Or is it more about getting a label added to a page (albeit a part of a page that no one reads)? However you answer that question, and whatever you think, one thing is very evident to me: no group of editors should be forced to add a category to a page, just because a completely different editor thought making the category was a good idea. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

One of my main concerns is that there has never been consensus to describe her as an anti-transgender activist within the article, owing to lack of suitable sourcing within RSs. This category feels like an easy way to bypass the need for RSs. TBicks (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Firefangledfeathers answers that below. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The anti-communist links to an entire article about anti-communism, explaining the finer details and different viewpoints and reasonings. The anti-trans activists just links to the trans rights and trans movements page without attempting to differentiate what different viewpoints disagree with. TBicks (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The category exists. The complaints above about not putting people in the category are nonsensical. It exists and has people right now. If you have a problem with that, then nominate the category for deletion. Otherwise, put forward an actual argument about Rowling and the category. One that's actually based on the category itself. Looking at those currently included in the category and considering Rowling's recent involvement in massively funding the anti-transgender court case, I agree that she belongs in the category. Her actions are no longer limited just to statements, but to actual monetary and legal action. Silverseren^C 22:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

good job reiterating Jerry's point(not sarcastic) 75.248.212.252 (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a very clear path to adding the category in a way that complies with policy and guideline:

1. Collect a strong body of sources that call Rowling an anti-trans activist, or something synonymous. Some such sources have been collected in archived discussions.
2. Add at least one sentence to the article calling her an anti-trans activist in wikivoice.
3. Then add the category.

Of course, each of those steps needs to be supported by consensus. It doesn't make sense to have extended conversation about #3 before we do 1 and 2. If we do all three, the headline will be that we did #2, with the category being an afterthought; very few readers are viewing or using the categories. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Added category based on what is written in that section; such as "In 2024, Variety wrote that Rowling had "made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona" and "In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them". LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You are replying to a comment that suggested a 3 step process, yet you have jumped to step 3 while the discussion below remains at step 1. There is clearly no consensus for your edit. Would you like to self revert it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Transgender views in the lead, 20250506

I cannot bring myself to care about the category dispute above: our categories labelling people by views are a hot mess, and given the source material this one seems ambiguous. With the benefit of some space from this article, I wanted to return to suggestions that John made somewhere in the archives. The body of the article, as it stands, does IMHO a very creditable job of summarizing what sources have to say about JKR's gender-related activism (allowing for a year or two's lag for sources to catch up to her activity). But I'm not sure the lead does the best job of summarizing the body. Three aspects stand out to me as perhaps easy fixes. 1) In the body we explicitly state that Rowling holds "gender critical views", with our link to that article: we don't do this in the lead. 2) The body says JKR's views are often described [as anti-trans], but the lead says critics and LGBT rights organisations. To me the lead is qualifying more heavily, and perhaps unnecessarily. 3) This is possibly the trickiest to fix, but the body summarizes what her expressions on twitter have been: the lead does not. The sources are understandably hesitant to label JKR, but the sources do support what she has said, include opposing protections for trans people and opposing gender self-recognition. I think we could afford to summarize these points: a sentence of inflation in the last lead paragraph doesn't seem inappropriate to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The first 2 aspects sound perfectly reasonable to me.

With the third aspect, I think we'd need to be careful with the wording. For example, we quote her in the main body as saying "transgender people need and deserve protection", so to add something about her "opposing protections for trans people" wouldn't necessarily be the best phrasing. TBicks (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I support this approach. I would say the body probably needs updating too. The thing that would help the most is for someone to pull together the latest crop (say mid-2024 to present) of top quality sources: new journal articles, broad-scope international news sources, etc. It would be good to know how such sources are summarizing her history regarding trans people, as opposed to how the news is covering individual actions/comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I already tried to do this months ago but was reverted and going to the talk page didn't help.

But that does mean I do have a suggested wording to start with: Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical views. Her comments have attracted widespread criticism and are often described as transphobic or anti-trans, though she disputes this. Loki (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

How about Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her Trans-exclusionary views. Her comments have attracted widespread criticism and are often described as transphobic or anti-trans, though she disputes this. I will note that this goes to the same page and is, in my opinion, much more clear than "gender critical". Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm also okay with that but:

a) That doesn't fit the exact wording of the sources quite as well.

b) IMO "trans-exclusionary" is a little redundant with "anti-trans" afterwards. Loki (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If we put trans-exclusionary on the hyperlink I would be amenable to shortening the second sentence to Her comments have attracted widespread criticism and are often described as transphobic, though she disputes this. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree. The article has some strange turns of phrase, many of which seem to hurt readability or which are obtuse in ways that seem to be a bit prone to minimisation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

We are not here to settle the debate between the "gender critical" and "trans-exclusionary" labels. Right now, we have source material that we use to support "gender critical" in the body, and I am proposing to insert that into the lead. If we want to use "trans-exclusionary" in this instance, we need to have a discussion about changing the source material used, as FFF notes above. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but that is a separate discussion: this proposal, again, is about summarizing in the lead what we already have in the body. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

As indicated here and in the section below, attempting to wordsmith before examining high-quality sources is ineffective. Opinions are interesting if the goal is to fill up the talk page and make it unreadable; sources are what we base content on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the sources would be the ones already present in the body, which were sufficient for a lead change months ago when we updated the body. Loki (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Have sufficient new, peer-reviewed, sources that call Rowling trans-exclusionary, TERF or anti-trans been presented for us to begin working with the language Loki and I discussed previously? Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That wasn't the proposal I made here, and I oppose that change: what is the rationale for removing material about debates, or about declarations of support? What is the rationale for "or anti-trans", when we already say "transphobic"? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Wearing that big ol' "described as" lampshade and ignoring that those declarations of support principally came from other known anti-trans figures. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

As in many of the past discussions, there is some misunderstanding here of how due weight is applied and how a comprehensive survey of sources is performed. The way Wikipedia articles are constructed is not to find a selection of sources that support X content; it is to survey all high-quality sources and give a due weight balanced representation. This discussion is not proceeding in that direction in spite of Vanamonde93's repeated explanations and pleas for a full discussion with a full analysis of high-quality sources. Do we need some Arb Enforcement in here to get/keep discussion on track? The source analysis mentioned below and here has not been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The "declarations of support" I am referring to are mentioned in the last lead sentence, and are declarations of support for trans people. A little more AGF, please: that you didn't notice that yourself suggests you had made up your mind about my comments before looking at the substance thereof. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Being effectively told that, despite putting the work into finding all kinds of new academic sources that support the view that this article is non-neutral regarding Rowling's transphobia was insufficient to move the needle on changes to the lede in the slightest has me rather upset and so I missed what you meant with the second part of your statement. However my point remains. We have a preponderance of WP:BESTSOURCES directly below that indicate that the consensus among academics is increasingly clear regarding Rowling's transphobia. The article, and the lede, should be altered to reflect this academic consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean, if you search JSTOR on transphobia +Rowling, then sure. But Third, while repeatedly misgendering trans-women as men and using extreme examples of situations such as sharing a public bath house, the author denounces the derogatory term ‘TERF’ for attracting online abuse and threats against people such as J. K. Rowling.[2] or While we do not assert that all the examined ‘gender critical’ (lesbian) feminist groups can be clearly defined as ‘anti-gender’ or right-wing organizations[3] (actually you should have found that one). SandyGeorgia's point is that the case is not established by finding a source that says what you want - it is established by looking broadly at the literature, reading it, understanding it, and then summarising the corpus. We haven't done that. It is not a quick thing to do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Sandy and I have stated that changing our wording requires surveying sources, rather than finding single ones. If you read that as saying we're rejecting sources found so far, I can't really help you. Ideally someone should parse all scholarly sources since 2020 discussing Rowling and gender, and determine what the preponderance of sources say. That's a lot of work, and I will not be undertaking it. That's partly why, though, I suggested summarizing what Rowling has said on the interwebs. The best adjective for Rowling's views is still a matter of debate, and we would need hefty sources indeed to say in Wikipedia's voice that Rowling is a transphobe - note that there's a startlingly small number of people to whom we apply analogous adjectives in Wikipedia's voice. What's less ambiguous is that she has challenged gender self-identification, and the rights of LGBT people (not just trans people), and we do have sources saying that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That. And while I was willing and able to help during the FAR, I am now a 24/7 caregiver and not in control of my own time. If someone wants to change the article, they will need to do the work; we can't wave in the direction of a sample of sources which may or may not represent the best sources broadly. Vanamonde's alternative could save some time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The sources don't seem to think it's as debated as we're presenting it. As far as I can tell, the sources, especially the academic sources, haven't presented this as a locus of debate for some time now. I think that what we currently have in the lead about dividing feminists and fueling debate is therefore WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE.

So for instance, it's not really that "feminists are divided", it's that gender-critical feminists support her and the large majority of feminists who are not gender-critical do not. (Just like how some actors from the Harry Potter movies support her but most do not.) And focusing on "freedom of speech" and "cancel culture" is implicitly saying the criticism of her is illegitimate, which feels like a big WP:NPOV issue to me. Loki (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Aye. Is there even decent sourcing for that, and is any of the good sourcing not horrifically outdated? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 01:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Well, there's no mention of it in the body, and it has no citation in the lead, so... Threw a tag on it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 01:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nobody has objected to my first two suggestions above, so I will go ahead and implement them. I am in no way precluding further changes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Newer sources

Since nobody agitating for changes to the lead has chosen to provide recent high-quality sources, I will kick off such a discussion, with the caveat that my time for further research and wordsmithing is limited. I did a sweep for sources in scholarly-seeming publications that don't appear to have been discussed and/or incorporated before. I ignored some obviously unreliable ones, but I haven't evaluated these in detail, and am not explicitly endorsing their use: I'm saying we ought to discuss them. Opinions on their reliability and on how best to synthesize them are welcome. Miller 2024, Tudisco 2023, Hendricks 2024, McRobbie 2025, Dajches et et 2025. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: (who has good journal access). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Also Judith Butler's 2024 book has a chapter with significant Rowling coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Quickly reviewing those sources:

• Dajches is a single study so not a great source
• Miller is an "forum"/"commenatary" piece so also not strong
• Tudisco, a case study of another academic but which has a paragraph or so on Rowling
• Hendricks is an analysis of just one of her books
• McRobbie is reviewing Judith Butler's latest book which looks at GC feminism, better to use Butler directly

Other sources we could use

• Judith Butler's Who’s Afraid of Gender? has a chapter on GC feminism in the UK covering Rowling extensively - this would be a great source
• Washington Post[4] references Katelyn Burn's article[5] on JK's transphobia, noting Burns’s piece flagged another liked tweet from Rowling’s account and a passage from one of her mystery novels that characterized a trans woman as “unstable and aggressive” and included a rape joke directed at the trans character.
  • Amazed that neither this article nor the other has the fact that JKR's books have a crossdressing serial killer and protagonist who mocks trans women and threatens one with prison rape in an interrogation[6]
  • Or that she wrote a book about a character accused of transphobia[7]
  • Generally, these articles should also have a section on "how does JKR treat trans people in her works"
• Moazami is a good academic source on the anti-gender movement / lawfare[8]. Contextualized JKR's activism in the broader movement
• Can't get access atm, but Lamble also covers JKR[9]
• The Week released A timeline of JK Rowling's transphobic shift ~2 weeks ago[10]

Just the results of a quick review and sweep for more sources, probably won't have time to do much with it myself. All apart from Lamble are on the Wikipedia Library IIRC. Also, AFAICT most academic sources, including those there, just describe her as anti-trans / transphobic. It's a particularity of the UK press and libel laws that they mostly never do so themselves. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

A few quick thoughts. McRobbie is offering independent commentary as well as review - Butler is a giant of her field but we should diversify voices where possible. Dajches/Hendricks offer background that is usable, even where the results are too specific. And a question: what are you referring to when you say "Lamble"? The author of the linked source is listed as Thurlow, and the journal is Sexualities. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Butler goes by they/them pronouns btw. Let's try to avoid misgendering critics of Rowling please. Simonm223 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The correction is appreciated: that wasn't the case when I read/read of Butler, but I will remember that going forward. That said, is that all you have to say about this discussion, Simon? You've been complaining about NPOV violations at length, and started an FAR over your complaints, but when there's a good faith effort to address the issues you don't want to discuss the substance? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Can't get access atm, but Lamble also covers JKR[11] - the doi is to Thurlow (2022). It only mentions Rowling once, briefly and as an example, on page 965. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Wrong name sorry, Lamble is here: Confronting complex alliances: Situating Britain’s gender critical politics within the wider transnational anti-gender movement - which very briefly mentions rowling but not enough to be useful

Got my tabs mixed up when copy-pasting. Meant to say Thurlow instead of Lamble above, but per Sirfurboy Thurlow isn't usable anyways. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

RE YFNS 22:16, JKR's individual works have their own articles; as much as some would like this article to cover every single issue/item/mention of JKR wrt anything gender-related, we adhere to highest-quality sources for weight and use summary style. We don't need to cover each book in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Miller is WP:USEDBYOTHERS such as by Cram, E. 2024 Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Another peer reviewed source which I don't think has been raised yet is Awcock & Rosenberg 2023 Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

And Morales 2023. Just a question, exactly how many peer reviewed articles referring to Rowling as a Transphobe will be sufficient to make the discussed lede changes? Because there is rather a lot of these. Because academia has become pretty consistent that Rowling is a transphobe. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

McNamarah 2023 Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Rogers 2024 Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't access this one but Gwenffrewi 2022 is widely cited including by most of the above. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarke 2024 (This one is a little weaker because, unlike most of the above it doesn't explicitly call Rowling a transphobe or a TERF but it does position her within the LGB movement which it interrogates for recentering whiteness. Also cites Gwenffrewi 2022.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Gwenffrewi is autoethnographic. Cautions will apply. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Gwenffrewi is highly cited on the topic of Rowling and transphobia regardless. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course. But as it is autoethnographic, we should probably use those who cite Gwenffrewi and not the source itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in this discussion has yet convinced that a full survey of high-quality sources has been conducted; google produces pages and pages of scholarly sources on Rowling, and we must avoid cherry picking. We don't make changes based on a few sources presented out of the scores available. Someone needs to do the real work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that it's important to note, though, that the presence of a lot of new sources means that there's no evidence for the previous consensus version either. There's no evidence that anything said takes new material into proper weight. There's no evidence that summaries aren't outdated. Saying that there hasn't been proof of a complete literature survey in no way justifies keeping the extant text, which is provably missing a complete literature survey because it's outdated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 01:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it possible that the complete literature survey is missing because there is a tendency on this talk page towards complaining based on less-than-best or incomplete source lists rather than rolling up sleeves and digging in to do the unbiased, due weight work. And other than Vanamonde's actionable suggestions above, I've seen no evidence anything else is missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a reluctance to put in that effort when absolutely any attempt to push for change in this article is met with reception like this. Every time anybody tries to push for anything it's "more sources" and here we are with several of them put forward and instead of engaging with any of them it's handwaved off like this? If anything short of an abstract Herculean task of "the real work" is met with passive hostility and feels entirely futile, why would anyone feel motivated to bother taking on that task? I resent the state this article is eternally stuck in but this talk page is so entrenched in shielding her from criticism that it seems like a waste of my time to fight for it to be any better. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

So again, what we currently have is selection bias. Various papers have been mentioned above, but there are plenty of others that take an opposite view. For instance, this chapter [12] (see footnote 26 in particular, although read in the context of the thesis of the piece). I mentioned a couple of others further up. But I don't mean to imply, by posting these, that we should follow the view in those pieces either. But if someone cannot see the problem in picking up on Gwenffrewi's autothenographic piece and using that to justify making a statement in wikivoice, then that person needs to spend some time reading about historiography and the handling of sources. To make a statement in wikivoice that Rowling is transphobic, that must be the mainstream view. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia, and so if it were the mainstream view, we would say this. But knowing that X and Y say something does not make X and Ys view mainstream. Indeed, the evidence is that there remains a substantial debate on the issue and on how we describe Rowling's position on it. This is not shielding her from criticism. If we report the criticism, the reader may be informed of that. We report the criticism, but we do not take a side. That is what it means to write from a neutral point of view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This may be the only page on Wikipedia where there is an expectation from page watchers of academic unanimity in order to make an obvious improvement. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

...academic unanimity... Now look, if that is how you summarise one (longish) paragraph from me, that nowhere mentions unanimity, and actually says something else, how are we to trust that you are accurately summarising what the sources say? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This is what you are effectively requesting. My summary feels pretty accurate from my experience of having my new sources effectively ignored except for the one that was outright dismissed by you for being the wrong sort of peer reviewed source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

So, I do accept your basic premises, namely:

1. How we cover Rowling depends on the consensus of all the sources, not just the existence of sources that use a certain label.

2. In order to figure out what the consensus view is, we'd need a neutral process that is likely to expose sources that talk about Rowling's view on trans people regardless of viewpoint.

The issue here is that what's going on here does not follow from those premises, and frankly feels like an isolated demand for rigor. In my experience, the normal way we find sources on Wikipedia is that anyone who wants to edit the page separately goes looking for sources, and if there are sources that happen to fit the biases of one side of an argument or the other those sources will be presented by that side of the argument. It's in my experience very uncommon to demand a survey of all the sources in one single neutral search by one single editor.

I believe in this case that the reason this is happening is that the article is currently written in a style that sounds neutral, even though it's not reflective of the balance of sources, and so the fact that when editors go looking for sources, they are mostly finding sources that say Rowling is anti-trans is unconvincing to people who read the existing article and think it sounds neutral. They think that the article as it is must be right and therefore there must be a treasure trove of high quality pro-Rowling sources out there just waiting to be found. But incredulity is not an argument: right now there is an increasing gulf between the article and the sources we have. If you think there are lots of other sources that would say something different it's on you to go find those. But so far nobody has despite apparent attempts, so the conclusion that they don't exist looks increasingly solid. Loki (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

feels like an isolated demand for rigor. Not at all. When attempting to describe a BLP subject using a controversial term in wikivoice, source reviews are necessary, and often rigorous. E.g. see this [13] on whether to used the word "convicted" or not for Lucy Letby. When we had an RfC on Horst Wessel there were far fewer sources to consider, but we still reviewed them all. And this is a featured article, so the importance of doing this right is greater. The task is also bigger because there is so much literature, of course. Many subjects we can resolve reading a handful of sources. Not so here. As for sources saying something different, I already included three as exemplars. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If its just going to stalemate and be kept as it is, then the section should be given a NPOV or Unbalanced tag. LittleJerry (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia to shield a subject from criticism or expose them to criticism. It is give a balanced account of what reliable sources say. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC).

As an uninvolved editor here, after reading the article carefully, my conclusion is that the article is well-balanced indeed. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Who cares about balance? Let's talk about substance, accuracy and relevance. I'm fine with fairness and context. Balance is vague. I'm not sure what it even suppose to mean other than to say that the composition of water is H20 but we'll give equal time and weight to those who want to offer a counter argument with no substance. 2001:1970:4F67:B800:A8AB:BC70:5005:9B10 (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Who cares about balance? We do. Have a read of WP:NPOV and especially the sub heading WP:BALANCE. Also let's not fork into a meta discussion on that. This talk page is for discussion of the content of this article only. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing, talk behavior, other cleanup

Could editors here PLEASE stop throwing out sources that will never be acceptable for this article? WP:WIAFA requires best sources for featured articles; that should be true for all articles, but the requirement has more teeth for Featured articles. I see sources like WP:NEWSWEEK and WP:DAILYMAIL mentioned in discussions above, making irrelevant content discussions unnecessarily long. Please stay on topic.

I also see some battleground behaviors above that need to be addressed at WP:AE; the environment on this talk page had previously avoided such behaviors commonly found in GENSEX topic discussions, and it would be advantageous to keep it that way and keep discussions focused on best sources.

Also, a good portion of this edit is unsourced; I no longer have time to do all the WP:CITEVAR and sourcing cleanup here; could other people please tune in and help with routine maintenance? Otherwise, revert that entire edit as unnecessary maybe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

"Consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". On a news story, the best sources are likely to be news sources. Wikipedia is not news, but it differs from traditional media in being agile enough to pivot when the information changes. This article passed FA way back in 2007. George W Bush was president of the US, and the UK had Gordon Brown as PM. Britain was still in the EU, and the author of the Harry Potter series of children's books was still mainly famous as an author and a philanthropist. A lot of things have changed in the past 18 years. It would be ok for the article to change to reflect this; that's how Wikipedia is meant to work. A Featured Article is not set in stone; indeed, one on a living person especially cannot afford to be. John (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If we have to evaluate Newsweek on a case-by-base basis to determine if it is RS, then how can that source be a high-quality one, especially both for FA and contentious BLP matters? Hog Farm _Talk 18:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It isn't, and nobody has suggested that it was. I know it's a terribly long talk page but if you look a few screens up it was suggested and discounted. John (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

All sources should be assessed on a case by case basis. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The age of its FA status doesn't exclude the sourcing reponsibilities commensurate to that status. TBicks (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The point of saying that is that language that was appropriate back in 2007 when this article was originally made a featured article may be reason for a reevaluation if the facts have moved on but the article hasn't. Loki (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As a point of order, this article was deemed to meet the FA standards in 2022, after extensive revisions and updates. Updates may well be needed - Rowling is a living and active article subject - but the 2007 FAC is entirely a red herring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I didn't notice that before posting. All the same, my point still stands. John (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

John re "this article passed FA way back in 2007", this article passed the most rigorous FAR I have ever witnessed in 2022. The 2007 article is not the FA; the 2022 article is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm happy to help with the maintenance stuff. I think I've got the edit you linked sorted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, FFF; yes, I think you got everything I noticed. In general, I just won't be able to keep up any more as I used to, and don't have any hope that will get better any time soon, and appreciate you noticing. It's discouraging to see reams and reams of repetitive discussion on one topic on this page, while bad edits to any other part of the article are often ignored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)