Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive3

J. K. Rowling

Featured article candidates/J. K. Rowling

Notified: SandyGeorgia, Serendipodous, AleatoryPonderings, Eagle Owl, Victoriaearle, Olivaw-Daneel, Vanamonde93, JennKR, Libertycookies [1]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has significant WP:NPOV issues. The article, in its present form, downplays both the significance and the extent of Rowling's activism against queer people, specifically trans women but also trans men and asexuals. We should not be featuring such blatantly non-neutral articles as examples of what Wikipedia should aim for. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree with the NPOV issues expressed in the nomination. Currently, the article has a paragraph in the lead devoted to the topic, a five-paragraph section expanding upon it, and a hatnote linking to the daughter article. While this article might need to be updated with a sentence about her reaction to the recent UK Supreme Court ruling on gender, I think devoting more space than that would be WP:UNDUE. Note that I reviewed and helped fix up the first FAR, though I can't remember if I helped with the drafting of the transgender section (and couldn't find evidence of helping when I did a quick search through the discussions.) Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with @Z1720, it is mentioned in the lead, has a substantial section in the article, and even more discussion in a sub-article. There could perhaps be wordsmithing/updating of the current section, but I don't feel that it rises to the level of needing an FAR, unless Simonm223 or someone else could clarify exactly *what* should be changed with the current article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a start we could insert the appropriate categories. The absence of descriptive categories is one key neutrality complaint that has been completely stalled at article talk. In addition greater emphasis should be given to her activism with the recent Supreme Court ruling. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think issues of categorization really rise to the level of FAR. Her involvement with/reaction to the supreme court ruling probably merits a mention, but more than a couple sentences? I'm not so sure. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first point is emblematic of the major issue of this nomination. You're referring to Talk:J. K. Rowling#Category:Anti-transgender activist, in which editors are proposing to add that category to the article. The article does not currently describe Rowling as an anti-transgender activist, so the category would obviously fail WP:CATV. We could propose to add such a description to the article, but based on what sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article cannot be said to violate NPOV unless it is shown to either misrepresent the sources it uses, or to exclude some sources. The consistent difficulty with this article's history is that JKR herself has expressed her views in circuitous and indirect ways, and the vast majority of sources don't tackle her views directly, only saying "JKR's views have been described by critics as transphobic which she denies" over and over. That is no basis to revise an article, or to take it to FAR. I have consistently noted in previous iterations of this dispute that I am open to revising wording based on good sources, but we have to start with those sources: absent evidence of such, I don't see why we are at FAR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever sources have been presented they're disregarded as "not good enough." It seems like the only way we will be able to have a wikipedia page that accurately describes her activism would be if it came out in Nature and even then we'd probably get pushback. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This - and the contributions to the talk page discussion which precipitated this review - read more like wanting the article be less neutral in a particular direction, which is all a bit WP:RGW. Void if removed (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSE, out of process, no FAR notification, and no need for one. Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving to FAR: There are RS like here here and here which reports on Rowling's support and funding for For Women Scotland who got the UK Supreme Court to define only biological females as women which this article does not cover. We also have this article and this article reporting on Rowling calling a transwoman a man. This article is clearly downplaying her views and actions, and editors are doing mental gymnastics to keep it that way. LittleJerry (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this for the moment. Prior to starting an FAR, there should be discussion about it at the talk page; what is there presently is primarily a content dispute, and FAR is not dispute resolution. That dispute would be better suited to another venue, such as WP:NPOVN. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]