Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Is the transgender section imbalanced?

Hey everyone! You might have seen me explaining my concern with the WP:BALANCE of this section at different spots on this page. I've kept reflecting on it and now, since there's an initiative to partly rework the section (thanks @Sideswipe9th!), I thought this would be the best time to propose this discussion on it. This may or may not be stuff to keep in mind while reworking the section. Tell me if you agree or disagree:

So, a considerable part of this section is dedicated to Rowling's public statements. Of course, this makes sense; those statements are the primary source of information we have to understand her views, and they must be included. The balance issue I see comes from how this section only relies on her statements, and which ones of those statements are prioritized :

1. First of all, there's a nuance between statements and views. While statements are the default mode of expression of one's views, they're not the only way to express those views. The case of JKR is maybe special in that sense because the controversy around her views, as she acknowledges herself in her essay "TERF Wars", didn't start with her statements but with the scrutiny of her Twitter activity. I wondered for a while if this was just a chronically-online thing that only a couple of people remembered, but I actually found it to be mentioned as the beginning of the controversy in tons of quality secondary sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Some of these sources mention a first "like" in 2017, but most of them focus on the 2018 "men in dresses" like. In our section, the first incident mentioned is Rowling's tweet in support of Maya Forstater, in 2019, a year and a half later.
2. My concern with this omission is not just that a key piece of information is missing. We have to remember that this section contains the description of a debate, therefore we need to uphold WP:NPOV. Most of the statements by Rowling that are cited currently are defensive in nature, so the full context behind them is essential to the neutrality of the section. As I highlighted in my first point, newspapers, academics and Rowling herself all recognize that she has been criticized for more than her statements, and cite the role played by her Twitter activity. Therefore, the fact that only her statements — defensive statements, for the most part — are mentioned in this section goes against WP:BALANCE.
3. Not only are just her statements cited, which statements are cited is also what I think makes the section imbalanced. In particular, the fact that her misgendering of India Willoughby is currently left out poses a problem. I understand waiting for the best quality sources, but most of her other statements currently cited in the section — for example, her first defensive tweet from 2019, or the near full paragraph on the content of "TERF Wars"; all supported only by breaking news — are backed by the exact same level of sourcing. And regardless of the original intention, we have to recognize that it may look biased to cite Rowling saying that trans people deserve "peace and security", while omitting that she also called a trans woman "a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks 'woman' means". To be clear, my suggestion is that the Willoughby incident be added back, not that other stuff be removed, although any effort to uphold consistent standards across the section will be an improvement.
4. These inconsistent standards apply beyond her statements. If the reason for omitting Willoughby is that it's an individual incident — something I would tend to disagree with, as it's also the clear expression of an opinion — then other individual incidents, which are arguably less notable and are also backed by lesser-quality sourcing, would also need to be questioned. Examples: Ripple of Hope Award, open letter condemning "hate speech".
5. This final point is maybe more trivial and unrelated, but I think the order and structure of the section should be changed, especially with the first and fourth paragraphs. Both contain information that would belong in a "general overview" paragraph, so I don't understand why they're separated. In particular, I don't see why the first paragraph mentions first and foremost that her statements have "divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people", but the fact that those same statements "have been called transphobic" is separated from the other stuff and relegated to the 4th paragraph. In any case, this would inevitably be addressed if, as some suggested, we rework the section to show the progression of her views in more of a linear way.

If you've read this, thank you! If you share some of my concerns, please tell me if you'd be interested in working on improving this section. We're already starting to collect newer sources for an update, so we might as well use this opportunity now. And if you disagree, please let me know why, I'll be happy to discuss.

WikiFouf (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am starting to seriously wonder whether she has devoted most of her recent life to picking fights, rather than working. Every time I come across a news report on her, it is about a fight or an outrageous statement. When was the last time she released a newsworthy book? At this point, we could easily have several spin-off articles about her "controversies". Plenty of sources, if an editor can stomach them. Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick: The article shows 26 Sep 2023 as the answer to your first question. There are Main article links to more in-depth coverage of her works, as well as Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, Political views of J. K. Rowling, including Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights and the Politics of Harry Potter. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick The answer to your question would be 2023, with a book that is shortlisted for Crime and Fiction Book of the Year by the British Book Awards.[8]. Beware of confirmation bias. 2A00:23C8:2C85:5F01:6117:98DF:6359:9333 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

She has, in fact, released new, massive books in the Cormoran Strike series at a fairly rapid pace, despite devoting some of her time for online spats. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I will say the last paragraph of the section seems determined to "clear her name" using sources mainly from 4-5 years ago and ignoring everything since then (the whole section is somewhat outdated, for that matter, but here the outdatedness is definitely pushing a POV). Just as a more recent example, she's gotten a lot of press recently for denying transgender people were targeted in the Holocaust; it's unlikely she has the same support she did early on, but quote a lot of statements from four years ago or so - or, rather, don't include any nuance like that and just say a bunch of people support her and don't talk about the people who vehemently do not, and you get a very dismissive statement that appears to be encyclopedic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Featured article review

I think that this talk page raises a lot of questions about the featured status of this article. As such, I've raised the point at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive2 Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah... LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at WP:FAR; you should have stated that weeks before you lodged the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Moved from FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think there are severe, severe issues with its handling of her transphobic views. Literally every section of the talk page is on this article's problems with handling them.

The article focuses on the situation in 2020, when she's had ample coverage in the last year for ever-increasing anti-trans activity. The India Willoughby incident earlier this year, the Holocaust denial, and the widely-reported stunt attacking trans people's existence and Scottish hate speech rules this week (e.g. [9]) and many other things have resulted in a situation where pretty much all coverage of late is on her attacks on trans people, and yet, we have a kind of wishy-washy coverage of it, buried deep in the article.

Editing can fix that, but the sources that came up while going into this are very odd. Take Suissa and Sullivan, an odd paper that A. does not actually support some of the text it was meant to support - it was meant to support Rowling receiving death threats, but there is no comment on that in the article - and secondly, is a very strange paper. Page 69 of it, in the text primarily used from the source to justify claims, reads:

“ Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’ see Cameron, 2016). The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired. ”

I mean, that might have somehow gotten published in an academic journal, but is this really a source we should even fathom using for a neutral summary of a situation? Also, every single source on this used in the article is out of date, the most recent sources are from 2022, but they mostly date to the very early period in 2020-21 of the situation. One can't very well cite people defending relatively mild comments in 2020 as an ongoing defense as her rhetoric increases.

It's possible that Wikipedia can't currently cover Rowling well. Perhaps the sources aren't there, or the situation is developing too fast. But if that's true, we can't have J.K. Rowling as a featured article until they do. And at the very least, this article needs a very thorough source review. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Support FAR - article as a whole needs a serious rework, lots of stuff on there is not WP:DUE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 16:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Close, out of process and unnecessary FAR, @Nikkimaria:. There was no talk page notification, nor is there any need (yet) for a new FAR. FAR is not dispute resolution, and there isn't even yet a serious dispute. There appears to be some content disagreements that are being conducted via esssentially edit warring rather than talk page discussion, but that can be handled via arb enforcement on a contentious topic. I have not been active, but it doesn't appear clear that contentious topic warnings have been consistently issued, or that arb enforcement has been used for the sub-optimal editing. Talk page discussion is the way to resolve the issues in one paragraph with some content we were stuck with after a very large and well-attended RFC before the last FAR. It may be time to revisit that paragraph, but a FAR is not the way to do that; the article remains very largely at featured standards, and we don't need to re-examine that for one paragraph. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  It takes a minute to notify everyone. I've notified them now. I also don't think it's the paragraph, I think it's every point raised on that talk page right now - the coverage of her transphobia in the lead, the positioning of the transgender views section, the entire transgender views section being out of date. This isn't one paragraph, it's how the article is both out of date, and minimising. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please read the instructions at WP:FAR; there was not a talk page notification or a two- to three-week wait. This is not how FAR is used, and the nomination is out of process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Adam that there are serious issues with that paragraph, possibly with the rest of the section: and with Sandy that FAR isn't helpful right now. FAR can't sort out the dispute at all, we're still going to need to build consensus on that. The most we can do here is remove the FA designation; but that still won't fix the issue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree removing FA status won't fix the issue, but holding the article up as the pinnacle of articles when it's not very good at covering what Rowling has made a huge part of her subject isn't appropriate. All I see on the talk page is everyone agreeing the whole coverage of the issue has problems. That's literally every section there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  While I agree the section has problems, the extent to which people are yelling about it is a bad metric. A contentious topic attracts complaint no matter how it's written. Some of the best examples of NPOV writing I've seen on Wikipedia attract complaint on a daily basis. A lot of the complaint tends to be people who have no clue as to how we conceptualize NPOV. I recommend closing this and opening a talk page discussion as to which sources to use to frame the topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Concur. This is the best solution here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Vanamonde93 effectively entirely. I think the reason that the FAR review was raised is because one editor has been arguing that the prior FAR supersedes contemporary changes to consensus on contentious topics within this BLP's page. I certainly think the review request was made in good faith but, frankly, I think that it's overkill going all the way here just to say, "we can change workshopped details of past featured articles when consensus also changes." Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Premature: I would prefer to give talk page discussion more time. The FAR process recommends at least two to three weeks, and I think it would help to have a talk page post that's explicit about the ways in which the article fails to meet the FA criteria. It would not surprise me to see the article back here again in a month, but FAR is such a long process that it would be counter-productive to rush the early stages. I see editors are already at work collecting new sources, and I do think it's fair to expect that the strongest among them will result in changes to the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is also/further premature if contentious topic alerts have not been given and dispute resolution has not been used. I am traveling; can anyone check whether CT alerts have been given to all parties? If so, the revisions via edit warring need to be dealt with via arb enforcement. There is an excellent history of talk page discussion to decide on issues on this article; all I see in recent edits is revert warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

End moved content. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the above content back here to allow time for further discussion before a potential FAR. Please also keep in mind that FAR is not dispute resolution; those avenues should be considered as a potential means of addressing disagreements. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I may have caught up now on the contentious topic alerts, but someone else might check and start keeping up with them, as I won't be editing frequently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Since this is solely about the article's coverage of transgender-related issues, and since discussion here is currently so overwhelmingly in agreement on the broad strokes of what needs to be done, I don't think a FAR is needed just yet - all that's needed at the moment is an acknowledgement that whatever consensus was reached in it regarding trans coverage no longer applies. I think that that is self-evident just by looking at discussions, but if necessary that can be done via a more normal RFC. If, after that, we repeatedly fail to agree on improvements or there are people who believe resulting changes have damaged the article's FA quality and there's no easy agreement on how to get it back, then we might end up back at FAR. But right now the problems and solutions seem relatively straightforward, with only one or two editors objecting. --Aquillion (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, yours is an apt description of how FAR would be used if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The POV-pushing last paragraph

I mean, that's my opinion of this, but I think it's justified. I mentioned my dislike for this paragraph above, but it's bad enough that I feel comfortable pulling it here for discussion, because it's not really adding anything but bias.

“ As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny, she received insults and death threats and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community. Some performers and feminists have supported her. Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her". ”

The latest sources in this section are the books from 2022 that are only used to say she got insults and death threats (which is vague to the point of useless). Everything else is from 2020 or 2021. Everything is kept to vagueness, the sort of thing that sounds meaningful but really says nothing.

Also, it's one of those things where there could easily be counterexamples, but they're left out. It mentions people supporting her, but not the people of the same categories who oppose her and condemned her views. "She received insults" is so vague to be meaningless, and Rowling... Well, a glance through her Twitter will show she's hardly innocent of throwing insults at trans people. The death threats might be relevant if this isn't just a reporting of an unverified claim by Rowling, but whether it's particularly notable she got any in today's internet culture... that's hard to say without a lot more details. Probably not the point to end the section on, in any case, especially when the section is already a bit heavily leaning towards her framing of the incidents, the only quotes from her opponents being that her statements were "'cruel' and 'inaccurate'" and her getting lengthy quotes responding to every point. And then we use the framing of her opponents arguments as insults and death threats toend the section? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden Agree. It's hard not to see it as biased that stuff like the open letter defending her is included with just one source, while the India Willoughby, Holocaust remarks have the same level of sourcing, are more directly related to the topic of the section, and keep getting deleted. If the consensus really is "every source should be high-quality", fine, but then that means we need to rewrite much of this section. WikiFouf (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• It does seem a bit one-sided; and the whole section could definitely stand to be updated to and rewritten using more current sources. In general we're probably relying too much on contemporary news reports and quotes pulled from them to characterize views and reactions, which isn't really necessary when there's more and more academic coverage of this - so I'd try and move away from news sources and towards scholarly ones. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've now read the Suissa and Sullivan paper ( [10]) and... well, A. it doesn't source the material it claims to - there's no mention of death threats, barely mention of insults, and B. this is a very, very odd paper. Page 69 of it claims... well, let me quote the exact words: "Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’"

Part of neutrality is surely throwing out garbage sources, right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I share concern with that paragraph and most of those sources, but I'm unwilling to get too far into the weeds on this issue. I struggle to read any useful meaning into all but the last sentence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that the last paragraph is biased/doesn't have balance. What improvements would you propose? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, as it stands, I don't see much use to anything in that paragraph given the other discussion is on a much more general level. There might be a point - in the more detailed sub-article - to going into the list of people who supported her very early in the incident, but, presuming we agree that she's escalated (and this week's news articles about her sure seem to indicate that), quoting support from very early on seems misleading, unless it's put into the timeline.

But there's a risk of having a situation where every comment on how her transphobia is bad is met with a comment about how it isn't so bad, and it's not like there's much doubt about her transphobia anymore. As an example of possible false balance: No LGBT charity, to my knowledge, supports her (ignoring explicitly anti-trans charities like the LGB Alliance), so there's the strong risk of falsely balancing Mermaids and GLAAD with a couple quotes by actors from before Rowling escalated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If it failed verification then it shouldn't be in the article until / unless we can find an actual high-quality source supporting it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of this content, for a second time, as it was subject to extensive workshopping during a FAR process [11] to reach a consensus version [12]. It should not be removed until a consensus is reached as to how it should be changed or removed. Please avoid edit warring, and reach consensus before implementing any further changes. Daff22 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That being said it would really seem like this content needs revisiting in light of her subsequent actions and in light of the comment above from Adam_Cuerden. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

After all, it's progressed to this: [13] Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I really don't see how 100% consensus now is trumped by an FAR review from two years ago. I think yoyu're editwarring, @Daff22:, given no-one has said this paragraph should remain. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Throwing my hat in here, I also think we should remove from the BLP a paragraph that failed source verification, and the consensus is overwhelming Snokalok (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also throwing my hat in here that we should remove that paragraph. Consensus can change. Loki (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also agree: it should be removed until we take the time to fully address all the valid concerns that have been raised with this section. Consensus seems to have noticeably evolved in the last few months, as did Rowling's views on transgender people WikiFouf (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Even aside from the fact that discussion here currently shows a clear consensus, that isn't how consensus or FARs work. They're not privileged in any way and was just a discussion among a relatively small number of editors; the usual WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies. And Do Not Revert Due to No Consensus applies; you must articulate a specific reason why you object to an edit. Simply saying "this article went through FAR" isn't sufficient because that would bar effectively all edits without prior discussion going forwards, which is not how featured articles or consensus-building works (and, by my reading, the specific text in question was not discussed in any depth at the FAR; certainly I am not seeing anything close to the overwhelming consensus you imply.) If you have specific content-based objections to the edit, you have to articulate them so people can attempt to answer them; if not then you must stop reverting. EDIT: Also, looking over the article's history, it looks like this has been an ongoing problem here. Generally speaking, editors are not required to obtain consensus for edits, even on things that have been discussed - in some cases (where there was an actual RFC with a clear-cut result) it might be appropriate, but even then, it's usually unhelpful and inappropriate to revert solely with an edit summary like "this was discussed" or "get consensus on talk" or the like unless some specific issue has been discussed so many times that there's no point, which isn't really the case here. Reverts should be accompanied by a specific objection that can be discussed on talk, otherwise there's a risk of WP:STONEWALLing because you're effectively asking people to "answer" objections that you haven't articulated. --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring, untrue claims, and moving forward collaboratively

1. 13:34 March 30 Adam Cuerden (AC) removes sourced text that has been in the article for at least two years, and was quite well vetted in the FAR Corrected for almost two years based on this discussion
2. 10:46 March 31 restored by Daff22
3. 20:20 March 31 removed a second time by Adam Cuerden
4. 13:59 April 2 restored again by Daff22
5. 16:36 April 2 removed for the third time by Adam Cuerden

At 13:41, 30 March, Adam Cuerden started this talk page section (yay) which contains errors (boo), and at 03:07 1 April, stated that "the Suissa and Sullivan paper ... doesn't source the material it claims to". Subsequent responses repeated the error that the text failed verification; it does not. Cuerden appears to have based that claim on having read only one of the two sources. The citations are bundled to the end of the clause, but the insults are sourced to one scholarly source and the death threats are sourced to Qiao. AC, did you read Qiao?

AC also states that "insults and death threats" are "vague to the point of useless". Death threats are death threats; they don't need further definition. If one academic source isn't enough, there are scores of other sources that can be used (during the FAR, we substituted in academic or scholarly sources whenever we could, but there are plenty of high-quality news sources available); that Rowling has received death threats is not WP:UNDUE in this article. If "choke on a bag of dicks" isn't an insult, what is; must we really add that level of detail to a broad overview article ? Cuerden criticizes the vagueness, which was employed to use summary style from the sub-article which is linked in the hat note, and to avoid increasing word count with things like "choke on a bag of dicks" and more, which are explored in the sub-article and to which many more sources can be added.

AC says the section "mentions people supporting her, but not the people of the same categories who oppose her and condemned her views". This is untrue; the content was the subject of extensive discussion, resulting in this content in the first paragraph of that section:

... and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors.

That is quite explicit and broad; to say the article leaves out this side is false-- it includes it in the first paragraph, and anyone can see at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 the hows and whys the text was written as is. Editors who are (to say the least) not fond of Rowling asked for the text to be written that way rather than naming the who's who list of personalities and organizations, which was where we started. There is a sub-article where greater detail can be explored, which is the same for other sections of the article besides the transgender section. With more sources available now than two years ago, rewriting text to improve it after discussing better sourcing is one thing, but completely removing accurately cited text that was well vetted by many experienced editors, and more editors than are now weighing in here, isn't the way to improve this content.

Separately, it would be ideal to resume the collaborative environment in which the FAR was conducted; edit warring is not the way to write content, and false hyperbolic charges of POV are not helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, Qiao attributes that statement to Rowling and mentions it only in passing (Then on June 10 JK Rowling published an article then forwarded it on Twitter in early November 2021, she revealed that she had received a flood of death threats after her family's address was posted online.) We can't use it for statements in the article voice; with only that source, we would have to attribute it to Rowling in the same way. And if that is genuinely the only source, then I do think it's WP:UNDUE; it's a passing mention in a paper that has only been cited once, attributed to Rowling. Giving it weight is WP:EXCEPTIONAL in context and requires correspondingly serious coverage that can give it proper context. Also, unless I misunderstand the timeline, I don't think it was actually part of the FAR version - you added it here; in the discussion linked, the only comments other than yours that I can see talking about it were opposed to adding it, which may explain how it ended up with such weak sourcing. I admit I may have missed something because the discussion was complex and spread across several pages. If you do feel you have better sources you can present them and make your case, but even if it ends up in the article we do actually need those sources because they will provide vital context that might affect how we cover it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Will catch up on this tomorrow or next ... was editing from car, now home, and out of time. I don't understand your final clause, beginning with "but even if" ... ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Timeline corrected (thank you and apologies!) and there were then/still are plenty of other sources on death threats ... at least one scholarly but I don't have journal access right now, and other news sources like Deadline on the Rushdie incident. It's an odd thing to leave out completely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Interesting little attack piece on me. I think it's undeniably true that Suissa and Sullivan is A. a pretty odd and very biased source, and B. Does not support the language about death threats, and B. It's hard to even use it to unambiguously say "insults" when it explicitly defines "TERF" as a synonym for - bitch and cunt, I think, and calling her a TERF is hardly what a reader is going to expect when you mention insults. There is a comment about people telling Rowling to eat a bag of dicks, but it's oddly written as well. That's near the issue, but it's not very close, is it? If it doesn't support "death threats" and it's exact wording doesn't do a good job at supporting "insults", then it doesn't matter if the other source does. It failed source verification, both in whether it's a source for the material and on being a very bad source to use since it literally claims "TERF" is a meaningless, anti-woman insult like "bitch" or "cunt".

Nextly, receiving insults on the internet is hardly news. I don't think I need to defend that to anyone who ever read a comments sectio n. So how, exactly, is

some public figure revealing controversial vieand then ws receiving insulnotn't exactly what's expected on the internet?

As for the death threats, give me one source for death threats that isn't "Rowling says". Because do you remember the incident where she claimed fixing because drag queens protested outside her house, which at the time was listed as a tourist attraction on multiple websites uncontroversially, until she suddenly feared for her life because someone protested there briefly and she tried to get them arrested and did get several of them drummed off the internet. I do not trust Rowling's characterisation of her critics and neither should Wikipedia explicitly do so. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Also, the claim is death threats in response to her transphobia. You link https://deadline.com/2022/08/rowling-death-threat-twitter-supporter-salman-rushdie-attacker-1235091660/ in response. Which is explicitly, unambiguously about her receiving death threats for supporting Salman Rushdie. So your defense of the claim fails source verification in a pretty major way, as it's about something completely unrelated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So, it appears we disagree on this matter. Suissa and Sullivan was never intended to back the death threats; it sourced the insults. You think that vague, and you think Qiao a poor source for the death threats; other sources can be used (the aim was to stick with content mentioned by scholarly sources).

But now, we have a significant part of the chronology missing rather than tagged for better sourcing, even as SMcCandlish notes that "Due to Rowling's public prominence, it led rapidly to everything from public condemnation by people who had worked with her, to former-fan boycots, to actual threats against her safety and life." If the efforts on this page should turn to constructively drafting updated content based on highest quality sources, mention of the insults and death threats should not be deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean... if it is a significant part of the chronology then it would be easier than this to find high-quality sources for it. I think that it the fact that she said she received threats is extremely important to some of her supporters, and is something that some tabloid coverage in particular has used as a framing device... but I don't think that it is actually treated as a major part of the chronology in higher-quality or more impartial coverage; most coverage doesn't mention it at all. Compared to the massive amount of coverage that the topic as a whole has received, most higher-quality coverage does not treat it as a major part of the topic or its timeline. I think that the disparity in focus (and the disparity in the perception of how important it is) is partially explained by the fact that a few sources - again, largely lower-quality tabloid ones, often opinion-pieces or friendly blow-by-blow news coverage - treats her description of it as representative of the people she is dispute with, and therefore emblematic of the entire issue and central to understanding it... but I don't think that this is really how most high-quality mainstream coverage treats it, when it is mentioned at all (and, again, it usually simply isn't.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not hard to find;[14] rather, I'm mostly waiting for and hoping that this talk page will move beyond the long lists of dumps from news sources, towards a focus on scholarly sources, before exploring further, as the page is now overwhelmed by less-than-useful source lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not sure - the paragraph is vague - that that's for the right chronology, though: It's for a death threat in 2021; the majority of the discussion revolved around early events in 2019-2020. I'm also a little worried that the only reason to mention the threat in such a brief summary of events is to make the other side look bad. Great source for her being transphobic, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing a Featured article subject to double discretionary sanctions

Please 1) read and understand summary style, WP:WIAFA, and WP:SIZE; 2) don't believe everything you read (the failed verification charge above was untrue); and 3) stop building content by edit warring. See the model at the FAR, and above on this page, that has successfully resulted in consensus. We always knew the transgender text would need to be revisited; doing that without hyperbole, false claims, editing that is not bold (as stated in edit summaries) rather reckless, and battleground language is the fastest route to where we all want to be. Slow and steady wins the race. The article is again growing with excess detail that has not gained consensus, to where it will surpass WP:SIZE guidelines, when detail should first be explored at Political views of J. K. Rowling and then summarized to here based on collaborative discussion based on the highest quality sources rather than opinions unbacked by source listings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to avoid focusing too much on process over content. If you think that there are people who have violated the numerous restrictions on this page, the appropriate venue is WP:AE, not here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:FAOWN is a policy page: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." Doing so will help avoid the back-and-forth, borderline edit warring already occurring, and help all collaborate via talk. Eg, see your section above ... suppose I had just added the text back in without discussing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

References for above quotes

References

References Schwirblat, Tatiana; Freberg, Karen; Freberg, Laura (2022). "Chapter 21: Cancel culture: a career vulture amongst influencers on social media". In Lipschultz, Jeremy Harris; Freberg, Karen; Luttrell, Regina (eds.). The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-597-420221021. ISBN 978-1800715981. Qiao, Leshui (1 June 2022). "Mainland China's TERFs' Misogyny Under JK Rowling's Anti-trans Incident". Proceedings of the 2022 8th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2022). Atlantis Press. pp. 1322–1326. doi:10.2991/assehr.k.220504.238. ISBN 978-94-6239-580-0.

Reaching consensus

Since there's been a lot of discussion about reaching consensus before editing the transgender views section, let's do just that and first and foremost collect all of our basic stances in one spot. Please voice your thoughts succinctly about whether or not you perceive issues with the section, and if so which ones. We could then proceed to a more detailed approach based on what, if anything, we agree should be reworked. I'll ping everyone who seems to have recently participated in the talk page: @Sideswipe9th @Adam Cuerden @Snokalok @Daff22 @Aquillion @Vanamonde93 @Simonm223 @SandyGeorgia @Victoriaearle @Firefangledfeathers @Colin @LokiTheLiar @Bastun @Czello @Dimadick @Bazza 7 @Dtobias @Amanda A. Brant @PenelopePlesiosaur @LegalSmeagolian @BilledMammal @13tez @Kmhkmh @Johnbod @Umdlye

I'll go first. Thanks for your input, hope this is the right way to do this! WikiFouf (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding the editors from the FAR not already pinged, already present or topic banned. @4meter4, Aza24, Barkeep49, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Ealdgyth, Endwise, Extraordinary Writ, FormalDude, Guerillero, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Innisfree987, Ipigott, Ixtal, RandomCanadian, Sdkb, Silver seren, SMcCandlish, Xxanthippe, Zmbro, and Z1720: there is interest in reworking the transgender content now that we are two years past the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm very swamped IRL right now - it'll be awhile before I can get back up to speed with this matter. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I see issues of balance and neutrality in the entire section that I think should be addressed. I've explained my thoughts in more detail here WikiFouf (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@WikiFouf (fun name) I share your thoughts and also think her recent behavior in regards to the Scottish Hate Crime law finally merits "anti-transgender rights advocate" or something similar in the lead. I also think the views section should be moved up because at this point she is just as well known for her transphobic views as for the Harry Potter franchise. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Would also like to see at least passing mention of the whole holocaust denial incident. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That really didn't make it in here? Lordy. Maybe I'll WP:BEBOLD later. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it obvious does need some changes (also, the FAR discussion didn't actually have very many people weighing in, particularly on individual aspects. I don't think it represents a strong consensus - that's not what FAR is for.) Even beyond that it is two years old on a topic that has changed fairly significantly and gotten a lot more coverage. At the very least the last paragraph was unbalanced and we need better sourcing for the "death threats" part if we're going to include it at all, given that it failed verification above. We should also try to update to more up-do-date sources, since many better sources are available on this today. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Aquillon, you may not be reading all of the FAR talk archives; it was the (by far) one of the best attended FARs *ever*, with several dozen editors weighing in, following on a very widely attended RFC which hamstrung what could be done on the transgender content. But yes, it has been two years, and it was always intended to review the transgender content when more time had elapsed from the RFC, and as more high-quality sources become available. I strongly recommend anyone wanting to improve the content to review at minimum the numerous talk archives on the FAR at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, and WP:FAOWN; a good method of working towards consensus developed. I also suggest before anything to be sure contentious topic alerts have been issued to everyone reverting content here; this article is subject to double sanctions (BLP and gender-related) and recent edits suggest a sub-optimal dynamic is taking hold. @AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel: who have almost all the sources. I am also traveling, and have been on an extended break due to personal tragedies, and am unlikely to be able to do as much this time as last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. The transgender section in that discussion consisted of only has a handful of editors, and the conclusion one of them gave was Having reviewed the whole of the new text in context, it certainly reads better (and less breathlessly) than the former one. I would feel remiss, though, if I didn't register that it feels a bit WHITEWASH-y and BOTHSIDESist compared to the sources used (and those discussed on Talk). I expect that this will be even more evident once an additional wave of peer-reviewed sources become available; I suppose the newly-minted version will serve its purpose until something major happens, or until it is time to replace it with more authoritative sourcing (which I suspect will be less deferential to Rowling than our current text). That is not a strong consensus (unsurprising, since, as you've said, reaching long-term consensuses on an article is not really the purpose of FAR; the way it's being presented and used here was already inapproprite.) If that were all it wouldn't be an issue, but editors here have repeatedly reverted back to the FAR version (or not even really the FAR version; glancing back, the "death threats" part, which failed verification and was one of the bones of contention here, was added after the FAR) with no explanation beyond "get consensus." That is WP:OWN behavior! WP:FAOWN specifically does not excuse it - it says explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership, not "you can repeatedly revert back to the featured article with no explanation beyond asserting that it has consensus." This, more than anything else, is the reason discussions here are going the way they are; people are leaning on two-year-old discussions among a small number of editors in the FAR in a way that avoids actually engaging with serious issues about sources and content. Either way I think it's clear from the overwhelming direction of discussions here that whatever weak consensus may have been reached about coverage of trans issues specifically in the FAR no longer applies. I don't think it's necessary to do a whole new FAR if people acknowledge that - if necessary I think we could do it with an RFC even if some people refuse to acknowledge it - but I do think people need to stop trying to cite the FAR on anything related to trans issues; it clearly is not helping, because it clearly does not represent a current consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion, the issue was being stuck with this well-attended RFC, and the thinking was it was too soon to revisit such a well-attended RFC, hence wait until better sources appeared. What you call a "small number" of editors on the FAR were editors trying to respect a much larger group who participated in the RFC. Re consensus, there is now adequate distance from the RFC to revisit, but in the context still of high-quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy on how it played out, it matches what I remember from back then. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 10:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm just about to go away on holiday for 2 weeks so I'll leave you all to fight it out discuss it rationally in my absence. I agree the latest Scottish law antics have moved the dial; maybe wait a few days for that story to settle? Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Enjoy your holiday! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that there are issues. What was arguably neutral four years ago is now tilted towards her POV, since it's a small part of the article but has become a larger and larger part of her notability as time passes and she continues to do things that call attention to her anti-trans views. And beyond all that, it's just not up to date. There's lots of stuff that's happened that hasn't been reflected in the article. Loki (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I realise that we don't want to default to going with whatever the most recent thing she did is (that has its own issues), but - well, I don't know her mind, so I can't say if this is her feeling more emboldened to voice views she already had or her becoming more extreme in her views, but the rhetoric she uses is, at the least, very much more openly transphobic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 00:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The Independent's article here might be a decent source for summarising. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 00:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I am curious as to why you say an opinion piece would be a good source for a featured article, which requires high-quality sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a major, repected British newspaper, avoding mere recetism. It might serve at least to point out what's going on, and it's at least as good as [15] which is already in the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Very broadly speaking, I'm in favor of adjustments to the trans people section in order to reflect coverage in newer RS. It will be tricky to balance between what's covered in the highest quality book and academic sources—which tend to be more dated—and what's in news coverage. I do think it'll be worth it to push through the trickiness. Since they're up against the big-r-RS, I'd prefer to see us stick to only the cream of the news crop and to favor in particular ones that are focused on Rowling and her views over time. I wish we could have more dust-settling time before including some of the recent controversy, but it's too prominent to wait long. My hope is to see the mention kept brief to avoid recentism as much as possible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Fully support this, and from the bit of research I did a couple of weeks ago I'm confident we can update the section while using high quality stuff for the most part WikiFouf (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that it's very much a moving target, but it's not in good enough shape to wait. Let's sketch in what seems likely to remain important, but I agree that we should keep recentism in mind (and can always throw any extra content into the Politics of... article). Offhand, it seems that patterns of behaviour (with RSes) are more important than most single incidents, and the incidents should be chosen to illustrate whatever patterns of behaviour RSes are already talking about. So, to give some examples, if (and this is an "if" here) RSes talk about here regularly misgendering people, maybe the India Willoughby incident is a notable example. If they talk about her grandstanding against laws meant to protect trans people, then the attempt to get arrested under Scotland's new hate speech law matters there. And if we don't have RSes that help them fit that context, maybe we should skip them. Of the three recent incidents, the Holocaust denial one is the only one that strikes me as being uniquely awful enough to likely deserve get mentioned on its own merits alone, the others feel like just the most recent examples of a pattern of behaviour.. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 04:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I also agree to focus on the patterns as much as possible. With her April Fools tweets following the Willoughby stuff, I think there's now a good case that her conscious misgendering of trans women is becoming a pattern, as well as a key demonstration of her views. There's also now at least one RSP green source that covers India Willoughby in non-breaking news fashion, connecting it to the April Fools stuff.

I'm not sure about singling out the Holocaust stuff though, not only because it hasn't become a pattern thus far but also because we don't even have one RSP green source for it as far as I'm aware. WikiFouf (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the most recent, very highly publicized rant is a good place to rewrite the article. And I agree with neutrality issues. “Some people call her views transphobic, but she says that she supports trans people” when we have things like this [16] and meanwhile a paragraph about all the righteous feminists that support her, has a very clear slant. At this point, I agree that it’s pretty hard (especially in light of the latest rant) to not put anti-trans activist into the summary. I don’t think there’s anyone at this point who hears her name and doesn’t think about, everything over the last couple of years. Downplaying it when it has very much become her brand, just makes this article look like a puff piece. Snokalok (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I think we should have a half sentence or something dedicated to the holocaust thing. The weight of coverage isn't huge, but we do have RSP green sources saying it. At the very least, a "What many have described as holocaust denial" Snokalok (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Aye. It feels like something that might well increase in importance, but.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 06:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

And I just noticed the careful work of @Umdlye In finding these sources. All RSP green.

The Independent: "prominent anti-trans activist" [17]

Reuters: "prominent gender critical campaigner" [18]

Financial Times: "high profile voice in the "gender critical" movement" [19]

The only question now is whether we have consensus to take GC as synonymous with anti-trans. Personally, my belief is that it's the same as "racist" vs "race realist", but obviously this is something where consensus is needed. Snokalok (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's in the definition: Gender-critical feminism. I think that providing a gloss for a term isn't a problem, as long as the definition is very well-sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm against adding "anti-transgender activist" in the lead sentence. From the fair bit of reading I've done on her, even in the recent stuff, I haven't seen her being described that way by high-quality sources even once. It might start happening soon though, especially if she keeps focusing on laws (as she did on April Fools) and more concrete stuff like that. Another thing, and this may or may not be just a question of personal preference, is that we tend to put too many titles in lead sentences in general.

Something I think we definitely should do though is dedicate a full paragraph to her views in the lead. Based on the coverage of her since 2019, this is more than justified. WikiFouf (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

A full paragraph in the lead about her views would not be in accordance with WP:LEAD or with the content of the article, which is a bio of her full life and accomplishments-- not just the last five years. Dedicating a full paragraph to these issues at Politics of J. K. Rowling would be appropriate. The lead was written in accordance with guidelines by looking at the preponderance of all sources on Rowling (not just recent) and the size of each section, after each section was ruthlessly examined and trimmed where necessary. The lead is a summary of the entire article, and the entire article is a summary of her entire life, not just one piece of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean five years is still a fifth of her life in the public sphere, and it's pretty notable that's it's a full five years where she's been in the conversation for something other than writing. There's no other equivalent for it. If not a full paragraph, I at least think it should overtake the space in the lead dedicated to her views. Some of what precedes the trans stuff seems outdated anyways (I'm pretty sure she stopped supporting Labour, specifically because of their policies on trans people) WikiFouf (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can look to Ye's page for guidance on this... looking at his lead the controversy atleast has a paragraph, however his lead is quite a bit shorter... I am going to WP:BEBOLD and narrow down some of the harry potter stuff as some of it is redundant and can be better summarized. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I tend to concur with this: against adding "anti-transgender activist" in the lead sentence. From the fair bit of reading I've done on her, even in the recent stuff, I haven't seen her being described that way by high-quality sources even once. It's too much of a reach, based on assumptions of intent and of political activity (and labelling thereof) that is not in evidence in the actual sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Activist specifically is harder to justify, but I dispute that she hasn't been referred to as anti-trans in high-quality sources "even once":

• Vox repeatedly refers to her anti-trans stance, anti-trans arguments, and anti-trans sentiments.
• CNN says she has a history of anti-trans comments in the headline and repeatedly says she's made anti-trans comments in the body.
• NBC has said she has anti-trans beliefs (tho I should note that NBC news usually puts a little more distance between claims that Rowling is anti-trans and their editorial voice).
• The NYT mentions Rowling's anti-transgender comments and anti-transgender tweets.

The general pattern I'm observing here is actually that higher quality sources are more willing to say she or her comments are anti-trans. At least so long as they're American: probably due to British libel law, even clearly partisan British publications like PinkNews don't ever directly call her anti-trans. Loki (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's not forget [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2046147X231180501#con this academic paper. And, y'know GLAAD and other organisations are pretty good inclusions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

As @Umdyle noted, there is more than enough notable evidence to describe Rowling as an "anti-trans activist" (the label "holocaust denier" should be added, as well). PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources for holocaust denial, because wording will matter here:

• [20] "accused of being a holocaust denier by critics", "The author also faced criticism from people who saw this denial of Nazi practices as part of a larger pattern of antisemitism,"
• [21] "JK Rowling is a Holocaust denier!"
• [22] "the renowned Harry Potter author found herself trending after posting comments denying the historical fact that Nazis burned "books on trans healthcare and research."
• [23] "J.K. Rowling Insinuates Nazis Did Not Burn Trans Books," "J.K. Rowling is once again making ignorant and anti-trans comments online," "Rowling has been spouting anti-trans rhetoric for years now"
• [24] "The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling. (I’m just kidding — obviously everyone online is already yelling about it. The Harry Potter author is always reliable for generating discourse,)" " She didn’t need to distort the Holocaust. But now we have to add that to her list of sins, under those antisemitic goblins."
• [25] "J.K. Rowling claims Nazis didn't burn trans books, issues lawsuit threat when called a holocaust denier," "J.K. Rowling had another "middle-aged moment" Wednesday, claiming that the Nazis did not target trans people when they "burned early books on trans healthcare and research," as an online critic had put it—then threatening to sue another who claimed this amounted to holocaust denial. The Nazis did in fact do that, burning down the first sexology clinic and targeting trans people over the course of the Holocaust," "As the plain intent of making such an argument is to exclude trans people from the history of Nazi victims, it implies nothing good about Rowling's intentions or the right-wing swamp her self-destructive social media persona now exists in."
• [26] "Shortly after targeting Willoughby, Rowling engaged in Holocaust denial by claiming it is a "fever dream" to say that transgender people were persecuted by the Nazis — a well-documented historic fact that is recognized under German law."
• [27] "Harry Potter series author JK Rowling is in hot water again after denying Holocaust facts on X (formerly Twitter). The controversial figurehead has dived full force into the trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) movement in recent years, alienating many LGBTQIA+ Wizarding World fans."
• [28] "Anti-transgender troll and Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has been accused of Holocaust denial for questioning whether transgender people were targeted in Nazi Germany," "While Rowling has not denied the Holocaust itself happened, she is accused of engaging in a form of Holocaust denial for questioning the persecution of trans people under the Nazi regime, a fact which has been well documented." Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Those seem like highly biased sources, similar in tone to J. Jonah Jameson's "Spider-Man: Threat or Menace?" articles. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Severity isn't the same thing as bias. These sources are more credible by Wikipedia's standards than the sources defending Rowling. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Rowling's own statement on the issue: [29] *Dan T.* (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a primary source. Of *course* Rowling herself would deny being a Holocaust denier. Holocaust deniers deny the fact that they are all the time. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPUBLIC and this explanation; we can't leave out her denials of charges (eg reinstatement of inappropriate deletion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

A relevant article: No, JK Rowling is not a Holocaust denier *Dan T.* (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Spiked is not considered a credible source. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a reason I excluded Spiked from that list and it wasn't personal bias.

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

It's a perennial question at WP:RS/N and never treated favorably. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that we can unambiguously source something very roughly like "Rowling falsely claimed that the Nazis didn't persecute trans people, when persecution of trans people in Nazi Germany is a well-documented historical fact. Many people called her a Holocaust denier because of this." I'm much less confident that we have the sources for "Rowling is a holocaust denier" in Wikivoice. I'd want several big neutral newsorgs before we made a claim like that in Wikivoice in a BLP. Loki (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I concur. While I might have personal opinions about Rowling and about the intersection of transphobia and far-right ideologies we do need to be very cautious about how we address WP:BLP figures. The whole point of my exercise above was to demonstrate the extent to which sources tended to simply point out her false claims, such as in LGBTQ Nation "While Rowling has not denied the Holocaust itself happened, she is accused of engaging in a form of Holocaust denial for questioning the persecution of trans people under the Nazi regime, a fact which has been well documented." I would personally like to see mention of Advocate included ("Shortly after targeting Willoughby, Rowling engaged in Holocaust denial by claiming it is a "fever dream" to say that transgender people were persecuted by the Nazis — a well-documented historic fact that is recognized under German law.") but that would necessarily be under an "Ryan Adamczeski, writing for Advocate, said" qualifier if it was considered due. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Firefangledfeathers post of 01:53 3 April, but find that the discussion after that point has taken off in the wrong direction with respect to blending academic and scholarly sources with the very best of the recent highest quality non-academic or scholarly sources. Any time Rowling speaks, there's a spike in news and publicity; avoiding WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS is important for this broad overview article, and some of that kind of content can be better explored at Politics of J. K. Rowling, from where it can be more easily seen later what can be summarized back to here. I see no exploration of how to blend the recent with scholarly/academic sources in the discussion above, and the idea of putting in wording like "anti-trans activist" because it is found in one newspaper isn't how FAs are written. And the sources listed by Simonm223 (please name your sources when posting them so we don't have to click on each one to find out if they are high quality) are not all of the caliber expected for featured content-- they may be fine for the "Politics of... " article, subject to consensus, but not for a broad overview summary Featured article. Please try to refocus this discussion on the kinds of sourcing expected in a featured article, and perhaps consider exploring more expansion using lesser quality sources at the "Politics of ... " sub-page. Rewriting as per Firefangled feathers will involve first a thorough examination of high-quality sources, and then workshopping through several drafts. We are finally far enough from the highly attended RFC to be able to revisit and rework content, but this has to be done with a backdrop of highest quality sources in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree and frankly some of the sources that Simonm223 listed above with regard to the "holocaust denial claims" strike me as utterly ridiculous (not to mention that if carefully read some of them don't even support that claim). Much of the arguments seem to be on "vegetarians are nazis, because like Hitler they avoid meat"-level. While WP could and should describe her Rowlings views on transgender critically, it really should stay away from hyperpartisan activist propaganda writings in mediocre sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the core argument of those which actually do call Rowling a holocaust denier, which I've made a point of noting are only a small subset of what I've found. The actual argument is that denying that the holocaust impacted populations other than Jewish people is still holocaust denial. That is vastly different from "all vegetarians are nazis." Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

My point is that much/some of the sources you've listed there are imho largely unusable because they do what I described. They (presumably intentionally) conflate not knowing with denial, book burning with the holocaust, disagreeing with certain transgender views/policies with upholding nazi ideology. In other words it is s sensationalized propaganda style writing (designed as clickbait as well) without any interest in a sober analysis. Such writing is usually not a good source for Wikipedia articles. If they are just a small subset of what you've found, why not list ones doing an actually serious analysis?--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the Regional Court of Cologne, denying trans people were targeted by the nazis is legally considered a denial of Nazi crimes.[34]

As for not knowing, she actively called the events “a fever dream”.[35] That’s not not knowing, that’s denying. Snokalok (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but WP:SYNTH of the Regional Court of Cologne plus Rowling's statements is not permissible, even though I agree that is clear cut denialism on her part. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

There's sources making the connection. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 04:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I am for inclusion with citations to reliable sources saying as much. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If we obey your statement, 90% of the sources in the article need junked. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully you can see the source by hovering over the link without clicking. However I will endeavor to remember this for the future, as a courtesy. I would note that the absence of LGBTQ Nation, Advocate, and similar mainstream queer publications from this article is a current failure of WP:NPOV and not something to be celebrated as meritorious of a featured article considering the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thx, but iPad editing from car as I travel, and I can't see source by hovering over it ... I had to go in to edit mode to view the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Apparently Deadline Hollywood is a good source, but Reuters and the Financial Times aren't? The sources for the statement ' She has rejected these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.' are herself, Variety, and Vanity Fair - but that's fine? Why do the goalposts move to whereever makes it hardest to criticise Rowling? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, context ... appropriate sourcing depends on content being sourced, and for some of the non-controversial or biographical content, what is used is appropriate, and for the transgender material, the FAR was hamstrung by the well-attended RFC, and there was an attempt to stick to using newspaper sources if they generally aligned with scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

We're also hamstrung by WP:BLPPUBLIC, which requires that we include denials of allegations for BLPs. In general, it's a policy I opposed and still oppose, but it's what we got. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, it's clear, that there is a current consensus that the page as it stands does not accurately reflect the extent of Rowling's activities as an anti-trans campaigner. Being as she is a WP:BLP I would certainly agree we should be cautious around attribution and use of wiki-voice. But I think we'd be remiss to leave it at "she's really just misunderstood," considering how clear it is within the LGBTQ+ community that, no, Rowling is entirely understood. This is also why I think it's critical, for WP:NPOV that sources from within that community, specifically, be included. And not just an off-the-cuff remark form Eddie Izzard. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I hasten to add that it's not just the LGBT community that agrees she is venturing increasingly far into anti-trans activism. Many high quality news sources have said something to the effect in their own voice. I'd at least say we have strong sourcing for "gender-critical activist". Loki (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"Gender-critical activist" is better-supported than the pejorative "anti-trans". *Dan T.* (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not pejorative. It's a flat statement of her politics, expressed by her loudly and at length. She routinely misgenders trans people, regularly treats trans women as a threat to cis women and regularly supports other anti-trans activists. Simonm223 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Dan T. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"Gender-critical" vs "anti-transgender" rings a lot like "pro-life" vs "anti-abortion". Anti-transgender isn't pejorative at all, I would argue it's much less connoted and much more precise than gender-critical, which is vague and euphemistic. Rowling made a list of trans women (throwing registered sex offenders and regular trans people in the same bunch for good measure) and said they were "men, every single last one of them"; it's entirely rational to call her views "anti-transgender". An actually pejorative word would be something like TERF, for example WikiFouf (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Anti-trans isn’t perjorative anymore than racist is. It’s a more neutral wording, if anything, and there’s plenty of evidence for it. Snokalok (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If a pro-life/anti-abortion person got to decide all the labels in an article on that conflict, they might use "pro-death" for the other side, which wouldn't go over well with pro-choice people. It can be argued that the fairest way to deal with it is to use each side's preferred terminology for themselves, thus "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice". As for "TERF", it's actually sometimes being used as a reclaimed slur, as in "TERF is the New Punk" t-shirts, though it's still generally offensive if used to label somebody against their will. "Anti-Trans" hasn't been used as a self-label as far as I'm aware. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is noted. It doesn't change the reality that Rowling is clearly anti-trans in her politics and regularly described as such by a preponderance of sources. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to call her "gender critical", we'd have to immediately define "gender critcal". So it works out to much the same thing Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

We use “anti-trans” for the pages of Graham Linehan and Posie Parker. Why not here? Snokalok (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

At one point both of those people were way more blatant about it than Rowling. But I'm not convinced that's the case any more. Rowling definitely at least seems to be going along the same path as Linehan. Loki (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:BLPPUBLIC applies here: That's in the section about people famous for events, and if there's doubt as to whether someone did something, then sure, but when there's no doubt as to her very public actions and statements, then it's not a denial of allegations, it's just her wanting it characterised differently. It's true she once denied transphobia, but does she even do that anymore? Like, after her "TERF wars" comment, hasn't she been oppenly allying herself with the TERF/Gender critical movement? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @SandyGeorgia on this. As I wrote a bit earlier, I think there's enough high-quality recent stuff to rework the section using mostly that. It took me less than a hour to find three academic papers written on her views a couple of weeks ago. I do agree that some of the more recent stuff is hard to avoid though, especially the number of people she deliberately misgendered in the last few weeks. It's a clear escalation of the topic that I think needs to be mentioned. WikiFouf (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's another academic journal calling her transphobic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Whatever consensus was reached earlier is clearly outdated considering the progressive escalation of the subject's anti-trans views. (t · c) buidhe 00:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that this section needs to be written as a chronological history of Rowling's involvement in the subject, which has markedly changed over time, and be not framed as some kind of "WP should state what Rowling's viewpoint is", as if we're capable of mind-reading or as if this has not been a complex and inconsistent matter that has drifted markedly over time. Rowling began mildly, basically observing that biological women and trans women have different life experiences and, in Rowling's view, should thus be considered separately and not conflated. This was bound to be controversial to at least some extent, but was also worded poorly enough that it generated far more controversy than it need have. Due to Rowling's public prominence, it led rapidly to everything from public condemnation by people who had worked with her, to former-fan boycots, to actual threats against her safety and life. It's clear that this experience radicalized her, and her statements on the subject have moved increasingly from a sort of neutral skeptic position (which is quite common among the British in general) toward actively anti-trans, with negative responses to these antics of course ratcheting right up along with them at each step – a vicious cycle. This has been a years-long process, much of it taking place in public, and about which a fair amount has been written and published, so covering it as a chronological process, instead of something we oversimplify, should not be difficult.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Rowling began mildly, basically observing that biological women and trans women have different life experiences and, in Rowling's view, should thus be considered separately and not conflated" is complete conjecture, it is equally likely that she has always been bigoted and has felt more comfortable expressing that bigotry as time has gone on or as trans people have become more accepted. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if her beliefs have become more radical over time (which is unprovable), there is no way to know why that is the case (hanging around other people with anti-trans views is just as plausible as what smcandlish suggested). (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Or both. What is provable is that her public statements on the matter have become more radical over time. I'm not suggesting that my explanation for how/why this happened is necessarily perfect and should be in reflected in the article; let's not confuse talk-page discussion with article content. We are not mind-readers and of course have to stick to what can be reliably sourced. My point is that there is a clear chronology in evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing Rowling's actual public statements of the period is in no way "complete conjecture", while "it is equally likely that she has always been bigoted and has felt more comfortable expressing that bigotry as time has gone on or as trans people have become more accepted" absolutely qualifies for that label.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

That is why I don't think it is a problem for us to simply state what her viewpoint currently is, as it has reached a level that merits a label in the lead. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we should not completely obscure that this has a chronology of escalation to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion that the label “anti-trans” be introduced… bear in mind that anti-trans currently redirects to transphobia, making them effectively synonyms on Wikipedia. We should expect a high degree of consensus amongst high-quality sources before introducing such a label into a BLP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

And that might actually be achievable in this case. My main thrust is that however the lead material on this is phrased, it needs to indicate one way or another that Rowling's public position on this became more hostile over time, and the material in the article body (and the split-out article) needs to cover this process/devolution/whatever-you-call it accurately.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't really agree on the cause but I do agree that the article should be clear that she's gotten more clearly anti-trans over time, because it's both true and sourceable.

(Whether she stopped hiding her existing beliefs or her beliefs got more extreme is kind of an open question. My reading of the sources is that it's at least some of the former: this Vox article is a great source on the timeline, and it demonstrates that Rowling wrote a trans character in a pretty obviously hostile way in her mystery novels in 2014, six years before she wrote her manifesto, and was liking very transphobic tweets in 2017, three years before she wrote her manifesto.) Loki (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We don’t know for certain that her views themselves have changed over time (and honestly, she pushed ROGD as a concept and heaped praise upon Magdalen Berns in her 2020 essay, so I think she was already extreme). We just know that she’s become more vocally anti-trans. So ideally, we should say “Since 2019, Rowling has espoused increasingly radical anti-trans beliefs” or something to that effect. Snokalok (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Should Rowling's comments about India Willoughby be included before re-write?

Should we add Rowling's comments on India Willoughby from March 2024 to the end of the second paragraph of views -> transgender people before the paragraph as a whole is rewritten? I am proposing that we (only) add a short summary of the fact she did misgender Willoughby on Twitter and a short quote of one of the comments she made (see examples I have proposed elsewhere in this talk page). It would have a maximum length of two sentences. Subsequent developments after her comments themselves (police report etc) would not be included. The comments Rowling made on Willoughby in March are separate from those made on several transgender people including Willoughby on April Fools' Day. I'm almost certain her comments in March were the first times Rowling publicly misgendered a trans person. This would not include Rowling's additional recent comments on trans people in Nazi Germany, or other recent (separate) topics related to her views on trans people. 13tez (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey

I support adding these comments because:

• They are clearly significant and a significant change and escalation in her comments on trans people. In this respect, they are not just another "controversy of the week", being at least as important as other topics and views currently included in the same section and elsewhere in the article.
• They are at least as significant and as notable as several other quotes on Rowling's views on trans people, and other topics generally, that are already included in the article.
• They received widespread coverage, again at least as much as other topics in the article.
• The section on her views on transgender people needs to accurately summarise her views and comments on transgender people or there isn't any point having it. To give an overview of her views on trans people, these comments need to be included because of their significance.
• They can be supported by references from articles in WP:RELIABLE news sources (see News sources -> Sources on misgendering India Willoughby in March 2024).
• These news articles are not WP:RSBREAKING. They were made at least 2 days after Rowling's initial comments and/or have been published for more than 2 days, allowing for correction since then. This makes them secondary sources as well as reliable sources.
• You shouldn't exclude topics just because they can only be referenced with (suitable) news sources and not academia, even with this being a featured article. Neither WP:FACR nor WP:SCHOLARSHIP say or imply to exclude news sources as references or that topics can only be included if they have references available from academia.
• News articles are used as the only sources for other parts of the article, including in the same section (e.g. LGBT charities and leading...them "cruel" and "inaccurate") and the same paragraph (Rowling responded in December 2019...sex is real), so it would be inconsistent and unfair to exclude this topic from inclusion just because only news articles can be used as references rather than academia.
• Although including a description of these comments doesn't give a full broader context in the change of Rowling's views over time, publicly attacking and misgendering a trans woman has a clear distinction from her initial comments (e.g. "Live your best life in peace and security"). In and of itself, this provides some context as to how her comments have changed until such a time as academia provides that commentary.
• We don't need to use academic sources with broader overviews of her views on trans people generally or how they've changed to substantiate specific facts and quotes when we can already do so with suitable news sources.
• Wikipedia is WP:IMPERFECT and a WP:Work in progress, so we should add this topic now, even though we may rewrite the whole paragraph in the future.
• As discussed elsewhere, the current text of the second paragraph was written in a WP:FAR. This was carried out even though there weren't academic sources available to describe the change in her comments over time, and instead used the best references available at that time. This reasoning was used to produce the best article possible before, optimising the relevance of the facts included and references used. We still want to produce the best article possible now, so we should use this same approach again.
• A short summary and quote on her comments, with details and subsequent developments in Political views of J. K. Rowling, would conform to WP:Summary.
• The inclusion of these comments adheres to WP:NOTNEWS because it does not constitute original reporting and is notable.
• Including these comments would not constitute WP:Recentism. I'm in favour of including them because of their significance and prominence, not because they happened relatively recently. If that was the case, I would be arguing for the inclusion of her comments on transgender people in Nazi Germany, which were made more recently.
• As long as any text describing her comments is written in a WP:NPOV and everything is covered by the suitable sources available, it won't be giving WP:Undue weight to a minority view. Since it was notable and received widespread coverage, it won't be giving disproportionate coverage to an event either. By summarising without going into details, it would adhere to WP:WEIGHT as well.
• Since her comments are verifiable from suitable sources, as long as any text describing her comments is written in a WP:NPOV, it will conform to WP:Biography of living persons.

13tez (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging recent article editors @Dtobias, Athousandcuts2005, Asperthrow, Xxanthippe, CallieCrewmanAuthor, CrossHouses, WorthPoke2, and Mtspinxtreme246:, recent participants in talk page discussions @Sideswipe9th, Colin, WikiFouf, Victoriaearle, Kmhkmh, Snokalok, Amanda A. Brant, PenelopePlesiosaur, LokiTheLiar, Simonm223, Bazza 7, Umdlye, Dimadick, Adam Cuerden, and Daff22:, and FAR participants @SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Czello, Firefangledfeathers, Bastun, Vanamonde93, Olivaw-Daneel, AleatoryPonderings, Johnbod, and DrKay: I've created this topic because my discussions on whether to include Rowling's comments on Willoughby have stalled and consensus is needed as, from prior discussion, there are several people who take both views. Please let me know what your thoughts are. Thank you! 13tez (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

My opinion on the issue as presented by the RFC is "yes", but my more general opinion is that this is a premature RFC that needed some more WP:RFCBEFORE. It's too narrow: you can see above that there's lots of discussions about lots of changes to be made to the article. An RFC is a big formal process that takes at minimum 30 days, and usually freezes the article in the status quo state during that time. That doesn't seem like a great way to get consensus on a single small change that's really about a bunch of bigger structural issues.

If we were gonna have an RFC, I'd rather have an RFC on whether that section should be significantly expanded. But really, I don't think we need an RFC to make one small change with a clear consensus behind it already. So personally I'd advocate taking off the RFC header and just discussing the changes normally; if there's any value here it's the long list of pings and not the formal process. Loki (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

RFCs do not take a minimum of 30 days. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration.

The section immediately following that includes instructions on ending RFCs early; in particular, the editor who asked the question is entitled to stop asking their question at any time (just remove the RFC template). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm for including it but I think it should be included as an example of her misgendering trans women rather than an event in itself. It could be tied to her series of (very recent, I'll admit) tweets on April 1st, as was done in this Independent article WikiFouf (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not opposed, but I think that in the context of the whole rant where she said just as bad things about other trans women and misgendered them similarly, Wiloughby is an odd choice to single out. Snokalok (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me! I think we should include information on Rowling's tweets about Willoughby. They have sparked much controversy, and most of the internet now knows about it. Also, they would serve as a good example of what exactly Rowling is doing to offend trans people. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say worth including: if nothing else it's the point where she switched to just misgendering random prominent trans people, rather than previously restricting herself to those accused of wrongdoing. WorthPoke2 (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment three weeks ago I added a mention. I self-reverted because it needed rewording & ref formatting, but the issue seemed to be resolved. Why wasn't that accepted & why isn't it enough? And why does it need an RfC? Three weeks gone from Wikipedia only to return to a bunch of pings and many tl;dr discussions. Victoria (tk) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that blocking editing isn't very useful. If thibgs get sorted through collaboration, great. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 04:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Not yet, and unclear at this point. This RFC is premature; WP:RFCBEFORE has been inadequate, and the resolution isn't a simple yes or no. With the need to balance the voluminous newsy and recent information about Rowling with higher-quality sources (not yet available on the recent events), proceeding to carefully draft new content is a better way to go than pushing in detail on recent events that will result in proseline and a bloated article if done similarly every time Rowling engages a news cycle. Past efforts avoided long lists of proseline, blow-by-blow, and who's who and naming individuals who support/oppose yada yada, as that detail can be better explored in the Political views of J. K. Rowling article (which I see is still poorly organized proseline without significant development of this content). I am yet to be convinced that naming one individual is something that higher quality sources will pick up over time as they summarize the events of 2024, and submit that updating the content here will be better done with broad strokes, relying on a summary of extra detail in the sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also, could folks here please keep in mind that the FAR was hamstrung by another very premature and poorly discussed/designed RFC, at Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11, which left the article stuck with sub-optimal content (where editors opined on content that wasn't even verified by the sources) for several years. Please don't fall into the same trap. Suggestions of how to rewrite would be more helpful than another premature RFC. If we include one name, do we go back to include all names, which will bloat the content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for inclusion furthermore greater weight should be given to LGBT voices with regard to Rowling's forceful anti-trans views and activism. To do less is a non-neutral white-wash. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Not yet per WP:RECENT and WP:DUE. As noted above, Rowling has misgendered a lot of people, so why single out one of them? When this has been digested beyond the news cycle by high quality sources, a well-balanced addition may be warranted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This could eventually become part of a more comprehensive recounting of her recent activity, but by itself it's just another silly Twitter spat. From the tone of comments here I see lots of people champing at the bit to make the article a hatchet job against Rowling, and I'll do everything I can to oppose this. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Echoing the sentiments of prior editors, seems UNDUE at this moment and I do think this is a case of RECENTISM. If content does become included, we must use Wikipedia's voice and properly attribute the reliable sources cited as such impactful claims could be breaching BLP protections. As editors it is hard to not let personal views cloud our neutrality, it is not our place to right great wrongs. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RFC - This plainly fails WP:RFCST since the statement is far from brief. I would support a procedural close, but put me in the oppose camp for the reasons already listed. Nemov (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  The RFC question is 159 words. This is a reasonable length. I think you may have mistaken the OP's long response for the actual RFC question? (Brevity is supposed to keep pages like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies at a functional size. It is not meant to restrict the OP from giving a detailed explanation of their view.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Like I said in a comment above, procedural close but support if not closed. Loki (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close or procedural oppose if left open. Not enough RFCBEFORE and no neutral statement. There's enough news about Rowling's recent statements and actions that we should carefully craft some proposals, attempt to reach a consensus, and seek dispute resolution (maybe an RfC) if we can't do so locally. It's too early in the process to lock ourselves into mentioning a specific event. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close for the reasons Firefangledfeathers and others have already outlined. -sche (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. (Summoned by bot) Rowling's position on this issue is long established and it would therefore have DUE WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. Not including the material would smack of white washing it. TarnishedPath^talk 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is just the latest incident in a very long running episode that should be treated at a much higher level of summarisation. Maybe it could go in Twitter drama of J.K. Rowling. Also, the RfC is problematic for all the reasons highlighted. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is an issue recentism here and in general various details or "the latest" regarding her anti-trans views belong in the article on her political views rather than in this one, where a general summary of her anti trans views suffices. One that also should ideally be somewhat stable and not in need for constant updates. All that aside i have strong disliking of inserting the "latest twitter feud" or more general "latest social media driven shit storm" into biographical articles. It is imho a good rule of thumb to avoid that (certain exceptions notwithstanding)--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, not indivually noteable enough IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per others above and WP:RECENTISM. Also WP:UNDUE to single this one incident out; Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights is the more appropriate place to mention those comments. Some1 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• SupportYeah,include it. If she's a bigot, she's a bigot, and no article about her would be complete without including that aspect of her character. Just be sure whatever is written is true, accurate, and in keeping with Wikipedia conventions. All people in the world have negative characteristics, as well as positive ones. Everyone is a mix of both, as a balanced article about Ms. Rowling will reflect.Coalcity58 (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article already has a substantial subsection about her views and I don't see how this incident can have a lasting significance. Would anyone write about it one year from now? 10 years? Alaexis_¿question? 11:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Oppose in line with SandyGeorgia and the points about the current necessity & structure of this RfC. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

It's absurd to argue it's still too soon for this article to indicate clearly Rowling's transphobia considering the extent to which it has impacted her:

• Career trajectory with her transphobic detective novels
• Relationship with the cast of Harry Potter
• Reception of the Hogwarts video game
• General perception in public
• Relationship to LGBT fans in particular.

The article, as it stands, is absurdly non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sample references for each of the above. I should note this is a non-exhaustive list.:

On the relationship of the pseudonym Robert Galbraith to Robert Galbraith Heath and the transphobia of the books:

• Entertainment Weekly "The Harry Potter creator's latest novel, The Ink Black Heart — the sixth installment in her ongoing crime series which she pens under the name Robert Galbraith — was released Tuesday, and it reportedly contains a storyline that echoes events from Rowling's own life.

In the novel, a popular YouTube content creator named Edie Ledwell is met with a wave of backlash online after her work is deemed racist, ableist, and transphobic. As a result, the character was "doxxed with photos of her home plastered on the internet, subjected to death and rape threats for having an opinion, and was ultimately found stabbed to death in a cemetery," reports Rolling Stone."

• Rolling Stone "The Harry Potter author writes about a YouTube cartoon creator who was doxxed by her own fandom over content viewers found transphobic and racist. Sound familiar?"
• Out "This isn't the first wild "coincidence" like this to happen recently to Rowling. When she released the first Cormoran Strike novel using the pen name Robert Galbraith, some readers noticed that her pen name is the same as Robert Galbraith Heath, a famous anti-LGBTQ+ therapist who was one of the leaders of gay conversion therapy."
• Vanity Fair"J.K. Rowling Proves Her Commitment to Transphobia in Her New Novel" (that's literally the headline). "No longer satisfied with simply repeatedly expressing her transphobic opinions on Twitter and in 3,600-word screeds on her personal website, J.K. Rowling now appears to be bringing her TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) logic to a bookshelf near you via her new fictional novel, Troubled Blood, out Tuesday." "Strike traps her in his office, revealing her identity as a trans woman, with Rowling adding in a description of her Adam’s apple and hands. The detective then tells Pippa that prison “won’t be fun for you.… Not pre-op.” "
• Newsweek "The "Harry Potter" author just released another book in her Cormoran Strike detective novel series titled "Troubled Blood," where a plotline involving a male serial killer who disguises himself in women's clothing being cited as transphobic in some quarters. The book release follows months of criticism over her views on transgender issues.

Galbraith Heath was a mid-20th century psychiatrist who pioneered a range of unethical practices that would later become known as conversion therapy.

He experimented with a variety of methods to "cure" gay men, using electroshock treatments in an attempt to change a person's sexual orientation—such procedures are now condemned by the medical community."

On the relationship with the cast of the Harry Potter films:

• Entertainment Weekly "J.K. Rowling, the creator and author of the massively popular Harry Potter books, did not join Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint, nor did she sit down for a new interview to reminisce about adapting the eight movies inspired by the books. Instead, the producers of Return to Hogwarts used archival footage of Rowling from 2019.

An invitation was extended to Rowling to participate, but her team determined the archived comments from the writer were adequate, EW has learned."

• Pink News"In an opinion piece in the Mail on Sunday, ahead of the release of former comedy writer Linehan’s new book, he hit out at the three then-very-young actors, whom, he said, Rowling propelled to stardom.

But, in return, they insinuated that their “old mentor was a bigot”, he claimed.

He said the stars “instantly betrayed” Rowling, before calling for the trio to be “remembered as symbols of the most remarkable arrogance, cowardice and ingratitude”.

It’s been more than 12 years since any of the actors appeared in a Potter movie."

I'm not done but I need to step away for a moment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

OK here's some more.

Continuing on the relationship with the Harry Potter cast:

• Us WeeklyAs the controversy continued, several members of the Harry Potter universe including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, appeared to distance themselves from Rowling. “I firmly stand with the trans community,” Grint said in a statement to Us Weekly in June 2020. “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. We should all be entitled to live with love and without judgment.” and "Amid all of her controversies, Rowling did not take part in HBO’s recent Harry Potter 20th Anniversary reunion special but was instead featured in archival footage shot in 2019."
• South China Morning Post"The main trio of Harry Potter – Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint – spoke out against Rowling’s 2020 tweet, which received backlash from the LGBT community" "Radcliffe’s statement was published by The Trevor Project – a non-profit dedicated to suicide prevention in the LGBTQ+ community. While Radcliffe acknowledged that Rowling was largely responsible for how his life and career had panned out thus far, he couldn’t stand by her comments. He apologised to all those who felt they could no longer cherish the Harry Potter series as they once did, and he hoped that people would still be able to find their own values in the stories despite Rowling’s tweets." "On the same day, Watson posted throwback photos to her Instagram, looking back on her Harry Potter experience. She expressed her gratitude for the fans and her fellow cast members – however, once again, there was no mention of Rowling."

On the reception of Hogwarts Legacy:

• The Gamer"Hogwarts Legacy has already sold over 12 million copies. Good job, everyone - we worked together to show that pesky woke boycott who’s boss and stuck up for the little billionaire and the multinational corporation."
• CBC "A new Harry Potter video game is being boycotted by trans people and allies in the gaming community who say buying and playing the game puts money in J.K. Rowling's pocket.

The Harry Potter author has been heavily scrutinized for expressing views critics say are transphobic, vilify trans people and play into dangerous stereotypes amid a swell of anti-trans violence, legislation and sentiments across North America and Western Europe." "Critics say giving money to a game that benefits Rowling financially is harmful, as she has questioned the use of gender-neutral language and the right of trans people to use gendered bathrooms. She has also opposed Scottish legislation that would make it easier for people to legally change their genders" "The boycott also extended to news outlets dedicated to gaming culture, where some made an editorial decision not to review or write about the game, instead spotlighting games made by trans people or asking readers to donate to trans advocacy organizations like Trans Lifeline."

• The Guardian"I’ve spent the past week playing and reviewing Hogwarts Legacy, an exercise in wizarding wish-fulfilment that would once have been a no-brainer purchase for anyone who grew up fantasising about walking the hallowed halls of that imaginary castle. But like the rest of the Wizarding World, including the ailing Fantastic Beasts franchise, Hogwarts Legacy has become caught up in the controversy surrounding JK Rowling’s statements about sex and gender. (This is a pretty comprehensive breakdown of what she has publicly said.) As someone who unequivocally supports trans rights, Rowling’s comments have soured and complicated my relationship with Harry Potter – and I am far from alone." "As a result of this controversy, some games media outlets decided not to cover Hogwarts Legacy. The moderators of ResetEra, one of the biggest games discussion forums, have banned all mention of it. One of the game’s actors, meanwhile – Sebastian Croft, who also plays a character in beloved LGBTQ+ Netflix teen drama, Heartstopper – has followed the example of the stars of the Potter movies and issued a statement distancing himself from Rowling’s comments. “I was cast in this project over three years ago, back when all Harry Potter was to me, was the magical world I grew up with. This was long before I was aware of JK Rowling’s views,” he said, in a series of tweets. “I’m really sorry to anyone hurt by this announcement. There is no LGB without the T.”"

Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Simonm223, could you please review WP:WIAFA and WP:RSP re high-quality sources to help keep this discussion focused? See WP:NEWSWEEK as an example. Re It's absurd to argue it's still too soon for this article to indicate clearly Rowling's transphobia ..., has someone done that? Multiple editors have stated repeatedly that the content needs to updated/rewritten, and I stated that it's too soon to decide on the inclusion of one name, as there have been no attempts to compose a draft of what new content would look like, how long it should be, whether it should go into individual names or use summary style depending on how long the content developed at the sub-article, Political views of J. K. Rowling ends up, while scholarly-sourced bits have been removed, etc. The RFC is premature when no one disagrees it is time to update, but no one has proposed what an update would look like. During the FAR (and since), an effort was made to make sure info was weighted towards scholarly and academic sources. No one denies the new incidents aren't yet covered in such sources, but we can't be looking at sources like WP:NEWSWEEK for a featured (or probably any) bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia it seems like no source is sufficient to persuade you that Rowling's obvious, open and regularly expressed transphobia is sufficient for inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You have no evidence for that statement, plenty of evidence against it, and striking would be helpful. Please focus on content, and please take some time to digest what I am saying re how to more effectively and enduringly get where we all want to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS might also apply (unclear). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Struck. But, let me be clear, if the featured article status of this article is an impediment to neutrality and leads to the exclusion of clear, reliable, and lasting information regarding Rowling's overall life trajectory for the last several years then the featured article status should be jettisoned in favor of a neutral article. The absence of LBGTQ voices from the sources used to discuss Rowling's views about queer people is an egregious failure of WP:NPOV and is to the continued shame of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. See also US Weekly at WP:RSP.

You also have no basis to say that the FA status is or will be an impediment to neutrality; there has so far not been a serious attempt to propose new content and work through drafts of that as was successfully done on the FAR, recognizing that it may be necessary to use some non-scholarly sources to reflect items not covered in academic sources, but that it will also be necessary to consider WP:SIZE, WP:SS, the author's entire life's work and preponderance of sources, and to focus the discussion on how to best reflect best sources. Long lists of sources, that often include marginal sources, aren't helpful. The approach on the FAR was for editors to suggest the very best sources they could find-- not to expect other readers to sort through lists of opinion pieces (which we've seen suggested in these discussions) and dumps of news sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I just showed you a diversity of sources demonstrating how her life's work has included

• former mentees distancing themselves from her and disavowing her views
• major media platforms calling for boycotts of products that would earn her money
• a major pivot to transphobic novels published under a pseudonym that harkens to a notorious gay-conversion therapy administrator. This is what is frustrating me; to discuss Rowling's life-work while downplaying how her transphobia has impacted her life work is to inaccurately depict her life work. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see S Marshall here; I understand your frustration, but you don't seem to be digesting what I'm writing, so I won't repeat it again. What evidence do you have that anyone is trying to downplay anything? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying a specific person is downplaying anything. I'm saying the article is. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion. I view the "Robert Galbraith" coincidence of names as innocent. Rowling is indisputably a transphobe but that doesn't make her a homophobe. I think her transphobia is rooted in her feminism and not in any kind of bigotry. I agree that there's a reasonable debate to be had about the prominence we give to her unapologetic transphobia and I personally would have expected greater prominence than we currently give it. I would oppose any mention of Robert Galbraith Heath in the article unless it's backed by an excellent source.—S Marshall T/C 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is a tangent, but: clearly it's rooted in some kind of bigotry, right? It's rooted in transphobia.

  (I agree with you that the Galbraith thing is probably a coincidence, though, and current sources on it are way too speculative to include it.) Loki (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  (I don't think that transphobia can be rooted in transphobia? Usually, if you want to say "her transphobia is rooted in her ____," you need a word other than transphobia to go in the blank.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the word "transphobia". Rowling doesn't agree with the belief system regarding gender identity. Do you call atheists "theophobes"? *Dan T.* (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your discomfort but this is not a comparable situation. Transphobes take specific political action against other humans on the basis of a bias surrounding gender. Atheists simply don't believe in gods. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the thing I called "transphobia" isn't a political action but a state of mind. What term would you prefer for it, Dan?—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal in the Forstater case referred to it as "hold[ing] the belief that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity." That's rather lengthy, but they also called it the shorter "gender-critical beliefs" so I'll go with that. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It costs me nothing to switch to that terminology, so I will. From now on, on this page I'll call it Rowling's GCB.

I'm aware of no evidence Rowling is homophobic or that she advocates gay conversation therapy. And contrary to LokitheLiar, I don't think of the tendency among some feminists to hold GCB as "bigotry". I think there's a lot of impassioned debate to be had on that point; but let's just say that GCB can limited, where someone's GCB is meant to protect what they see as "women" from predators, and otherwise the person is gender tolerant. I am confident that Rowling's GCB are limited in that way although she sometimes expresses herself clumsily.—S Marshall T/C 06:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Per Vox, Rowling has repeatedly misgendered trans people, has implied trans people are "predators" or "rapists" several times, opposed many different instances of legal protections for trans people, promoted misinformation about Nazi persecution of trans people and doubled down when challenged on it, and as far back as 2014 she was having a heroic character in her Cormoran Strike novels threaten a trans woman with prison rape.

She is not "expressing herself clumsily", she is a bigot. Loki (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that where we agree is that the lead should give more prominence to Rowling's GCB than is currently the case.

I'm not at all surprised that Aja Romano, a queer journalist, would collect all of Rowling's GCB in one place and maximise the trans case against Rowling.

The Strike novel portrays a transwoman as very hostile and unsympathetic indeed. That's Rowling's genuine view of transwomen, I'm sure. It comes from Rowling being an abuse survivor with a platform. She isn't noticeably hostile to transmen.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel as though, while I can see the connection you're drawing (and that, as I recall, she herself has drawn) with the abuse survivor thing, we need to be very careful about how we mention that. There's no short history of people hating the minority of the day and then saying "It's because I'm an abuse survivor". Anita Bryant did it with the gays, countless people before her did it with black people. While we should say that that's her stated reason, we shouldn't present it as necessary fact in and of itself. Snokalok (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

1. She's absolutely hostile to trans men, if anything more than trans women. It's just that she's hostile in a very condescending "trans men are just deluded girls" way that doesn't feel as obviously rude as when she calls trans women rapists.

2. I also do not really think that Rowling's beliefs are just because she's an abuse survivor. She wasn't abused by a trans woman, for one, and most abuse survivors don't become transphobic, for two.

3. You can't dismiss Vox, a green RSP source, just because the journalist who wrote the article uses "they/them" pronouns. That is, quite frankly, itself transphobic and I'd like you to strike it.

I'm harping on this not because I think that we at Wikipedia need to judge what's in Rowling's heart but because being clear about what Rowling actually believes, why, and how we know that is crucial to understanding the problems with this article as it currently stands. This is all public enough and consistent enough that many high-quality mainstream publications now say in their own editorial voice that she makes anti-trans comments. Given that, the current language in the article, while it may have been neutral based on 2020 sources, is now unacceptably biased towards her defenders' POV. Loki (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

When I was discussing transphobia as a set of political deeds this is why. We are not Ma'at weighing hearts. It's irrelevant whether a person believes they are a bigot if they do bigoted things. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I mused that queer journalists have reasons to dislike J.K. Rowling and to maximise the trans case against her. That's not the same as dismissing Vox out of hand. Just to be clear, I'm not saying the Vox source is unreliable. I'm saying that it looks POV to me. We're broadly on the same side here: I've come to this discussion to agree with you that we should give more coverage to Rowling's gender-criticalness than we do now. I'd say it merits one of the four paragraphs of the lead and at least 20% of the article.—S Marshall T/C 21:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess the overall point is that, marginalized groups shouldn’t be considered automatic POV parties when discussing their own oppression. To invoke Godwin’s Law, are Jewish voices POV on Nazi Germany? Snokalok (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that marginalized groups are automatically POV when discussing their own oppression. I'm saying that this specific source by Aja Romano about J.K. Rowling looks POV to me.—S Marshall T/C 19:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone looked in the scholarly literature? Here's a few that I found:

• doi:10.1007/s12124-021-09670-4, from a top-tier cultural studies journal [36], which is about the use of the victim narrative in public discourse (activists saying people shouldn't be mean to trans people because they're victims; Rowling's response that people shouldn't be mean to her because she's a victim, too).
• doi:10.1080/17577632.2022.2153216, from a middling law/media journal [37], her effect on public opinion around the 2018 consultation about the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
• doi:10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9, top-tier children's literature journal [38], long article about LBGTQ+ Harry Potter fan fiction
• doi:10.1007/s12119-022-10008-4, top-tier cultural studies journal (mid-ranked for gender studies) [39], one long sentence summarizing the contours of Rowling's political views (i.e., supporting trans folks' rights in sex-neutral contexts and opposing them in sex-specific contexts)

Related to that, I would like to suggest that editors try out a deliberate anti-POV strategy in evaluating possible sources. The criteria for reliable sources look like this:

• Y It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Y It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
• Y It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
• Y It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest.
• Y It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

They do not look like this:

• N Produced the answer I expected/wanted/agreed with.

Especially on hot-button subjects, the draw for the cognitive bias in that last item can be unbelievably strong (literally unbelievable, as in, it is stronger than most people can believe).

Everything here is from an academic journal, and everything here is (according to EBSCOhost) peer-reviewed. As far as I can tell, all of them meet all five of the usual criteria. All of them are recent articles. I did not filter out any source that seemed relevant based on whether it felt pro/anti/otherwise, and I have tried to write descriptions that did not focus on that aspect. I suggest that editors first look at whether a given source sounds like a reliable source that would be useful for this article, and only later consider whether that source is agreeable to you. A well-written, WP:YESPOV-compliant article may well be easier to achieve if we intentionally select sources for their formal strength regardless of content.

That is, I think that sources should be selected for reasons like "Law journal seems like a good idea" or rejected for reasons like "Eh, it's 'only' mid-rated, and we have enough top-tier journals that we don't need to use average journals", and should not be selected or rejected for reasons like "The twitterverse cancelled that author years ago" or "There's no way that I will ever agree to citing a source that says that person's name favorably/unfavorably".

It would probably be a good idea to look for more sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Outcome

• 11 support inclusion (some as one of several instances of her misgendering trans people)
• 12 oppose inclusion (some "not yet", similar to above caveat)
• ~50/50 with conditional votes either way, so no clear consensus on whether to include
• most believe might make more sense to include, if at all, as one example of Rowling publicly misgendering someone (this has now happened several times since this instance, which was the first time)
• consensus to end rfc

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 13tez (talk • contribs) 00:02, April 24, 2024 (UTC)

Transgender people section: removed references should be reinstated

This section contains more than 15 references to people reacting negatively to comments made by Rowling.

It is eminently relevant to attach to the existing description of Rowling’s April 2024 comments that her views have been supported by the Prime Minister of the UK.

Either that or all reactions to comments should be moved to the sub-article on Rowling’s political views, as per the suggestion attached to the predictably rapid deletion of a positive reaction to Rowling’s views. ThisIsGeraint (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Could several of you please stop the borderline edit warring over that content? See WP:ONUS and WP:FAOWN and gain consensus here before changing that content again.

Whether and how many complaints any authorities received is detail that can be explored in the sub-article; my choice would be to remove mention of number of complaints, who agrees, who disagrees, entirely and simply state the outcome (there were no charges). Police Scotland stated that "no action [would] be taken" on complaints that resulted. See WP:SS, WP:SIZE and WP:WIAFA. Explore the rest in the sub-article, which remains underdeveloped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, the testing the Scottish law... really doesn't feel like anything that'll be relevant in a year. Especially given you could write off anything she said during that as free speech provocateurship (probably not accurately, but that's her "out"). There are incidents much, much more likely to be relevant after a year; meanwhile. the denial of transgender people being persecuted by the Holocaust feels likely to be much more of a touchstone, given A. it was extremely dumb of her to even say in the first place, and B. she repeatedly double downed on it.

That said, a good rule of thumb is that anything from the last month we should be relatively hesitant to include, even though we shouldn't necessarily reject it out of hand. Anything from 2023 that's still relevant, though, probably is very relevant.

Offhand, maybe https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1714279937279160596 ? It's pretty widely reported and referenced, and, I believe, was her pinned tweet for months. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 09:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

One common rule, based in our Wikipedia:Summary style approach, that we could choose to adopt explicitly for this article, is that there should be nothing in J. K. Rowling about her trans POV that isn't already in developed in some detail in Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights. The goal here would be to summarize (=have less volume and less detail than) that section in this article, so the process would look like:

• put it in the more relevant article
• look over the whole section and see which parts need to be included here, and at what level of detail, and which can be excluded.

(For clarity, the process would not look like: put it in the more relevant article, and now immediately copy it to this [more general] article, because everything in the more relevant article needs to be here, too.)

Another potentially useful rule of thumb might be: When the content is "somebody said something", wait at least 30 days after the event before putting it into this article. The internet outrage machine is adept at making us think that the latest comment is extraordinarily important, but when we get a different, seemingly important comment every other week... well, maybe deliberately giving ourselves time to reflect would let us see the artificial urgency for the social-media-induced emotional manipulation that it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with both of WhatamIdoing's suggestions. Much of the reason this page is a battlezone is because WP:SUMMARY is not being followed, and the other main reason is WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#SOCIAL and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE are not being followed. —2001:5A8:4260:3100:A457:D8C:E45B:2FBC (talk) [SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), in another browser; my usual one is struggling to render this over-long talk page at all.], 05:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, most of Rowling's scandals are on the same topic. If a current one is a good example of a reliably sourced trend, then sure, a brief mention is maybe valid. From what I can tell - though we need RSes, not me - the big trends are A. General fearmongering about trans people (Often something like "keep dangerous men out of women's spaces", B. Fighting against juveniles right to gender affirming care. C. Attacks on specific trans people, sometimes with claims they somehow attacked her first; and D. general misgendering/denying transgender is a thing in the first place. If we had reliable sources for making connections between those types of incidents, we could easily write a simple, accurate section. But we'd need reliable sources to make those connections. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 05:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a highly slanted way of putting all of this, especially after the Cass report raises serious questions about the desirability of so-called "gender affirming care". *Dan T.* (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

She denies trans people exist, explicitky. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't bring up the CASS report here or I will hat this thread as WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't close a thread because of one person. Rowling denies people exist. The Cass report is irrelevant to any discussion here: It just came out, and it would be utter WP:SYNTH to try and defend Rowling based on her portrayal of the report. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your hyperbolic statements, disagreeing with somebody's claims about themselves is not the same as denying they exist. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

She literally, explicitly, denies that transgender people, as a grouping, exist. That isn't at all hyperbolic. She has explicitly said transwomen are men. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 14:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a POV rather than a denial that somebody exists. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's not get hung up on semantics before somebody starts asking for definitions of chairs. Rowling denies trans women exist as a category. That isn't to say that she solipsistically believes the actual people aren't really there. Just that she denies the authenticity of their experience as a category of people. This denialism is a relevant detail about her views and has had a significant impact on her career and her relationships. As such it is due mention in the core article. We don't need to do a blow-by-blow of who exactly said what when but we do, to follow from WhatamIdoing's point, need to have a summary of that position. And it needs to accurately reflect her denialism of the authenticity of trans experience and her concomitant refusal to accept the rights of trans people as valid. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to summarise what her position is, it would seem sensible to determine what exactly she has said on the matter. "she denies the authenticity of their experience as a category of people" sounds quite abstract and not like something she actually said. This thread shows how easy it is to slip into false summaries like "She denies trans people exist". By identifying her actual views we can judge which sources are reliably reporting what they are. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you don't believe that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet, does that mean that you deny Muslims exist as a category, because you don't believe in the factual accuracy of the beliefs that define their identity? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to stay on topic, the point here is that if an otherwise-generally-reliable source is caught making such mischaracterisations of a person’s views, we should not consider it reliable in the context of an article about that person. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it a mischaracterization of her views? I see it as a colloquial but very much accurate representation of her views.

Rowling definitely believes that trans women are men (look at her Twitter if you don't believe me). That implies that she believes that there is no such thing as a trans woman, only lying men, and therefore that trans women don't exist. Loki (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, if reliable sources say that Rowling believes trans women are men, and that this is a notable aspect of her beliefs, then the article should reflect this, presenting the belief in a factual manner without making further attempts at claiming what it "implies" in order to encourage value judgments about it on the part of readers. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Bias

no actionable request, just a vague complaint

There is clear bias in this article! I understand you have your own opinion on politics but don't bring it on wiki! I'm not able to edit but if I could I would! 216.6.241.0 (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Generally it is recommended to make specific comments (which part is biased, also remember Wikipedia follows the notable sources and Wikipedia:Bias might be a good read). As you have found the talk page I'd recommend looking to see if there's been a discussion on the content you think is biased. Also I'd like you to remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith In relation to other editors and their work. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Who exactly called Rowling a TERF?

I know this has been discussed ad nauseam, but WP:CCC, so here we go again. Who exactly called her a TERF?

How can we use such weaselly wording such as: "and she has been referred to as a TERF"? By whom exactly? This wording is almost Trumpesque in the way that if diffuses attribution to some vacous other. I checked all the inline sources, and not one of them clearly states that either a) she's a TERF or b) other individual or groups who we would consider to be even an echo of a WP:RS have called her a TERF. If anything, one of the sources clearly identifies the term as a term of abuse.
Given how famously litigious Rowling is, how can we possibly justify retaining this wording? Please give me the best policy-based argument for retaining this wording, cause I'm at a loss. Melmann 14:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The text isn't saying she's a TERF but that she's been called a TERF, something which is described in multiple reliable sources such as the one you mentioned. The people who actually called her a TERF don't need to be reliable sources. The text is not agreeing or disagreeing with the term, people are free do that on their own. WikiFouf (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This

... this new news report is totally demoralizing. We're volunteers here & lots of people commenting but not digging in. Just saying. Victoria (tk) 21:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think it was so bad. To you and S Marshall, who are taking a lead role of attempting a responsible rewrite (as opposed to general talk page whining), I can offer some bits of how we worked to keep the FAR moving forward amicably, over four months, in the hope you will find some piece of this tactic helpful or encouraging.

Instead of bogging down on one or several sentences where there is disagreement, work first towards developing those bits where common ground can be found, so that a sense of how to work together develops along with a sense of progress and trust and growing knowledge rather than despair. Leave the hardest bits 'til last; that way, you'll allow for comaraderie and a sense of trust to develop, which is needed as you together find a way to compromise on the harder bits. Remember that we spent months rewriting the entire rest of the article before we turned to the transgender section, and then the lead, and by then we knew and trusted each other better. There is plenty of really good progress on the page now; have one of you work through what you can of the commentary that is there, and put up the next draft as best you can, knowing that there are pieces that still need work. It's an iterative process, and the first goal is to find places of agreement. You'll eventually have a version that is good enough to ask the community before fine tuning. You're doing grand; I'm sorry that most of the original editors of this version have gone missing for various reasons. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Help! I have column inches to fill! Let's write 750 words about a Wikipedia talk page."—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yep ... and unfortunately, it means another few thousand views, and more whining, will show up here, so patience ... slow and steady wins the race. Those who are only here to rant and whine, and not contribute concrete and well-sourced suggestions for improvements, will eventually drop away (enticed by the next scandal du jour), and then you can get to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  SandyGeorgia is correct. Consider the media coverage listed at Talk:Recession. This, too, shall pass. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yikes at Recession coverage! Yes, for such a highly viewed article, the coverage of JKR is relatively mild. The coverage over at Wikipediocracy, on the other hand, is less favorable re Political views of J. K. Rowling overall, particularly with respect to taking JKR's quotes out of context. I'd like to see us restore the context (changes in the laws) to the version before the rapid-fire, non-consensual editing started. [40] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipediocracy, haha! A site for three kinds of people. The ones who're so socially deficient they couldn't even make it on Wikipedia, got banned for cause, but can't give it up so they go there for a kind of group therapy; the ones who aren't banned but and go there to gripe and whine instead of fixing stuff; and Vigilant, who posts enough to make up a whole group on his own and whose various personality issues annoy even Wikipediocrats. Vigilant's probably got half a dozen Wikipedia accounts by now but I doubt if he started any of them.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I had the impression that several active and productive Wikipedians hang out and comment there, but maybe I'm wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they're group #2. :P Loki (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I see what you mean. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  You left out Somey; he doesn't fit in those three categories :) Anyway, I recently chewed out a board I sit on as they immediately got defensive when they got a letter criticizing some of their actions, and I had to remind them it was their job to pay attention to criticism even if they disagreed with it, and even if they didn't like the source. There are parts of the criticism there that should be heeded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm very much not impressed here. There's lots of people who would like to pressure Wikipedia to cover their pet issue from their POV, and we've never really been very amenable to listening. Loki (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  The Irish Independent piece seems to have been taken down - it returns a 404 error. Going to see if Archive.Org has a copy lol. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

More recent source material

Just a place to record "finds".

• Sands, Leo (10 April 2024). "Scotland's hate speech law ignites culture war far outside its borders". Washington Post.
  Internet Archive is no longer getting through WashPost's paywall, but the usual trick still works if you want the full text: do a quick copy after the bulk of the page loads but before the paywall pops up, and paste into a text editor or word processor.

—2001:5A8:4260:3100:A457:D8C:E45B:2FBC (talk) [SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), in another browser; my usual one is having trouble loading this talk page for some reason.], 05:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm, yes that was me. Whatever the page-loading issue was, it has gone away now. [shrug].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Bradley, Sian; McLaughlin, Charlotte (11 April 2024). "JK Rowling: I won't forgive Harry Potter stars over pro-trans views". The Times.

*Dan T.* (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Cuts to the Lead

Going to try to get consensus for the following changes to the third paragraph in the lead, primarily because this is an article about an author and not their work (see J.R.R.Tolkien for instance) - we do not need to be name dropping Voldemort (he who should not be named (cringe moment millennial moment)) in this lead, nor including various details on the genre. Generally, what are peoples thoughts on the following changes to the third, coupled with a merger to the second paragraph:

"Rowling concluded the Harry Potter series with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007). The novels follow a boy called Harry Potter as he attends Hogwarts[,] (a school for wizards), and battles Lord Voldemort. Death and the divide between good and evil are the central themes of the series. Its influences include Bildungsroman (the coming-of-age genre), school stories, fairy tales, and Christian allegory. The series revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom. Critical reception has been more mixed. Many reviewers see Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series."

Let me know y'alls thoughts. Cheers. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am firmly opposed to cutting the influences on the HP series. It's a little hard to remember in our perennially online, news-hungry world, but the sine qua non of Rowling as a public figure is Harry Potter. Those books are the only reason she has a twitter following at all. They are the overwhelming focus of scholarly work about her, and I dare say they remain the overwhelming focus of news articles about Rowling if anyone is able to analyze news coverage beginning in the 90s. A sentence about influences on the series is essential. I'm open to shortening the fragment in the first proposed cut, though the chronology needs to be worked in somehow. I don't care if Voldemort is mentioned by name, but the saving of four words doesn't seem worth turning the plot summary into a meaningless sentence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh this was my compromise version, I wanted to get rid of "Death and the divide between good and evil are the central themes of the series." - Tolkien's page (another featured article) does not talk about the influences on the works he created, rather it talks about the works as a whole ("After Tolkien's death, his son Christopher published a series of works based on his father's extensive notes and unpublished manuscripts, including The Silmarillion. These, together with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, form a connected body of tales, poems, fictional histories, invented languages, and literary essays about a fantasy world called Arda and, within it, Middle-earth. Between 1951 and 1955, Tolkien applied the term legendarium to the larger part of these writings.") No talk of influences there, I personally think that is too nitty gritty for the lead. Would be more appurtenant to talk about the wizarding world and franchise the books inspired, but thats already in the first paragraph of the lead. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What Tolkein's lead has is neither here nor there, because the weight given to any topic is determined by what the sources about this subject say. But in any case the Tolkein lead is far too short given the length and complexity of that article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly not "far too short." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Tolkien's lead is far too short (I note it was last reviewed at FAR fifteen years ago, so whether it is at standard is undetermined). I believe the amount of space in the lead here strikes the right balance wrt article content and the body of sources. We have three sentences devoted to Rowling's views on transgender issues; if content were workshopped and developed correctly, I might be convinced the rewrite could expand that to four sentences, but in relation to the preponderance of sources on Rowling and her work, convincing is needed on whether three or four sentences is most appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Vanamonde93; the cuts to the lead here are not an improvement. In our "perennially online, news-hungry world", recent edits here are overlooking the "sine qua non of Rowling as a public figure" and decades worth of sources and work; a Rowling bio that is balanced according to high-quality sources is never going to ignore her entire body of work, and the bulk of this talk page is being overtaken by WP:RECENTISM and personal opinions, not always backed by high-quality sources.

Further, working on the lead before the body is rarely productive or the best way to get the job done; leads are summaries of the body.

And, working on a broad overview biography article before developing content in the sub-article at Politics of J. K. Rowling is also a less-than-effective approach. Rewriting the transgender content cannot be at the expense of the rest of a fine article, and should not be done recklessly on a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The "Rowling concluded..." sentence belongs in the preceding paragraph. I moved it before I saw this talk section Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That looks like an improvement to me (although there may have been a reason why it developed the way it did, I can't recall what it might have been at this point years later). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with these changes and especially with the reduction of the length of the themes and influences part of the lead. Themes of Harry Potter go in the lead of Harry Potter, not this article. We spend less time discussing the themes of Franz Kafka's work than J.K. Rowling, which seems obviously backwards to me. Loki (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If HP-related material goes in Harry Potter, then logically JKR's views go in Political views of J. K. Rowling, and we can obviate the need for this article entirely (sarcasm, of course). Both these topics are a part of Rowling's persona, and both deserve mention in the lead. The themes of Harry Potter receive greater coverage in scholarly sources about Rowling than anything she's said on twitter. Talk of removing it is misguided. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I hope you see the difference between Harry Potter, a series of books that while written by Rowling is not Rowling, and Political views of JK Rowling, which is only separate from this article because otherwise it'd be extremely long.

Also, I very much doubt that they do, actually. Rowling's transphobic remarks are an increasingly large part of her notability, which is why it's increasingly weird how little prominence they have in the article. Harry Potter as a series in general still definitely has better coverage in the sources, but the themes of Harry Potter specifically I doubt. Lots of sources on Harry Potter do not actually go into any great level of detail about the content of the books at all. (Which, to be clear, is the thing I'm objecting to: it's fine to say she wrote seven books in the Harry Potter series, because that's a fact about Rowling, but not that the Harry Potter series has death as a major theme, because that's a fact about Harry Potter and not JK Rowling.) Loki (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Something that might be worthwhile, elsewhere in the lede, is inserting a para break before starting to talk about her trans/gender views. Doing this serves to separate and highlight this and note that it is one of the things most prominent about her at this point. WorthPoke2 (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

See #Five-paragraph lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde that scholarly sources continue to cover Rowling's writing more than her views – see this 2024 book [41], for example. The TG section likely needs an update, but I see from the source list above that it’s being worked on; let’s not change the lead before the body. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This 2024 scholarly book source sounds very promising:

While it was once considered a universally beloved book series, the relationship between HP and its fans has grown more complicated in recent years. As its readers have grown older and Rowling’s reputation has wavered in the public eye, Whited and her contributors consider the complicated legacy of Harry Potter and its author and explore how the series will evolve in the next twenty years.

The summary reads as the kind of balanced scholarly source we should be considering, and focusing on sources like this could help bring focus to the rambling, non-source-based discussions (some based more on opinions than sources and dominated by RECENTISM) taking over this talk page.

Olivaw-Daneel will you be available to help draft new content? Do you have the book? And considering this book summary, are adjustments warranted to the Legacy section as well ? Glad to see you again; this book demonstrates that it is likely possible to base new content on what has been covered by scholarly sources, augmenting with news sources only as needed to provide accessible sources to readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be free to read via WP:TWL, but my access has lapsed. Not sure how active I can be on the TG section but if others such as Sideswipe9th are interested in drafting, I could help support. I'll add that book and a couple of others I found to the list above. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

My TWL access tends to lapse & unlapse depending on activity. Today I was able to log in & downloaded Whited's new book - so thanks for the find Olivaw-Daneel. From a brief glance, one chapter in Whited takes a look at JKR's reputation/fans now vs. when the HP books were being published. She has a large fanbase and apparently there were equally large expectations of her, as author, and also apparently some issues to do w/ fan fiction (according to this source (available via TWL) there are more than 400,000 on AO3, which opens issues of who owns the characters/concepts/themes/ etc.)

All of this seems to have morphed into hostility according the Whited chapter's author, but I need to read it and the paper re fanfiction closely and process. I've also downloaded Duggan's paper "Transformative readings" (pdf available here), which starts from generally the same premise: Duggan writes that Harry Potter (the character) and Harry Potter (the series) is about a marginalized group (witches, sorcerers, magic users) which attracted a fan base expecting the author to espouse and or align herself with marginalized peoples, hence creating strong hostility vis-a-vis her public comments re transgender rights. This is all interesting, needs a closer reading and processing. But generally that's the frame the scholars are using: how her fan base has morphed. I think we can get some material from these scholarly works to work into the article, but it will take some time and thought. Anyway, sorry for the long post, and thanks again to Olivaw-Daneel for dipping into Project Muse. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle and Olivaw-Daneel: I don't know what I'm doing wrong at TWL (I am logged in), but I am unable to find this source at TWL. Could someone toss me a cluestick, or maybe email me the two relevant chapters?

Meanwhile, after four days off due to hand surgery, I have returned to find a) no significant development of content at the sub-article Political views of J. K. Rowling, and b) more rambling discussions involving opinion, recentism and news reports, and less-than-highest-quality sources. Someone needs to take the lead here and put up drafts; I am hoping Sideswipe9th will engage soon, as my stitches are in my hand until 22 April, limiting my typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Book sent & cluestick posted to your talk to reduce volume here :) Victoria (tk) 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY on your part and on other editors part re: development of sub article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Whited Source

I've also gotten my hands on this source through the Wikipedia library, and I have to say it seems very useful. Several of the essays in here contain some comment on Rowling's comments, though only a few comment on it at length.

One of the sections that does is the introduction by Whited herself. It's hard to give good short quotes from this here, but while it's balanced and well-sourced, it is notably harsher on Rowling than our section is, at one point calling her views shockingly simplistic and saying Just as the Harry Potter “Generation Hex” experience was unique to the young readers who inhaled and embodied the series’ original release during their childhood and adolescence, the Era of the Transphobic Tweets is a unique experience for those of us who were not merely enchanted by the series’ magic but deeply invested in building a body of scholarly work around it. (On the other hand, it's also a solid scholarly source for Rowling receiving threats.)

Another is "21. “Accio Jo!” Woke Wizards and Generational Potter Fandom", by Rebecca Sutherland Borah, an essay about fan-reaction to Harry Potter that gives a brief, but still too long to quote, timeline of Rowling's anti-trans tweets and fan reaction to them.

Other essays that give brief mentions are:

• 4. Harry, Aeneas, and the Foundational Text by Mitchell H. Parks:

  Moreover, assuming a reader-centric viewpoint has become all the more pressing given the growing divergence between Rowling’s perspective on the values of the series and that of many fans, as evidenced by her public statements calling for limitations on trans rights.

• 18. Politics of Suppression and Violence in Fantastic Beasts by Carsten Kullmann, in a footnote on the poor performance of the movies:

  And third, J. K. Rowling has publicly voiced controversial views on sex and gender on Twitter and in the media since the end of 2019, displaying not only an antiquated understanding of gender identity but also quite overt transphobia on her part. Her statements divided fans, and the controversy led to boycotts of the film series. Actors Daniel Radcliffe and Eddie Redmayne have officially spoken out against Rowling despite continuing their professional relationship with her. For a detailed discussion of this issue, please see Lana A. Whited’s introduction to this volume. As a literary and cultural scholar, I personally find the appeal of the frequently invoked “death of the author” concept greatly diminished when the author in question is vociferously campaigning against transgender people on social media while routinely practicing world-building through the same outlets, and especially if that author prides herself and her works on preaching love, tolerance, and the rejection of bigotry of any kind.

Loki (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"divergence between Rowling’s perspective on the values of the series and that of many fans" Rowling's fans are not transphobic? Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation reminder (harvc)

Victoriaearle I see now why you had such a problem with harvc templates; we have no other instance where the sfn on the chapter is identical to the sfn on the book, so I can't figure out how to sort those, nor can I remember who converted the cite encyclopedias from the FAR version to the harvc templates. I've temporarily plugged in the Cite encyclopedia templates on the Borah and Whited chapters, and we'll need to trace back through the article history to figure out who converted to harvc templates, so we can ask them how to adjust Borah and Whited ... but what I've done in the fourth draft will work for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Found! Olivaw-Daneel we need you (in more ways than one). I don't know how to fix the harvc templates in Draft 5 above for the Whited 2024 citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Well done! That's helpful. I'll update in my sandbox. Sorry, I got sidetracked for a few days. Will try to get back here this evening and plow through the page. Victoria (tk) 14:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Later today, I will switch Henderson to harvc since that comes from a full book we might oughta be using elsewhere in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed Henderson (and may have learned in the process how to fix Whited ... next). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

woo hoo!!! (Aren't I special !?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Five-paragraph lead?

WorthPoke2 suggests above [42] that

"Something that might be worthwhile, elsewhere in the lede, is inserting a para break before starting to talk about her trans/gender views. Doing this serves to separate and highlight this and note that it is one of the things most prominent about her at this point."

It is generally recommended that leads be no longer than four paragraphs, and four paragraphs is typical for an article this size. But some FAs deviate from the LEAD guideline; for example, a recent FA Climate change is a similar WP:SIZE (8,925 words of readable prose) as Rowling (8,913 words of readable prose), and has a five-paragraph lead. Without starting another premature RFC, is this something that other editors feel might be helpful or appropriate in this case?

Please discuss rather than starting with premature !voting. I am open to being convinced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My personal view: if a five-para lead is agreed on, I wouldn't be strongly opposed. But I would not separate it as WorthPoke2 suggests, rather I would prefer putting all of her views (related content) into that separate paragraph. Looking at the current version, that would mean the break would be after her accolades and charitable giving, and before the "In politics" sentence, but viewing the current lead content, one can see it flows from accolades, to giving, to giving in politics, to her political and other views ... that progression of narrative made/makes sense to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I do think that a paragraph break there makes a lot of sense. I'd also like to add a little more material about the trans stuff to that paragraph but I'd support a paragraph break regardless. Loki (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

In the lede I wouldn’t mind a paragraph break but I disagree with the idea of all her views. Joanne’s views on Blairite economics aren’t notable, her views on trans people absolutely are. Snokalok (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've read it a few times today and think it works as written. It starts with accolades and honors, mentions philanthropy - monies given, including to politics - then to politics & transgender views. It's all worthy of mention and packed together in a single para - which is how leads are written. Victoria (tk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• I do feel there should be a separate paragraph in the lead about her gender-critical-ness. In the UK and particularly in Scotland, there's been a lot of 2020s coverage of her in connection with Isla Bryson and the drama about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. So much so in fact that if you asked a Scottish teen about J.K. Rowling, they might well say she's a leading anti-transwoman activist, oh, and didn't she write some books as well? What I really advocate is one gender-views paragraph in a four-paragraph lead, but if we have to go to a five paragraph lead to achieve that, then okay, let's do it.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• It's a tough one. The current lead does flow well right now, so I think a fifth paragraph related to her views would be best. Quick draft to give an idea: "Rowling is known for donating to political causes and sharing her views on politics and society. She has opposed Scottish independence and Brexit and is an outspoken feminist. Since 2019, her views on transgender rights and identity have attracted unprecedented media attention and made her a controversial figure, etc. etc." WikiFouf (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’d counter with “Since 2019, she has also become notable for her prominence within anti-transgender activism, with her stated views becoming increasingly radical over time - to the point of what some have characterized as holocaust denial.” Snokalok (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't introduce "known for" and "notable for" into the lead of a featured article; that should be obvious or the content wouldn't be in the lead. The current lead explores the main things she was known for without wasting those (trite) words in the word count. Also, please don't try to rewrite the lead yet when NO ONE has yet attempted to draft new body content. Leads follow bodies; could we stay focused on the question of whether we should deviate from the WP:LEAD guideline to allow an extra paragraph (either now or when we rewrite the content)-- which happens at times, but is rare?[43][44] The current lead is dated and needs rewriting, but at least it was not poorly written considering it was constrained by a well-attended RFC. Vanamonde93 was one of the three main authors of the Featured version, and has been following here, but we are still missing the other two (AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel, who have access to scholarly sources), and Sideswipe9th, a competent FA writer with source access, has gone missing for a week. Victoriaearle makes a good point and I'm still unsure if we need to deviate from a guideline in this case (it's not an ultra-long article, it complies with SIZE), and am hoping to hear from more of the others before making up my own mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Alternative suggestion: combine the first three paras into two? WorthPoke2 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm hoping we will hear more from other highly involved editors; I have done all I can to catch up here after two weeks travel, but haven't been able to thoroughly weigh in on everything yet, and I am having hand surgery tomorrow, and don't know what to expect, in case I go silent for a few days or can't type. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a five paragraph lead is needed. From the worldwide point of view WP is supposed to espouse, she is still primarily known for Harry Potter, and her political/cultural viewpoints are very much a consequence of HP rather than an equal to it. Sure, a Western teen might know her only from recently controversies in the news (I doubt it). What about teens in South America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania? Please keep the systemic bias of Wikipedia in mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The media coverage of her over the last 4-5 years has been almost entirely transphobia related. Notability is pretty thoroughly established, I do believe Snokalok (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Though, I do agree with the thought about ties between her views and Harry Potter, but that’s just because I watch a lot of Shaun’s video essays. Snokalok (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, which is why the transgender politics is mentioned in the lead. To go further would be WP:RECENTISM. Media coverage of the previous three decades was entirely HP-focused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That she is famous because of and for Harry Potter and not because of her views on gender/transphobia etc does not mean those views are not some of the presently most prominent things about her. WorthPoke2 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but encyclopedias are supposed to take the long-term view, instead of focusing on the WP:RECENTISM of what's "presently" the most prominent thing about her in the daily news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

At the same time, ignoring what's been her main point of notability for four years is also a problem. Template:Update exists for a reason. The height of Harry Potter's popularity is long past, but most of the article was written based on sources from then, and we're left with a time capsule of 2010s recentism as it stands.

Would themes of Harry Potter fit the ten year rule? I'd say the thing that started to cause the author's downfall from the unquestioned heights of popularity she once had does fit the 10 year rule. It's vital to understand what happened to her. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd question whether her trans POV is really "her main point of notability", even during the last few years. GHits are an imperfect system, but they're probably more objective than what each of us remember from our individual filter bubbles. Consider what I find in Google Books:

• for the five years before the 2018 GRA consultation (2013–2017):  
  • "j.k. rowling" "harry potter" – 469 books
  • "j.k. rowling" "transgender" – 30 books
• for the five years after it (2019–2023):
  • "j.k. rowling" "harry potter" – 559 books
  • "j.k. rowling" "transgender" – 256 books

These results suggest increased coverage of transgender subjects relative to the earlier years, but they still show more than twice as many mentions of Harry Potter.

Some of the increase may be driven by increased coverage of trans issues generally; Google Ngram indicates that in 2013 there were almost two, and by 2018, more than three, books using the word transgender for every one book that mentioned Harry Potter, but that dataset only runs up until 2019, so we can't use it to look at recent years. Looking at the graphs, I'd guess that much less than half of the increase is due to the "background" effect of people writing about trans issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the mentions of Rowling in general may refer to her as "the Harry Potter author". That it's included does not make it about them -- I'd compare the intersection and compare only Rowling and Potter without Trans to all mentions of Towling and trans, to try and get that breakdown. WorthPoke2 (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to run that comparison yourself, if you think it would be meaningful.

I will add, though, that if she's usually described with a phrase like "J.K. Rowling, the Harry Potter author", then her authorship of Harry Potter is what Wikipedia would consider a Wikipedia:Defining characteristic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going for recentism: my point is that in the same way someone can become famous for doing one thing then move to spending most of their time doing something very different: your argument there would prevent us noting the second acts of anyone.

(For instance, David Cameron is famous because he was UK Prime Minister. That does not mean the fact he's UK Foreign Secretary is not notable! Or Johnson became famous as a journalist, panel show guest, before going into being a mayor with a brief stint as Prime Minister before returning to his current role as journalist and author. All of those parts have a place in the lead!) WorthPoke2 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the number of paragraphs is the right way to measure the length of a lead. It is presently 429 words and 25 sentences. For comparison, most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words. This article is longer than most FAs, and has a lead length that is only a bit longer than the lead for most FAs. I don't think this is a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• I cannot keep up with the volume of comments here, so apologies if this is not addressing everything. I am not convinced we need a lead paragraph dedicated to transgender issues, largely per AirshipJungleman above. JKR has said things on social media, and as those things have become less subtle she's received increasingly sharp criticism. We should absolutely mention that, and I'm in agreement with many folks above that the summary of the transgender issue is currently charitable to JKR relative to the the sources (I don't think it was when written). But relative to the rest of her career, the coverage is still minor, and it's still largely the celebrity news sections of the media that spend time on this issue. We really need to be careful about RECENTISM and NOTNEWS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Considering the things I've raised previously, specifically the chilling of her relationships with members of the Harry Potter film cast, the transition of her writing career to transphobic detective novels and the attempted boycott of Hogwarts Legacy as a result of her social media statements I'd say that the transphobia has become a significant enough part of her professional life to be due mention in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

    Which doesn't contradict anything I've written in the slightest, as it's already mentioned in the lead. We're discussing the need for a separate paragraph. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Calling her Cormoran Strike novels "transphobic" is a biased statement with no basis in reality. Have you actually read any of these books? (I've read all of them.) *Dan T.* (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a scene in one of them, years before any of this popped off even, where the main character threatens a trans woman with prison rape. Loki (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What you're referring to is in The Silkworm, 69% through in the Kindle edition, where Strike tells Pippa "it won't be fun for you inside" (when threatening to call the police on her). In his defense, she did just try to stab him with a knife, and had been stalking him for a while before that, but Strike can still be a bit crude at times (but Robin still likes him). Ultimately everybody calms down, various misunderstandings are cleared up, and Pippa becomes a fairly sympathetic character despite the inauspicious introduction. Nobody misgenders her, not Strike nor any other character nor the book's omniscient narrator. Kudos to you for citing the one actual transgender character in the entire series, who isn't the serial killer who sometimes puts on a dress in a different book of the series who sometimes gets cited by critics of Rowling. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Just to see what this could look like, I've put the existing wording in a different order, to get to one possible draft of a five-paragraph version of the lead here.—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks S Marshall for taking a stab at it. I could support something like this, but would want to see the numbers (half a billion books sold, etc) appear earlier. However it's viewed the numbers of books sold and the subsequent media franchise is what makes her notable. I think it still needs a bit of juggling around, but thinking about it. That said, I'm wondering if we should wait until the transgender section is rewritten so we can write the lead to reflect the article? Let's see what others think. Victoria (tk) 23:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)