Talk:J. K. Rowling

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

12885HA (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC) shes transphobic

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also review the biographies of living persons policy and the neutral-point-of-view policy. Thank you. (courtesy ping 12885HA) — LauritzT (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Though the might be plenty of evidence in her own words and deeds to support such an accusation, editors can not include any accusations unless it is directly sourced from more than one high quality reliable source.

The reality is that in full accordance with Biographies of Living Persons policy's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the are indeed several top quality sources WP:RSP that do support the transphobic claim, and "If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." WP:PUBLICFIGURE and while we should always adhere to due weight of all the sources covering the subject, we should avoid any false balance.

A few sources directly accuse her directly with transphobia, while the majority of the sources simply say critics accuse her of being transphobic/phobia. Personally I believe the is enough supporting evidence from the WP:RSP to state she is transphobic, however based on the citations below I think at the least the is unquestionably solid enough evidence that we can safely say that:-

*Rowling has been accused by critics <in reliable news sources> of being transphobic.*

Telegraph Rowling’s views on transwomen, a strange brew of prejudice, ignorance and paranoia ~ [Trust me, JK Rowling is spouting dangerous nonsense about trans people https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/trust-jk-rowling-spouting-dangerous-nonsense-trans-people/]

Los Angeles Times [Column: J.K. Rowling and the curse of bathroom politics https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-06-18/jk-rowling-trans-rights-bathroom-politics]

BBC [JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557]

Independent [JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html]

NBC News [J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351]

Reuters [Reuters Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn/explainer-j-k-rowling-and-trans-women-in-single-sex-spaces-whats-the-furore-idUSKBN23I3AI]

Independent [Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html]

Vox [J.K. Rowling’s latest tweet seems like transphobic BS. Her fans are heartbroken. https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/19/21029852/jk-rowling-terf-transphobia-history-timeline]

NBC News [J.K. Rowling's new book raises more allegations of transphobia https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-j-k-rowling-book-raises-more-allegations-transphobia-n1240057]

Vanity Fair [Where J.K. Rowling’s Transphobia Comes From https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism]

Reactions? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see this before. The Telegraph, LA Times, Vox, and Vanity Fair articles are all opinion pieces, and fall under WP:RSOPINION - they are not reliable for claims of fact. The others seem to attribute the label to some group or other. Just slapping a WP:LABEL of transphobia with a WP:WEASEL-word attribution which is open to a "by whom?" tag won't cut it. If people want to expand on that again, this wording could be restored, which is in accord with NPOV by not being one-sided. We last discussed this in-depth in Archive 8, and I don't remember why it got whittled down to the current version, but I am quite happy with the current version as well. The WP:LEAD should be a brief summary and for all the nuances, readers should really click down to the appropriate section. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is probably the most biased argument section I've ever encountered. The fact that a "majority" of people say Person X is Y is utterly irrelevant to an encyclopedia, which is a platform of facts. Back in the Middle Ages, a "majority" of people would have said Woman X was a witch. That didn't then, and doesn't now, make it so. What is factual is that "some" people have found JK Rowling's statements to be transphobic whereas "others" have not. It's no one's place here to pronounce the proportionality of those opinions, particularly not by citing Op-Eds from liberal newspapers! There has not been a democratic vote on these issues (Twitter is not a democratic vote) so no one, LITERALLY NO ONE, has any idea how JK Rowling's views align with the majority public opinion. Anyone claiming otherwise is deluded and operating on a self-agenda. Seriously, if you can't leave your biases in your lockers, maybe you'd better stay away from Wikipedia. Respectfully, 2A01:E0A:34F:920:19CB:A9BB:B3C6:CEE8 (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

68.2.222.116 (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

THe current content of this article is not the same as was written 2 weeks ago.

Yes, it is. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"Some" LGBT rights organisations

The lead includes the sentence "These views have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists and individuals."

The use of the word "some" is odd in both instances. I've never heard of any LGBT organisation (that is, an organisation that by definition supports trans people's rights) that doesn't regard her views as transphobic. The use of the word "some" falsely gives the impression that many LGBT organisations support her views. Her views have also been criticised by all the mainstream feminists and feminist organisations that have voiced an opinion. Among self-described feminists she has only received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists (who often describe themselves as gender-critical feminists). However, they are widely regarded as a fringe group, and many/most feminists regard them as anti-feminists, particularly in light of their close cooperation with right-wing organisations such as the Heritage Foundation. In other words, the only "feminists" she has received support from are not really widely recognised as feminists in the feminist community (although they are popular with the radical right). It would be better to be more precise and note that she has received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists (or self-described gender-critical feminists). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thing is, there is a rabbit hole (more of a semantic vortex, really) that I don't think Wikipedia should go down. If "LGBT" is to be read narrowly in the sense of must promote trans rights and trans inclusion then logically the term "LGB" would have to be resurrected - as the LGB Alliance does - to mean "LGB but not T". I would rather see Wikipedia use LGBT as an umbrella term - as many RS undoubtedly do - to mean any combination of those letters without requiring active promotion of all the relevant causes (how many LGBT organizations are active on bi/pan issues, anyway?), rather than have Wikipedia articles specify in each case whether a particular org or coalition was LGB but not T, LGT but not B, or LBT but not G ... Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if we understand the term LGBT in the way you describe, the word "some" seems like a puzzling understatement, because all the established LGBT organisations that I know of condemn her views as transphobic. The only groups that support her views are new groups of dubious reputation such as the LGB Alliance, which is widely considered a hate group (as the article notes) and which is probably not very representative of the people it claims to speak for (many commentators have noted that it seems to be more popular with cisgender, straight right-wingers than with actual L, G or B people). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would be happy with "most" (though other editors would insist on a source for "most", which is another rabbit hole) or with not using a qualifier at all. I just don't want to see the definitional argument used to settle the issue. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI: the only LGBT rights org mentioned in the body is GLAAD. We should take care to afford the critical orgs due weight, but my guess is that there are plenty of RS to support mentioning additional ones in the body. Firefangledfeathers 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If people want to remove the "some" before LGBT, that is fine with me. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Xxanthippe, I'm eagerly waiting for your promised justification for reinstating "some" here,[1] a word that is highly misleading since literally all established LGBT rights organisations that have voiced any opinion regard her views on trans people as transphobic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Last part of the sentence

Instead of "but have received support from some other feminists and individuals", how about a more precise description such as "but have received support from gender-critical (or trans-exclusionary) feminists" (or some other variant of that)? Really, the only self-described "feminists" who support Rowling's views on trans people are the self-described "gender-criticals". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not so sure that's supported by sources. I don't think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is considered a 'gender critical' feminist, for example. However, we could wikilink to Feminist views on transgender topics where the texts says "some feminists", and anyone can click on that for further explanation. At the same time, they can click down to the section heading and read about it there. Not every detail needs to be in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Having the link to Feminist views on transgender topics in the sentence would be an improvement. However earlier in the sentence we already mention "some feminists" (with a link to feminism), so it's not entirely clear which part of the sentence that should link to Feminist views on transgender topics. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need a wikilink to feminism in the sentence, since the "feminist views" article is a lot more important and people can click through to feminism there if they want. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems very sensible, it would be far more helpful to the reader to specifically link Feminist views on transgender topics on the first mention of the feminist divided opinion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

"Should the lead sentence of this article mention Rowling's involvement in controversies about trans issues", and if so, how should they be included? A) Do not mention them in the lead sentence at all. B) Mention them as a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g., referring to "her transphobic tweets" or "her anti-transgender activism". C) Mention the controversy without making a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g. "her statements that have widely been considered transphobic". Unnamed anon (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Most coverage of Rowling in the media over the last couple of years has focused on her anti-trans views. It seems fair to say that she is primarily known as 1) the former author of the Harry Potter book series and 2) for her anti-trans activism and views. In light of that it would be reasonable for the first sentence to reflect that, especially given how it includes far more obscure descriptors such as "philanthropist, film producer, television producer, and screenwriter" (activities that have received comparatively little media coverage). Perhaps some of those obscure descriptors should also be removed from the first sentence, and only be mentioned further down? --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

On the first point, "former author" would be incorrect. She will continue to be the author of the Harry Potter series until she either passes away or sells the right to write more books. Whether she actually writes any more Harry Potter novels is irrelevant. On the second point, I believe this runs into the same problem as the above attempt to get "shes (sic) transphobic" added; a lack of non-opinion piece sources. I can say anecdotally that I don't know anyone away from the Internet that is even aware of Rowling's allegedly transphobic views. You can say the opposite, but neither of us can prove we are in a majority. If we rely on Google, the first result I get that isn't Wikipedia or her own website is her IMDB page with her screenwriting and producing credits. 2A02:C7F:E54C:C200:900B:C4AC:DFF4:3C22 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Anecdotal Google searches aren't reliable for this sort of thing, because the results you get are both heavily dependent on what words your searching for, as well as results being tailored to your own interests and search history. There's also an element of time, as searching just her name today brings up some controversy surrounding alleged doxxing and people possibly protesting outside her home address that has broken over the last couple of hours. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I wasn't trying to suggest Google itself should be treated as a legitimising factor. I feel the suggested edit relies entirely on subjective information--the perception of what a significant portion of society think of when they hear Rowling's name. As we can't prove that either way, we should fall back on the fact that the claim that she is transphobic is based on opinion pieces, whereas her work as a producer, screenwriter, and philanthropist is an objective fact that can be (and has been) sourced. John Bullock (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Her transphobic views are covered in the article. This is not a matter of adding new information but simply of deciding which parts of the article that are important enough to be summarised in the first sentence. For example, why are her activities as a philanthropist and television producer (that receive comparatively little coverage in the media) important enough for the first sentence, but not her anti-trans activism (that seems to be the focus of most media coverage of her over the last two years or so)? --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say because her allegedly transphobic views are harder to nail down. News stories protect themselves by referring to "critics" and other euphemisms. Ultimately, all transphobic roads lead back to an opinion piece, or even just a tweet. Her work as a screenwriter and producer on a movie franchise that contains three of the highest-grossing films of all time is a little less subjective, and we can cite actual numbers. John Bullock (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think this RS, for example, qualifies as an opinion piece. That Rowling has made transphobic statements may be disputed by some, but it can't be dismissed as "just an opinion" as though it weren't also a reliably sourced (if disputed) factual claim. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that brings us back to the question of whether she's "known for" being an alleged transphobe, and additionally whether her work as a producer and screenwriter is insignificant enough to be removed from the lede. On the latter, it scarcely seems worth discussing, given the cultural impact and box office success of the work she is credited as having produced and written for. John Bullock (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

But is she really widely known for "producing" anything? Her authorship of the Harry Potter books is already included in the sentence. The films were primarily made by other people on the basis of her books. And television productions (as opposed to the films)? There are no details about any television productions in the lead (as opposed to anti-trans views), so why is "television producer" – apparently one of her minor and less known activities – included in the first sentence? I would argue that she is, based on how she has been covered in the media over the last years, first and foremost known as the author of the Harry Potter books and for her anti-trans views (being, in all likelihood, the most prominent person to voice such views). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe that is a reference to Strike (TV series), which probably seemed important to someone at some point. Newimpartial (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually you make a good point about "television producer", maybe that should be removed from the lede. I don't agree with removing the film producer and screenwriter references, though. She wrote for and produced some of the most successful films in all of cinema to date. The "anti-trans" addition is problematic, not just because it is based on WP:RECENTISM as pointed out below, but because it would require this page about a children's fiction author to make a judgement on what constitutes being anti-trans. Rowling's rhetoric is concerned with (as she sees it) protecting women's rights, with the supposedly anti-trans views being a byproduct. She has even explicitly supported trans people up to a point. This isn't the place to debate what is and isn't transphobic, but I think it's entirely fair to say that "anti-trans" would be a very debatable descriptor, even if this aspect of her life became notable enough to make the lede. John Bullock (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would we consider an article in the "style" section of Vanity Fair, a pop culture magazine, to be a reliable expert source for sociopolitical matters, or on the topic of feminism or gender, like defining what exactly is "transphobic"? Or to have any interest in staying objective in such matters? Fact and opinion are distinct, and it's clear on which side of the divide such an article lies when making such a statement. I am reminded of how some editors routinely pointed to Rolling Stone magazine to justify whatever label they wanted to apply to some BLP until RSN finally reached the verdict that it is not reliable on political topics.

Anyway, this proposal is based on WP:RECENTISM. Rowling's short essay and some tweets would never have been of interest to anyone had she not already been an immensely famous figure for creating and overseeing the Harry Potter-verse. That is why she is famous. This other stuff about her sociopolitical views is a side issue, and belongs lower in the lead, where it already is and can be explained properly. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The "style" section of Vanity Fair (magazine) reports factually; it is not an opinion section. This seems like a basic point. And what I was pointing to within the linked article is facual reporting, not editorializing. As far as recentism goes, I have already shown that scholarship on Rowling has started to emphasize her anti-trans stances rather than her (rather brilliant) management of the "Wizarding World" IP, but this isn't Kierkegaard (Either/Or). Newimpartial (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Vanity Fair (magazine)'s legitimacy aside, there is still the issue of dispute. For example, her views have been defended by far more prominent trans people than Grace Robertson. Eddie's fame doesn't necessarily make them more correct (though undoubtedly more noteworthy), but it shows the "anti-trans"-ness of Rowling's stances is very debatable. And, as I mentioned above, her concerns are explicitly for women's rights and safety, with the alleged transphobia being a byproduct of those concerns. "Anti-trans" implies she is just out to hurt trans people, something that even the above Vanity Fair article does not try to claim. Even if this aspect of her life was to be added to the opener, it should be termed in a less biased way. I suspect many people would take issue with "campaigning to protect women's rights" being added, and "anti-trans" is no different. It's not Wikipedia's place to pick a side. John Bullock (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The framing that her concerns are explicitly for women's rights and safety is Rowling's framing, and one that she pronounced after making her initial comments that have been described as anti-trans. WP:MANDY probably applies.

And just to be clear, I for one do not agree that Rowling is an anti-transgenser activist à la Graham Linehan (who experienced a marital breakdown seemingly due to his activism), but it seems to me that a non-wikivoice comment that Rowling "has been criticized for her views on transgender people" does belong in the first sentence, since this is the main thing she is known for among English-speakers under the age of 35 or so. Newimpartial (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"has been criticized for her views on transgender people" would certainly be a more suitable wording than "anti-trans" or "transphobic". I still question whether it's the main thing she's known for by any objective metric after only a few years of largely opinion-based coverage. I'll leave it to more experienced editors to hash that one out. John Bullock (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree on WP:MANDY applying. There is far too much uncertainty around what constitutes transphobia for there to be a consensus that she is one. For example, a YouGov poll showed a majority believe people should be free able to identify as a gender other than the one they were born as, but the same poll showed a majority agreement with Rowling that biological males who have not had gender reassignment surgery should not be allowed in female-only spaces. Are they transphobic? Articles like this one suggest that supporting a person's right to identify as the gender they feel comfortable with makes them an ally, and Rowling has supported this. Then again, perhaps the stance on male genitalia in female-only spaces overrides that ally status for Rowling and the majority of the people in those studies. The uncertainty is the issue. John Bullock (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The uncertainty may be an issue affecting what we report in wikivoice, but there is certainly no "uncertainty" that Rowling's views on this issue have been perceived as transphobic by very many people. One trans comedian's view to the contrary should not be used in a WP:FALSEBALANCE manner, or be seen as evidence that maybe people don't see Rowling's views as transphobic. And while consensus among RS might be required to state in Wikivoice that Rowling's comments are transphobic or that she is a transphobe, but as previously stated I do not support such a statement in wikivoice in the first sentence. We have better options, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

What constitute transphobia is as clear as what constitutes racism or any other bigotry, the is no uncertainty in the words of her essay (she is a celebrated writer after all) or that those words have been perceived in a dozen reliable secondary sources as transphobic/anti trans. The Reuters article above clearly points out who is in danger in single sex spaces. I am agreement with Newimpartial and Amanda A. Brant on this. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Her essay was not just about 'single-sex spaces' and was before that Reuters article. Actually, what constitutes "racism" can likewise be quite fuzzy - as can be seen in debates over things like affirmative action, defunding the police, or the use of words like 'blacklist'.

Regarding WP:MANDY, that page is an essay that carries no weight outside those who agree with its premise. In fact, it seems to contradict the BLP policy per Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons#Denials must be included. But even if we take it as authoritative, it does not apply here - this isn't just a case where allegations are denied only by the person themselves, but rather when sources report on it, they overwhelmingly do not put such criticism in their own voice.

Regarding the claim that it is "the main thing she is known for among English-speakers under the age of 35 or so", maybe in Newimpartial's social circle, but that isn't true of mine, nor is it supported by any source.

The first sentence is for what a topic is, not for cramming in some piece of 'here's what some unspecified group of other people think'. WP:NPOV notes that "prominence of placement" can be an issue. Putting this in the first sentence, stripped of the context as it appears lower in the lead, is clearly POV and also violates WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. And no, a mealy-mouthed "has been criticized" does not make it better. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the supposed threat to Single spaces... True her essay is full of other anti trans positions such as her baseless statement regarding the growth in the number of young transmen, Rowling said she believed misogyny and sexism, fuelled by social media, were reasons behind the 4,400% increase (in the UK) in the number of transmen transitioning in the past decade. However the reliable press has concentrated on the 'single-sex spaces' issue. Claiming that trans people are predatory based on no evidence is like saying Black People, Asian People, Muslims or Jews etc are a threat just for being who they are, its undeniable unjust and prejudicial.

Regarding what she is notable for ...We do however follow the reliable sources and it is for these views she has received significant coverage in the last few years. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Unforunately, there is not a particularly overwhelming number of reliable sources actually labelling her transphobic (as opposed to opinion pieces and references to vague third parties), and an editor's conviction isn't enough to go on. I feel WP:RECENTISM is still relevant with regards to mentioning these criticisms in the opening line. Rowling has had a decades-long career writing best-selling novels and producing wildly successful movies, these criticisms are not only recent, but the chosen phrasing could just as accurately be "has been praised for her defence of single-sex spaces". I don't think either should be added to the lede, but if something is added, Wikipedia shouldn't be presented as having chosen a side in an ongoing debate. John Bullock (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Praised for her defence of single-sex places !? ...please provide a single reliable source for such a WP:OR claim. However in contrast regarding the claim the are not many reliable non opinion sources on her anti trans position, the are good number of reliable non opinion sources

• Vanity Fair [Where J.K. Rowling’s Transphobia Comes From https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism],
• Vox [J.K. Rowling’s latest tweet seems like transphobic BS. Her fans are heartbroken. https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/19/21029852/jk-rowling-terf-transphobia-history-timeline],
• NBC News [J.K. Rowling's new book raises more allegations of transphobia https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-j-k-rowling-book-raises-more-allegations-transphobia-n1240057],
• New Statesman [The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK’s gender wars https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars]],
• BBC [JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557],
• Independent [JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html]
• NBC News [J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351],
• Reuters [Reuters Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn/explainer-j-k-rowling-and-trans-women-in-single-sex-spaces-whats-the-furore-idUSKBN23I3AI],
• Independent [Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html]
• Pink News [The philosopher and feminist Judith Butler has skewered the tenets underpinning trans-exclusionary feminism in an email exchange so magnificent it should be printed out and framed. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/23/judith-butler-trans-exclusionary-gender-critical-feminism-jk-rowling-transphobia/]

The reality is that in full accordance with Biographies of Living Persons policy's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the are indeed several top quality sources WP:RSP that do support the transphobic claim, and "If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." WP:PUBLICFIGURE and while we should always adhere to due weight of all the sources covering the subject, we really should avoid any false balance of a few individuals compared to national organisations and reliable media. Several sources directly identify her as being with transphobia, while other sources simply say that her views are anti-trans, or that critics have accused her of being transphobic/phobia. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"for defense of single sex spaces" was poor wording, but I struggled to find something less misleading than "she has received support for her views on transgender people". This is essentially the root of my reasoning for why this declarative statement does not belong in the lede. As for sources;

• The Independent JK Rowling: Ian McEwan and Graham Linehan among literary figures to support author amid transphobia row
• The Times John Cleese joins stars backing JK Rowling in trans row
• Entertainment Weekly Eddie Izzard defends J.K. Rowling, says she doesn't believe author is transphobic
• USA Today Ralph Fiennes 'can't understand the vitriol' toward J.K. Rowling after transphobic comments

It's worth noting that these sources are both not opinion pieces and not references to vague third parties, such as "critics" and "some" people. And, as I said, I don't believe this should be in the lede either, but the claim that she is "mostly known" for being transphobic should raise far more questions about the intent of those making the claim and their suitability to be influencing this page than my poorly worded example. John Bullock (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Jbullock, you seem unable to distinguish between what reliable sources say in their own voice, and what they quote celebrities as saying. So USATODAY, in the article you linked, refers to the author's (Rowling's) transphobic comments. EW points out in its lead paragraph that Rowling's controversial comments about the trans community have been widely condemned as transphobic - almost identical to language I proposed above. The Times states that Rowling has attracted criticism for comments on gender identity, but denies she is transphobic. Of all these sources, only The Independent comes anywhere near supporting the contention that criticism and support for Rowling's views are in any way balanced.

Also, I for one have never suggested that this article should lead with a statement that Rowling is transphobic; on the other hand, anyone paying attention over the last three years or so would see that Rowling has been in the news mostly in relation to trans issues rather than, say, the Wizarding World IP. I am not seeing a policy-compliant reason to bury this while subtly promoting the Strike TV adaptation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Bodney's set of sources overwhelmingly does not put the accusations in their own voice either. Do not single out Jbullock83 and cease casting aspersions. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Jbullock83: if you look at the RS coverage available and conclude that the chosen phrasing could just as accurately be "has been praised for her defence of single-sex spaces", then I don't think you should be editing, or contributing to discussions on, this article. And conjuring up a FRINGE/MANDY interpretation as a FALSEBALANCE to what reliable, independent sources actually say should pretty much disqualify you from BLP editing in general, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

See above regarding that specific wording. As for the rest, editing is not a problem--I would never make a contentious edit to a page, that's why I'm here on the talk page. But the fact my raising this disagreement should, in your eyes, disqualify me from contributing to the discussion doesn't exactly instil me with confidence about your ability to make that kind of decision objectively. John Bullock (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see my notes about your slanted use of sources, above. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict, i hope in the correct place) John Bullock These are celebrities and other individuals with no expertise on the subject matter compared to national specialist organisations that are definitely highly qualified to recognise problems in this area and a eminently qualified gender specialist. You can not compare. They are not equal. , eg WP:FALSEBALANCE ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

As this isn't the place to highlight inconsistencies with said authoritative organisations criteria for being "transphobic", and as I've already pointed out that several of your sources are reporting on tweets and "critics", I'll settle for simply reminding you that the primary point of contention was not whether she is transphobic, but whether she is known for being transphobic. Sufficiently known for it to be in the opening sentence. Or, in the case of one claim in this discussion, "mostly known" for it. While the opinion of Grace Robertson on issues of transphobia may be more authoritative in your eyes, it shouldn't be a controversial statement to say that the comments of global celebrities like Stephen Fry and Eddie Izzard are far wider-reaching, thus entirely relevant to a discussion about what she is known for. John Bullock (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we base our editorial decisions on what reliable sources say in their own voice, not on what they quote celebrities as saying. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And how are these reliable sources (including several quoting tweets, unnamed critics, and other celebrities) used to prove that the best-selling author of producer of one of the biggest film franchises in cinema is "known for" something other than those things? Actually never mind. I've already got serious doubts about your impartiality, and if we keep debating this topic you're going to run out of sanctions to give me. I've made my case. John Bullock (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Of the sources you yourself produced, most of them refer to Rowling's "transphobic comments", her "controversial comments that have been condemned as transphobic" or her comments "that have attracted criticism, but which she denies are transphobic" - and these are usually in the lead sentences of the respective sources. Rodney has produced additional sources that document the widespread public controversy over Rowling's attitudes towards trans people. Academic papers have been published on the subject.

This article currently has a first sentence that directs more attention to Rowling having produced Strike (TV series) than the accusations of transphobia. Frankly, I don't think that is DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't care if "television producer" is dropped, but that does not justify insertion of POV in the first sentence. As I noted above, reliable sources generally do not call her transphobic or whatever in their own voice either, so the argument to cram that accusation in the first sentence stripped of the support (which we already agreed on for lower in the lead) is POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The recent, reliable sources generally note prominently that Rowling has been accused of transphobia, and so should we. And the sources saying that "she has been accused by some people of transphobia, but has been defended by others" are clearly a minority compared to those that simply mention the accusations. Insisting on FALSEBALANCE is, in fact, POV, and if that's the kind of encyclopaedia you want to edit I'm sure one is out there waiting for your input. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Xxanthippe, why do you feel the inclusion of "television producer" (a relatively obscure activity not elaborated on in the lead) in the first sentence makes the first sentence "more balanced"[2]? The removal was discussed above in this section. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, please also comment on what people in this section are pushing to add to the first sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• I can't imagine other encyclopedias bothering with this stuff at all. Politics of J. K. Rowling indeed! 😂 What next: Politics of Wayne Rooney? Here, we can start the article using this informative website. Apparently he endorsed Obama... Tewdar (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (To borrow Newimpartial's rightful charge) Yet another splendid example of an editor using an unreliable source about a unrelated individual with no relevance to the discussion at hand that makes it highly questionable whether they should be editing, or contributing to discussions on BLPs or editing in general. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you have failed to grasp the point I was trying to make. Again. And lay off the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions, will ya? Tewdar (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, advocates for insertion of this POV need to stop making attacks and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about competence. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
      • ⊳ I made no accusation of bad faith, I did however undeniably question the relevance of the contribution ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Tewdar, the day I see academic articles about the Politics of Wayne Rooney is the day I might see your argument here as something other than a false parallel and a red herring. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I give roughly equal weight to Rooney and Rowling's political views. They're not exactly Marx and Engels, are they... Tewdar (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I could be wrong, but I don't think you'll find one of these about Rooney... Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Did you search Google Scholar yet? I think I can put the article into draft space within an hour! 😂 Tewdar (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
          • the man's a future Prime Minister! OMG I thought it couldn't get any worse! Tewdar (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Calling her a transphobe in the very first sentence is very POV, full of blatant recency bias, and not what she's known for, plain and simple. The reason why she gets so much coverage for supposedly being transphobic these days is because she was already known as the author of the Harry Potter series. Discounting the fact that she is notable already, this is just the equivalent of somebody being slammed on twitter for not being fully politically correct; with the knowledge of her being notable, it's the equivalent of other notable people expressing their political views such as how outspoken Mark Ruffalo is about the Kyle Rittenhouse case (which also got plenty of media coverage, and is mentioned on his article, but is not covered in the very first sentence because, like Rowling, political commentary is not what he's most notable for). I do think the controversy is important enough to cover in a section of the article, but putting it in the very first sentence just reeks of POV bias. I'm going to open up an rfc to get some more objective-minded people here if the points made by me, John Bullock, Corsaroads, Tewer, that one IP at the beginning, and anybody else I may be missing. Unnamed anon (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The article will not benefit from an RfC without a clear question, neutrally formulated. And nobody has proposed calling her a transphobe in the very first sentence, to my knowledge, so that would not be the relevant question anyway. Newimpartial (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

For some people, and especially younger people, she (at least personally) is better known for anti-trans activism. An article in them (part of media giant Condé Nast) published yesterday called her "Renowned TERF and occasional author" who "is known for penning transphobic rants"[3]. Obviously, nobody disputes that she is an author and that author ought to be mentioned first. The proposal is simply to have a sentence that mentions four (until recently five) different activities also somehow (not necessarily by calling her a transphobe outright) reflect the activity that has received the most sustained media coverage over the last couple of years. Exactly how we would phrase that in a succinct and neutral manner would obviously need careful consideration. Some possibilities: trans-exclusionary radical feminist (obviously), anti-trans commentator, commentator on transgender rights, anti-trans activist etc. etc. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

How about, "She is best known as a trans-excluding transphobic anti-trans activist TERF who has also written a few books."? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

How about none of them? I'm pretty young and I haven't heard about her supposedly anti-trans views until today. This is definitely notable enough to be mentioned on the page due to the controversy surrounding her, but not only is giving her an anti-trans label in the very first sentence only going to open herself up to more harassment, and giving her labels she rejects, it's just not notable enough to be in the lead. Plenty of BLPs who are notable for other endeavors are open about their political beliefs, it gets massive media coverage, and then eventually gets significantly less coverage, which is exactly what happened here. It seems like the controversy was only super widespread in June-September 2020, and only came back up recently because she got doxxed by transgender activists recently. Unnamed anon (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't care how old you are, but please stop trying to attach an RfC ID to something that isn't an RfC. See WP:RFC for information, especially WP:RFCBRIEF. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I did read RFCBRIEF, and this is a textbook example of what an RFC should be for; asking for something in the lead is literally the example there. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". I did not add a statement because Amanda's first comment of this discussion is actually fairly neutral, even if I disagree with what is being requested. If I didn't format it properly, then fix that instead of removing the tag. Remove the rfc tag again and I will have to take this to either 3RR for edit warring or ANI for trying to prevent discussion. Unnamed anon (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead focusses on what makes her notable, not what unspecified people might know her best for. Her trans opinions (which are very much as portrayed and the opinion of others) are not what makes her notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Amanda A. Brant, I think all the options you are proposing - trans-exclusionary radical feminist (obviously), anti-trans commentator, commentator on transgender rights, anti-trans activist - are terrible, and not fit for the lead section, much less the lead sentence. You can find one or two RS each that use a couple of these in their own editorial voice, but that doesn't meet the requirement in WP:LABEL for putting any of them in wikivoice, which seems to be what you are proposing. The lead section is for the notable aspects of the topic, as discussed in the body of the article and reflecting the balance of the RS - it is not for poorly-sourced evaluations.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by going out over your skis and proposing language that goes ahead of what the reliable sources en masse support, which is that Rowling has held views/made comments/expressed opinions that are widely perceived as transphobic - something that is easily sourced and that both her critics and her supporters agree on (except for a few ill-informed or tendentious editors on wikipedia, as one might expect). So I am suggesting that you make a course correction in light of your own apparent values. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The options you are referring to were only mentioned on the fly as possibilities to illustrate what form such an addition could possibly/theoretically take. They were not formal proposals, nor an exhaustive list of alternatives. Obviously the final wording would need more consideration, including consideration of what kind of language that is best supported by sources. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

But my point is that, if you don't recognize and work constructively with the difference between, say, "transphobic tweets" and "tweets that have widely been considered transphobic", you are playing into the hands of your apparent "enemies". Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC below

I have made an RFC below that more closely follows the guidelines than unnamed anon's. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 16:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC on lead sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result was overwhelmingly (re: SNOW) in favor of option A. Thus, Rowling's stance on trans issues should not be mentioned in the lead sentence. See below for an ongoing RfC about how to mention this topic within the lead as a whole. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the lead sentence of this article mention Rowling's involvement in controversies about trans issues (roughly defined) and if so, how should it be mentioned?

Option A: Do not mention them in the lead sentence.

Option B: Mention them as a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g., "anti-transgender activist".

Option C: Mention the controversy without making a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g. "who has received criticism for statements that have widely been considered transphobic".

Hopefully specific options help clear up the disorganized discussion above. As I see it, there is consensus to keep mention of her other activities (e.g. producer) in the lead sentence, and only notable disagreement about the trans part. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 15:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Considering her essay, would not "anti-trans commentator" be better than "anti-transgender activist" as an option? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As I read the question, "anti-transgender activist" is just an example for Option B. It would be entirely in-process to !vote for B but propose other terminology, such as "anti-transgender commentator". Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Rowling's primary notability was without doubt established as an author, however this does not exclude/blank out the fact that over the last few years she has now also become widely known (in the reliable media) as a prominent anti-trans commentator, I believe this is undisputable based on dozens of articles in numerous international high quality reliable sources (some of which are listed in bold above). One thing does not necessarily exclude the other, someone can become notable for more than one thing. Three years can be a long time in civil and human rights. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. Notified to this discussion by bot. Mentioning the trans statements in the lead sentence is a gross overweighting, and even in the lead is questionable given her longstanding notability as an author and not as a political activist. Referring to her even by implication as "anti-trans" or as an "acitivist" on this subject is in my view an overstatement. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. It seems to me that putting Rowling's views on trans issues in the first sentence is indeed lending undue weight, per the comments of Crossroads above with regards to NPOV and lead follows body. That said, I also don't think that the way her trans views are currently incorporated into the lede is very effective. The list of feminists who have supported Rowling's views on trans people is very short and is basically limited to gender-critical people/TERFs (the claims above that Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not fall under that category are erroneous, she has repeatedly promoted the work of noted anti-trans activist Helen Joyce).

My opinion here is that the following actions should be taken:

1. Keep the first sentence as it currently is written.

2. Reword the claim at the end of the lede that Rowling's views have received support from "some other feminists." It seems to indicate that feminists are evenly divided over support of Rowling when this is entirely false and is thus a violation of WP:UNDUE.

I am not entirely sure off the top of my head how a rewording of the last sentence of the lede would look, however at the least I think it should somehow be noted that Rowling's supporters are gender-crit/terf. This would almost certainly provide a more accurate description than just saying feminists, in any case. always forever (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)^{[notified by bot]}

• Option A Her attitudes/opinion on transgender issues belong in the lead due to its coverage in the press and for the lead to provide an accurate summary of the article. However pushing in the first sentence strikes me as a ridiculous undue hype.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A per Kmhkmh. Absolutely appropriate for the lede, not for the first sentence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. Totally WP:UNDUE for the lead sentence, and absolutely a PoV suggestion to include it. I'm actually kind of amazed this has been proposed, it's rather egregious. It's already mentioned within the lead itself, which is entirely appropriate. As a rule of thumb, don't try to fix what's not broken. — Czello 20:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A: Madness to mention it in the lede sentence; good as it is in the lede paragraphs. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. Wait, is someone seriously suggesting a first sentence like, "J. K. Rowling, is a British author, philanthropist, film producer, screenwriter, and anti-trans activist"?! 🤪🥴🤒🤕🤣 Tewdar (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • How about you wait ten years, then ask me that question again? Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Alright, I'll set my egg-timer. Tewdar (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Tewdar Honestly, after several years on Wikipedia and reading much weirder requests, your comment almost reads disrespectfully. I concur with @Newimpartial above. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Which comment? The egg-timer? Or the emoji party? Tewdar (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
          • @Tewdar Emoji party. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Oh. Well, it's probably slightly more respectful than the various acronyms that get thrown at me by some users, like 'FFS', and the various phrasings that get piped to personal attacks by others. Very respectful topic area, this. Tewdar (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
            • @Tewdar, Newimpartial, and I dream of horses: this sub-discussion is not worth any of y'all's time. If any of you feel properly wronged by other editors y'all are welcome to use the proper channels for this. Tewdar if you feel you have been the target of disrespect, the proper response is not to use emojis and sarcastic phrases — you will only add fuel to the fire. Editors are always welcome to either pay no mind or use the proper tools at their disposal (namely, noticeboards and good-faith discussions in user talk pages) when they feel wronged.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 00:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
              • @A. C. Santacruz, I thought/think the conflict is winding down, if not entirely over, but okay. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
                • I dream of horses I agree completely, just thought it worth mentioning. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• A. C. Santacruz Fair. --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A per always forever and Kmhkmh the fact that she is a "anti-transgender commentator" is unquestionably supportable for inclusion in the lede, but it does not need atm to be included in the first sentence, maybe some day in the first paragraph, but atm it would been better to simply improve the accuracy of paragraph four in line with the discussion started here and User:Always forever correction. I feel that this RfC was premature at this stage. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A: This isn't even notable enough to be in the lede at all, because a) this simply isn't what she's known for, and b) is very pov, as she has been shown to support transgender people's transitions, and the harassment she is getting seems more because she doesn't like the idea of erasing the concept of sex and lumping trans and cis women as the same thing, something I honestly agree with. I've seen transphobia before, but what Rowling said is only tangentially related; not anti-trans, just anti-erasure of differences. I think mentioning her perceived transphobia on the page under the views section, like it currently is, is fine, but not in the lede. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Unnamed anon your personal political inclinations are not justification for including or not including stuff in the lead: that would be a breach of WP:POV. Our job here is to reflect what reliable sources say about her. We don't get to decide what is or is not transphobia, either, per WP:OR. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 05:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment from RfC starter: I will not participate in this discussion, but once consensus is reached (the RfC started yesterday so it'll wait for a bit) I will start a second RfC presenting various options for wording based on the result of this RfC (such as Always forever's proposed changes, as an example). If any editor feels that is unnecessary they are free to reply under this comment. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 23:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• A. C. Santacruz, I'd respectfully suggest that you start a new discussion or RfC, whatever you prefer. As soon this discussion is closed one way or another it will be shelved and untouchable. Any discussion started under your comment would have a very short life, if at all. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Will do, The Gnome. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 12:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• A - Rowling's best known as an author. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A without a doubt. Her notability is due to her books, not her trans views. Definately shouldn't be in the lead. Masterhatch (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A – do not mention in lead sentence. This is both a WP:DUEWEIGHT and a WP:BLP issue. This is clearly a contentious issue, and BLP is categorical about how to handle that. Accusations of transphobic comments on her part has zero to do with Rowling's notability. It simply isn't what she is known for. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• A. Recommend WP:SNOW close. It is due weight to include the topic in the lead section, but not in the very first lead sentence. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

• I oppose a quick, same-day closing of this RfC, on account of the importance of the issue discussed. We should allow the time for potentially more editors to chime in. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose snow close; this was opened *today*. There is no reason not to let it run while others who haven't heard about it, or aren't online daily, find out about it and weigh in later. Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Completely agree with Mathglot. This is not a race, nor are we supposed to be hastily closing down discussions when they seem to go our way in the immediate aftermath of their being tabled. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• The main reason would be to avoid continuing a long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussion. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• We don't need to do the maximum of a month, though. You think a week is good? Or even less? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Waiting the weekend is probably good enough, I'd say, but it does seem headed towards a snow close. Most definitely a SNOW, am requesting closure now. In any case, it seems that year-on-year she's becoming more notable for her views so editors are highly encouraged to start a new RfC on this topic in the future if she continues to receive coverage about it in major publications. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 05:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC) (Appended 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC))

• Again, I strongly disagree with a same-day closing as per objections provided above by contributors, including your humble servant. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not asking it be closed today The Gnome, but I'm leaving that up to the closer. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 12:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A per WP:DUE, WP:BLP, and WP:NOTADVOCACY. And no, writing it so it is not technically in full wikivoice and similar word games does not change that the impression of such a thing would be to prominently label (essentially define) a living person as a transphobe (or whatever synonym) and to appear to use Wikipedia to score points in a culture war. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• A More than due for the lead generally, should not be in the first sentence. BSMRD (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. The opening, lead section is fairly long but quite adequate on account of the size of the main text. And, since the subject (controversial statements by Rowling regarding trans persons) is evidently notable, it deserves a place in the opening section. But not in the lead sentence! That would be a violation of the due weighting policy. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A. she is notable for her books. Thincat (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A - Rowling is notable primarily for her creation and continued management of the Wizarding World IP. No prejudice in this !vote against certain changes to the lead sentence, such as removal of the reference to her (largely non-notable) role in television production. Rowling's interventions in trans-related controversies are certainly notable, though less prominent than the IP she created, and do justify mention later in the lead section, as in the present article version. Also, the language used to refer to these should be tightened up in line with what the sources actually say - I value BLP principles rather than FALSEBALANCE and whitewashing. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FA review?

Article was nominated in 2008. I believe there's a couple problems that prevent this article from meeting the WP:FACR. First, the article is not stable. The length of the article may be an issue too, going into unnecessary detail that is not always summary style. I think a FA review may be in order. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, FormalDude. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

2007. The article is now more than twice the readable prose size as the version that passed FA, so there is a lot of unvetted content. It is still within WP:SIZE guidelines, though, so examples of what content needs trimming to meet WP:SS should be given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this BLP is going to be suitable for FA for a long time. It is currently contentious with POV warriors fighting backwards and forwards over it. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC).

Please remember that WP:FAR is not dispute resolution, so if someone submits this article to FAR based on 1e stable, they should be prepared to demonstrate lack of stability with specific diffs, specific issues where WP:SS is not adequately used, or specific problems with prose, neutrality, comprehensiveness, sourcing or MOS compliance. Since the original (and competent FA) nominator, Serendipodous, has not touched the article in over a year, I would not be surprised to find that the prose or sourcing has deteriorated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Demonstrating those things should not be difficult, and this article hasn't been FA material for quite some time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Likely, but if the article goes to FAR (after the two-week wait period from notification), I hope the nominator recognizes that dispute resolution does not continue to FAR, the issue there is only whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, and that is the case to be made. The case probably can be made, but I haven’t seen that addressed yet here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey: proceed to WP:FAR?

• Yes. Seeing as there are significant problems with the article's ability to meet FACR, I think we should proceed with FA review. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Moot proposal, not how it works. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR. After a two-week wait period from notification on talk, anyone can submit to FAR. A survey, or consensus, is not needed. Please review other articles at FAR to understand that the only concern there is WP:WIAFA, not dispute resolution. Further, the notification (above) did not do a very good job of describing exactly what needs to be addressed for the article to meet WIAFA (as I’ve mentioned a few times). An honest talk effort to describe and resolve issues is expected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Just from the stability point, if 16 out of the last 50 edits (per time and date of this comment) have been reverted, I'd expect an in-depth analysis of the last half a year would probably find a trend of instability. However, when moving on to the actual FAR step of the process (with its appropriate subpage) a stronger case would probably be needed. I'm not particularly experienced with FAs, though (much more with GAs and the step between them is a significant one), so I'd recommend someone else start this. I'd have to do a close reading as well to determine whether the article is a good summary or not. In any case, reviewing FAs every so often is good practice to keep sure they are "the very best of Wikipedia". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  The stability criterion at WP:WIAFA was never intended to account for normal editing, even when that occurs at a very fast pace to keep the article updated, so yes, the case for ongoing edit warring and disruption would have to be made. But you can probably save yourself(ves) some effort and make a stronger case re WIAFA based on the other criteria. I haven't looked, so am just guessing, but unstable articles are usually failing in other areas as well; I am intentionally not looking, rather just responding about how the WP:FAR process works, so as to be a neutral reviewer should the article appear at FAR. I hope the person who said the article was too long will lay out where the content needs trimming to meet WP:SS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  To be perfectly honest I agree with your reasoning. However, I don't have much intention to dedicate more time to J.K. Rowling than I already have as I am currently focusing on getting the Bank of North Dakota and the First Carlist War articles to GA and responding to RfC bots from time to time. Would be nice for there to be some kind of "FA articles identified as good candidates for review" noticeboard or something along those lines for cases like these. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  Where in my case, the time spent here making sure a potential FAR nom is done correctly saves time later! A._C._Santacruz in fact, there is such a place and we would love to have more hands helping at WP:URFA/2020 (I saw the news of this article where I check all new additions at WP:FARGIVEN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  I believe a thank you for both your time here and the link is in order, SandyGeorgia :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  And thank you for the interest! My verbosity pays off for once :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead

Hi! I'm making a second RfC as it seems the first one has resulted in clear consensus that her trans-related views deserve mention in the lead, but not the lead sentence. Below I have written a few possible ways to do so (in vague terms). Feel free to suggest other ways as well.

A: Leave as is. Namely: Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists and individuals.

B: Since 2019, Rowling has received significant attention for her views on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been widely criticized as transphobic in mainstream media and mainstream feminism, yet has received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists, some artists, and a few conservative politicians.

C: Since 2019, coverage of Rowling's views on transgender people and related civil rights has gained increasing prominence in the media. Her views, published on social media and her personal website, have been widely criticized as transphobic in mainstream media and mainstream feminism, yet have received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists, some artists, and a few conservative politicians.

D: Leave it out of the lead completely. (This was originally the 'Other' option, but has become a de facto 'exclude from the lead' choice. I moved 'Other' to option F.) Firefangledfeathers 03:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

E: Include in the lead section, with other language to be determined later. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

F: Other. Please propose an alternative if you do vote this option. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Option D, otherwise option A. Leave out entirely. I did vote for A originally, but I think there are compelling arguments for D below, such as by  SMcCandlish and Masem. — Czello 09:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Option A. I see nothing wrong with the current wording, and I feel this is a case of "don't try to fix what's not broken". — Czello 18:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A. It is the most accurate and was agreed on after much discussion already in the archives. Strongly oppose B and C per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. "Widely criticized" is either WP:Original research (OR) or based on cherry-picking sources; most do not use such WP:Puffery. "Mainstream media" is OR and false; the vast majority of the mainstream media does not call her transphobic or anything like that in its own voice and instead remains neutral on the allegations. "Mainstream feminism" is OR. "Trans-exclusionary radical feminists" is a BLP violation of the people mentioned in the body of the article per consensus from an RfC at the BLP noticeboard. All these phrases are massive problems regarding NPOV. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I was indeed questioning whether or not it's true whether mainstream media has "widely criticised" her as being transphobic, because I'm sure that's not true. — Czello 20:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Entertainment Weekly has said so in almost exactly those words; I'm sure other sources agree. Would it help if I dug them up for you? Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Cherry-picking a few examples isn't going to make "widely" any less of a WP:WEASEL problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not only is it cherry-picked, but that source doesn't say anything about "mainstream media"; it just itself asserts "widely criticized". As I've said before, entertainment magazines make no pretense of sociopolitical objectivity in reporting, nor would we expect them to be particularly good at reporting on that topic. Its actual point, with no sources stating otherwise, is that genderfluid person Eddie Izzard defended Rowling. This is absent from either of the articles on the topic, so thanks for the source so I can fix that. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  I know what the article is about, thanks. For convenience, I have linked a representative sample of other sources for "widely criticized" below. I am not trying to find sources for by mainstream media, because that isn't language I support for this article - I understood Czello to be saying, essentially, "mainstream media doesn't say she's been widely criticized", not "mainstream media doesn't say mainstream media says she's been widely criticied", since that last point seems silly to me. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A I think that sums it up better than the other options. Masterhatch (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Change to D as well with A as second choice. Masterhatch (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A Perfect the way it is; the most objective wording IMO, and perfect position currently as well. When it was mentioned that it should be in the lead, I thought that meant the first paragraph, not simply before the subsections start. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Change to Option D: Now that I know leaving it out completely is an accepted option, that's preferable imo. If people are really insistent about keeping it, option A is still the best in both its location and wording, but I'd prefer if such social media buzz that is primarily only supported by opinion sources is out of the lead completely. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D- Leave it out completely. She's most notable as an author, not as a trans hater. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree to a point. I think it needs very little weight in the article. Definately shouldn't be in the opening paragraph, never mind the lead sentence.Masterhatch (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option D- Leave it out completely, for reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC).
  • As this editor has repeatedly reverted from versions of this article that had achieved Talk page consensus or were stable versions, I don't think this content-free !vote should receive any weight from the eventual closer. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Immediate procedural close – this Rfc is tainted; it was opened (in good faith) by a user who prematurely self-closed a related rfc (see #RFC on lead sentence above) in violation of closure guidelines. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Mathglot: What supposed guidelines did they violate? There's no rules against self-closures of an RfC when consensus is obvious. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option D: Leave it out. It's not pertinent to why she's notable; it's just a post-notability media and social-media flap. I completely agree with JBullock83's previous comments on this overall question. Failing that, then option A as second choice, for reasons others have already given more concisely than I would. PS: I don't agree with the procedural close idea. We have WP:SNOW for a reason; cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.  — SMcCandlish ☏¢ 😼  03:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• The current version of the lead section consists of four long paragraphs; the current mention of these issues is two short sentences. The discussion in the lead of the subject's pseudonymous publications, of the extent of her wealth, and of her philanthropy are in each case longer than the discussion of these controversies, although the latter have received more RS (and specifically scholarly) attention. So this whole post-notability business seems to be a pure canard - this RfC is about the lead section, not the lead sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D per SMcCandlish. The true primary thing Rowling is known for is the Potter books. That is what should be the focus of the lead. Certainly this content is due in the body but I would leave it out of the lead entirely. Absent that, option A as it is the most impartial in it's telling. Springee (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The lede is literally meant to be a summary of the body. That is its purpose. You already acknowledged the section in the body, so it should be included as a sentence in the lede. The "primary thing" someone is known for has...literally nothing to do with a discussion on writing a lede. That primary thing is already in the lede, obviously. Silverseren^C 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • The purpose of the lead section is the summary the most encyclopedic key facts, not present every fact in short form. The very fact that the bulk of this stuff has been shunted off into a side article is a strong argument against it being lead-worthy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • That makes no sense. It was split to a separate article probably because of section length, per WP:SPLIT, with a brief summary kept in the main article. Calling it "shunted off" is an unnecessary use of loaded language. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Springee, the inclusion of two sentences to deal with current controversies, at the end of a four paragraph lead section, doesn't impact the focus of the lead on the Harry Potter/Wizarding World IP. That's true in Option A (the status quo) and in any of the other options as well. So your!vote doesn't seem to apply for this RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option C. First off, the justifications for removing it entirely are weak. Content in the lead does not soely have to be mainstream views, nor does it have to be related to the subject's main reason for notability. The lead is supposed to represent the body (WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), and the body goes into great depth about Rowling's views, specifically transgender views, which has a full section. Option C seems to be the best as it is the most neutrally worded SUMMARY of the content that already exists in the body. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option E. I agree with Option C for the most part per FormalDude, but I do not like the "in mainstream media" or "conservative politicians" clauses of that option since neither are really discussed in the article section (and also because I'm not entirely sure that the former is true, British media isn't exactly known for its standard-bearing support of trans people but that's a whole other can of worms), so I think they're best removed. Other than those two clauses, C seems pretty neutral and certainly avoids subtle misrepresentations present in the current version. _{Also this is barely relevant but it should say "on social media" not "in social media".} always forever (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Always forever, they are mentioned in Politics of J. K. Rowling so I assumed they'd be mentioned in the main article as well. I personally think that's more an issue of bringing it into main rather than finding it to be not discussed in the article, as U.S. senators referencing her when blocking the Equality Act is quite notable in my eyes. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, should've checked the other article. I withdraw my previous comment about the clause referencing conservative politicians. always forever (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"Widely criticized by mainstream feminism" is still original research, and "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" is still a BLP violation of the persons so described. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads "If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." from WP:PUBLICFIGURE so I'm not sure what violation you're referring to (especially when the media uses that term as well). Additionally, when Dave Chappelle gets attention in the media from saying he's "Team TERF" to indicate his support of Rowling means that some of her supporters even like the term. In regards to the OR, modern (fourth-wave) feminism is trans-inclusionary so I ask you to please include sources that say that modern feminists are mostly in agreement with TERF ideology. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion Crossroads linked above was closed with the conclusion, There is consensus that we should generally provide in text attribution when using the term "TERF" in BLP. Given that the arguments in support of that conclusion were mostly on WP:BLP grounds, I assume that is what he is referring to here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The summary of that discussion indicates in-text attribution (which seems fair) not that they cannot be called TERFs. Even if the way to word that (e.g. "has received support from a movement within fourth-wave feminism referred to as TERF") might be hard, I don't think that calls for removing the whole paragraph from the lead. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option D: Remove from the lede entirely. Perhaps in ten years' time things will be different, but right now it isn't why she is notable. Many other equally (by article coverage and additional metrics) notable views of hers (eg against press intrusion, which nobody seems bothered about) are not included in the lede, and rightly so. Furthermore, the issue is controversial, and so not easily covered in the lede, as illustrated by the current terrible lede wording on this topic. Tewdar (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC) modified by Tewdar (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The Trans section was kept short in this article simply because it is more fully covered in the Politics of J. K. Rowling article were it accounts to close to half of its content. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • The trans section in the Politics of J. K. Rowling article (which shouldn't exist at all, IMO) is ludicrously over-detailed. Tewdar (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Tewdar your personal opinion does not change the fact that keeping the trans section in the main article short per WP:SPLIT was the correct thing to do, and so saying using article coverage as a metric for judgement (as your vote reasoning would suggest) might not be accurate in this case if one does not consider pages split off due to length. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Tewdar, are you suggesting that most of the RS coverage of Rowling for several years now is *not* about her statements on transgender issues? If so, I'd like to see some evidence for that EXTRAORDINARY claim. If not, how is the section over-detailed? Did history end in 2016, or something? Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I am suggesting that what you might describe as "the very utmost highest quality, absolutely bloody top-notch beyond reproach reliable sourcing" is usually just sleazy click-bait. Show me any other encyclopedia general-purpose encyclopedia article about Rowling with a specific entry for Rowling that covers this subject at all. Tewdar (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Try looking in here. And if you think academic journals are usually just sleazy click-bait, perhaps you would be happier contributing to some other "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
            • That encyclopedia does not appear to have an individual entry on J. K. Rowling. Also it's a rather specific encyclopedia, not general-purpose. Perhaps I should have been more specific, to avoid those famous Newimpartial Gotcha® replies. Tewdar (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
              • • I don't know why you are looking to other general-purpose encyclopedia articles about Rowling for guidance - we are not writing a quadrenary encyclopaedia here, and I don't know how many other encyclopaedias have been revised over the last couple of years, anyway. Your argument is akin to suggesting that we shouldn't cover Covid-19 because it isn't in older encyclopaedias...Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • Britannica seems reasonably up to date with COVID. Tewdar (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
                    • Tewder ... It is not what we as individual editors consider a reliable source but what the Wikipedia community agrees are reliable sources. You are fully aware that your are able to check if a source is considered reliable at WP:RSP, if you consider a source to be unreliable you are entitled to make a case at WP:RSN ...I know you are very much aware of this. I worry that you are simply unable to tell the difference between community agreed reliable sources and sleazy click-bait gutter press. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Tewdar and Newimpartial: I suggest that the discussion here guide itself by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia without copying from other encyclopedias. That is neither our purpose nor our role in WP. The guidelines are based on decades of consensus and reinforced by thousands of discussions. Our guidelines on the lead section are clear in their wording, so appealing to other general purpose encyclopedias is unnecessary for the purpose of this discussion, and drives the discussion off-topic. Tewdar if your issue is that her trans-related views are not commented on in RS, the large amount of RSs that have been provided should dispel that. If your issue is that it is not the most notable thing about her, then you are misreading the guidelines on lead which suggest that the lead follows the body. If your issue is that the matter is controversial and therefore should not be in the lead because it is hard to write about, then you are ignoring the fact that this RfC is in fact to get community input on how to improve that wording, and I suggest you propose some ideas on addressing the issues you find in the current wording rather than removing it altogether. If your issue is that other notable views of her that are covered extensively in the article aren't in the lead and therefore the trans views should also not be covered, I'd argue that's a stronger argument for including them all rather than removing the trans views. I expect another RfC to happen after this about how to do so if the consensus is to keep the trans views in the lead, and would warmly invited you to join that discussion as well. If your argument is that the controversy is too recent that is much more defendable and you can certainly make that argument, but that's a much weaker argument for removal than the others. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @A. C. Santacruz: Thanks ever so much for that massive exposition pointing out exhaustively all of the reasons why anyone choosing to exclude mention of this issue from the lede is wrong. Perhaps this can be moved to the top, so that everybody choosing "option D - exclude" won't have to put up with boilerplate replies pointing out the same sort of thing over and over and over... Tewdar (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your thanks, but will wait for more experienced editors to indicate doing that (perhaps as a note before the survey or something along those lines) would be in the interest of the discussion, as I don't want to seem like I wish to silence other viewpoints etc. etc. I personally think doing so would reduce the bludgeoning that has been happening (whether from the right or wrong viewpoint does not matter much here) and improve the quality of discussion, but hope other editors will give me input on that (pinging @Bodney, FormalDude, Cullen328, Bastun, Dennis Brown, Masem, Binksternet, and Bilorv: as some highly experienced editors that participated in this RfC whose input here would be very appreciated). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Personally, I do not think it would be appropriate to present a one-sided help note at the beginning of the survey , it is for editors to make good arguments in their own contributions. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

        Being moderately proficient in reading Tewdar English, I think there's a high likelihood they were being sarcastic. Firefangledfeathers 13:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

        "Tewdar English", I love it! 😂 Tewdar (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

        • Oh :/. Well that's not nice Tewdar. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option C (as nom) — I think this gives much more context about the world's reaction to her views than Option A (e.g. how the views are published) and describes both the groups in favor of her views and those against better than the current lead's paragraph. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option C Option B or C are the more accurate as per User:FormalDude, User:A._C._Santacruz and Always forever's arguments, Removal is clearly WP:UNDUE, inclusion is supported by WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and by dozens of articles in numerous international highest quality Reliable sources WP:RSP (a few of which are listed in bold above). Alternatively a variant of Option A i.e. Option E (as just proposed by Newimpartial) where the wording could include a wiki link to gender-critical (or trans-exclusionary) or just Feminist views on transgender topics as suggested at Talk:J. K. Rowling#Last part of the sentence. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Amended ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D. Remove entirely. Per WP:BLPSTYLE > Loaded language; and MOS:LABEL. Attaching the label "transphobic" in the lead is a through-the-back-door injection of persuasive language. There is no acceptable "alternative" for including the POV of some editors. Edited to add: WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements...." Rowling's gender politics comments may have received coverage in UK and LGBT-related/friendly media, but it has not received the same headlines outside of the UK. What she is predominantly known for -- worldwide -- is as an author of successful and popular novels. Her gender and political viewpoints as well as her receiving death threats and being doxxed by trans activists belong in the Views section, just as the charitable causes she is involved in are under Philanthropy. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC); edited 03:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC) ^{[expand comment]}

• Pyxis Solitary, the label "transphobic" is how the media, LGBTQ+, and mainstream feminism characterizes her comments. It is not POV to describe it as so. "Her transphobic comments" is POV. "Her comments have been described as transphobic by" or other similar formulations is not POV — per WP:OPINION. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Biographies of Living Persons policy's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• This RfC is not about whether anything on this material can appear in the article at all; it's about the lead. You're quoting non-relevant rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• As I mentioned below I (too) believe this RFC is ill-prepared, premature and unnecessary, and I oppose making any changes to the paragraph in question based on it. I believe it should be closed for the reasons pointed out by others. I support the status quo agreed on after extensive debate. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Amanda A. Brant: What exactly is "ill-prepared" about this RfC? As far as I can tell, only one other person has called for a procedural close, and they did not have good reasons either. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Like Amanda A. Brant I'm not sure why this RfC exists. Of the options that do exist in it, I prefer the wording of option B, followed by option A. Option C is far too verbose for a lead, and option D is entirely policy non-compliant per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY especially in light of the Transgender people subsection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Option E. Per Newimpartial's reasoning below. If E fails, then B followed by A.Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC) tweaked on Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option A, then E, then either B or C' Option A, per Czello, but really - wait, what? What's happening here? Why is a relatively new user who I've rarely seen on this article jumping in to one of the more controversial areas on WP, proposing RFCs with their own multiple alternative wordings (thereby splitting a vote)? Has anybody actually been looking for this? The current version is actually relatively stable, as these things go. Why fix something that isn't broken?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC) [Changing to add Option E. Lead follows body. Wikipedia is not censored, and we cover Rowling's recent controversies in this article and the subject's political views receive enough coverage that they also warrant their own full article. Excluding this from mention in the lede would be bizarre]. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Bastun I got summoned by bot to the discussion above my first RfC and saw that perhaps the discussion that was happening (which I saw as disorganized and unfocused) could be benefited by 2 RfCs with clear options that could guide discussion (e.g. should it be in the lead sentence and if so how, and should it be in the lead and if so how). I understand now that the similarities between B and C are muddling this discussion and that is my error. However, I reasoned that having 3 options (status quo, a small addition, and a small addition with more description of how the views are made public, and other choices) would be helpful as clear options that guide discussion. The state of the discussion above my RfCs indicates that if not broken, it might still benefit from recent, specific community consensus on the lead. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• New user A._C._Santacruz is clearly here for the right reasons, has navigated complex guidelines as best they could, and acquits themself well. That said (and this is getting o/t here), Bastun's point makes me wonder if the FRS bot should be adjusted to retrieve a topic's ArbCom D/s status, as well as a user's WP:XC and Arb D/s warning status, and react in some t.b.d. way. If there's interest, we should move this aside to User talk:Yapperbot. Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot this seems like quite the interesting proposal, I'd support starting the discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!

• Option A Lede follows body. It is a section in the body, it should have at least a sentence in the lede. To do otherwise is trying to purposefully hide content in the body. Anyone arguing otherwise is going directly against policy. Silverseren^C 01:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option E (which I added above) - I have never done this before, but I cannot !vote for any of the options given. A is mealy-mouthed and promotes FALSEBALANCE; B and C are flawed in almost exactly the same way, and by now any !vote for D could be mistaken as a !vote to leave this material out. As borne out by the body of this article, by Politics of J. K. Rowling, and by previous discussions at this very Talk page, issues arising from Rowling's statements on transgender issues are more than DUE for inclusion in what is a longish (lead section). The material should be included by policy, in a neutral way that meets BLP and DUE requirements without succumbing to whitewashing or deviating from what the sources actually say. I'm confident that the discussion to discern what this language is simply hasn't started yet in earnest - the stable version can stay as a placeholder until we have something better. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer B, would be okay with A. As Silver seren says, lead follows body, and so it bears mentioning; B feels the option that offers the most context but the simpler reading in A is not a bad option either. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option B As a billionaire, Rowling is one of the most powerful people in the world and of all the ways she has used her power and influence, in terms of count and depth of media coverage she is most known for her hatemongering against the trans community. This is not an area where she has casual opinions; the media she sought and acquired has made her a thought leader for oppression of trans people. Based on my experience editing Wikipedia, seeing this kind of media coverage makes me think her actions in the trans movement are defining features of her biography, public image, and historical record. Option B could be reworded, but in any case, I choose it because I support communicating that many sources - including LGBT+ organizations, mainstream media, and most of her prominent colleagues in performing her works - all see fit to report her hostility to one of the most vulnerable, attacked, and underprivileged demographics of society. The weight of the sources merits including this prominently in the lead. Bodney has a more complete list of sources in another section but here are some for this discussion.
  • Ennis, Dawn (19 December 2019). "J.K. Rowling Comes Out As A TERF". Forbes.
  • Gilchrist, Tracy E. (6 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling Goes Full TERF in New Series of Transphobic Tweets". www.advocate.com.
  • Robertson, Grace (12 June 2020). "Where J.K. Rowling's Transphobia Comes From". Vanity Fair.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Quick note: the Forbes source is not an RS per WP:FORBESCON. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• And The Advocate is, well, advocacy. It is not independent of the subject (the one this thread is open about, I don't mean Rowling as the subject of the article), so it's of no use to cite in this thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I am out of touch about the decline of Forbes. I struck that. As for The Advocate, if there is a wiki-policy-based explanation for why community publications are excluded from talk about their own communities then I want to see it. The Advocate is a fine source for presenting mainstream LGBT community views. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; SMcCandlish is offering a "unique" reading of WP:INDEPENDENT, here. Taken to its logical conclusion, we couldn't cite UK broadsheets on UK political issues... Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Since there is a tendency to shoot the messenger and squelch dissenting voices, I don't know what "mainstream LGBT community views" could be, but if The Advocate gets a pass we can also use community publications that are on the other side of the PC popularity aisle; such as Lesbian and Gay News, AfterEllen. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option D – Delete Her views on trans people are incidental to her notability. The article has an extensive section on her views ranging from religion and politics to the media to trans issues, yet only the latter is deemed worthy of mention. If the lead is to mention her views then it should be balanced and in proportion to the coverage of her other stances, otherwise it just looks like wiki-activism. If it is to remain then the wording would have to be balanced with her other positions. Betty Logan (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A or (2nd choice) Option D, as undue in the lead. For a British person, option C is a complete non-starter - those sweeping characterizations might be true for the US (though I rather doubt it), but are certainly not for the UK, where she lives. Support for her position is much wider than that in the media, & no doubt the wider public. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• No more than in the politics article: The article Politics of J.K. Rowling contains two lines in the lede on her trans-related views, along with various party political and referendum declarations. None of these views should be more represented on the main article than on the specific Politics article. (copied from below) The mention about trans issues may be present or absent from this article but it would be incoherent in my opinion for the main article to give greater detail to a secondary subject than the specific article dealing with the secondary suject. I think that Wikipedia should be consistent and coherent, especially across two very closely related articles. If any expansion might possibly be worthwhile, it would be over at the Politics article. (added) Munci (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D (also bad formed RFC choices - all three are POV language, some only more inflammatry than the others) - this is not even remotely close to being what she is notable for. Putting it in the lede is undue RECENTISM, and it most certainly violates many facets of the spirit of BLP, and probably multiple instances of the letter as well (but I refuse to engage in endless Wikilitigation over that). Putting any of the three options in the lede would mean the encyclopaedia is being used as a mouthpiece for a misogynistic and homophobic "lynch" mob, thinly veiled in the "inclusive sheep"'s clothing in order to fool some proponents of women's and gays' rights, and to intimidate the rest of them for fear of being destroyed if they dare speak.
• The only way this can possibly be mentioned neutrally - and it is UNDUE for the lede regardless - would be to state exactly what she said, then briefly describe that she received backlash from some feminists and LGBT activists, and support from other feminists and LGBT activists. Anything beyond that violates NPOV. The non-activist community at large, here, needs to understand (and eventually, I think, will need to acknowledge) that there is a cold civil war going on right now in the feminist and LGBT circles - all of the involved parties are marginalised groups, and both sides say they are being waged war on by the other side. Only one side engages in personal campaigns to destroy the reputation against individuals that disagree with them, though, and we have a squadron of editors here dedicated to that goal as well (certain of whom "can't wait until every last homosexual is dead and buried"). And for the record: we have sex-separated spaces SOLELY because of material reality: females are weaker, only females can become pregnant, and only males can impregnate them, potentially against their will. None of that has anything to do with how anyone "identifies", and claiming it does is dishonest. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Would someone be so kind so as to collapse this IP's tantrum? Wikipedia is not a soapbox and neither is this talk page. Cold civil war lynch mob, I swear to god...Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Option D, or second choice option A Option C is too POV in tone, the others, meh. This issue is going to simmer down one way or the other and is not a defining feature of who she is. Most of all, avoid recentism and always keep it NPOV. Montanabw^(talk) 08:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

• Option D – Delete Wikipedia is not the place for Terf-wars. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I hope your vote is completely ignored. We follow how the news reports on subjects and there has been extensive reporting on Rowling's views on trans people. Hence why there's a section in the article. And the lede is meant to be a summary of the body. Silverseren^C 02:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Feel free to go start a trash tabloid where your views will be welcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Only in death: Please take comments such as the one above to another forum. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option B although I would drop “mainstream”; apart from that it seems the most precise. And two sentences seems well warranted by the space devoted in the body of the entry. (Meanwhile I would suggest trimming the five sentences on how wealthy she is, which corresponds to a shorter section of the body.) Note: I was summoned by Smcandlish’s post on WikiProject Novels. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A Informative, concise and neutral. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D exclude from the lead, as articulated by SMcCandlish her views have nothing to do with her notability or her fame. Failing exclusion, option A is the least objectionable biased language. Cavalryman (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

• That's just wrong on what ledes are for? They are meant to be a summary of the body of the article. There is a section on the subject in the article, so it should be summarized in the lede. SMcCandlish's claim is completely worthless for this discussion, as it has nothing to do with how ledes are made. Silverseren^C 02:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• A lede is not required to touch on every point in the body - in fact this is usually impossible to do for a lenghty article. At some point you have to decide what are details fall below a threshold to be included. Or another way - the lede should be a sufficiently complete summary that if that is the only thing they read, they have a fairly comprehensive picture of the topic. Minor controveries compared to what makes one notable are the types of things that aren't necessary for that --Masem (t) 01:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option D Delete. There seems to be an obsession with many to include views on transgender when it isn't what made the person famous and/or "notable". It has gotten enough press to warrant coverage in the article for sure, but the lede should summarize what it is that makes this person notable. Her political views simply aren't that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Her pseudonymous novels and her philanthropy aren't what made the person famous and/or "notable" in this case, either, but they each occupy more space in this article's lead than the controversies - even though the controversies have attracted *much* more media and scholarly attention in recent years than those other topics. So you might want to recalibrate...Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Fallacious reasoning. There's nothing controversial about including her other novels or philanthropy in the lead. But there is very certainly controversy about including this trans-related stuff, which is itself about controversy, so bound for tighter BLP and PoV scrutiny. If you genuinely think those other things should not be in the lead, then feel free to open a separate discussion about removing them. It's not germane in this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "but the lede should summarize what it is that makes this person notable." This is...false? Like, completely wrong on every level of what the lede is for. The lede is a summary of the body content of the article. It is not a summary of "notable" things, other than that everything included in the body of an article with references is by definition notable. You seem to want the lede to only mention that she made the Harry Potter books and Fantastic Beasts films and nothing else? I guess we could have a two-sentence lede and nothing else then. Is that what you're arguing for? Silverseren^C 03:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Plus/besides the point ....Many people are notable for more than one thing e.g. Donald Trump, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson etc etc and this get included in their lead sections. Should we mention in the lead that she is also a philanthropist, film producer, and screenwriter ? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 03:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • There is nothing controversial about mentioning those things, and most of them are directly relevant to her notability (at least an order of magnitude more people have watched HP films than read the books). Philanthropy, maybe not. Lots and lots, maybe most, very wealthy people engage in at least some philanthropy, after all. But this isn't an RfC about those things; it's not the "what should be in the lead?" RfC. It's about one specific thing which has become a WP controvery, about something that is itself a social-media controvery, about an underlying socio-political controversy. It's controversial three times over, so it is not comparable to "and is a screenwriter and film producer".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It has gone beyond social media, on the 10th June 2020 Rowling an author with an international platform purposefully published a 3,600-word essay on her website ~ on 19 June, the Equality Act was blocked in the US Senate after Republican senator James Lankford opposed it, citing Rowling's essay as part of his reasoning. Her views on transgender people have had a real world effect, her views have been covered internationally in countless reliable sources, with various levels of neutrality and criticism, I do not think we can simply dismiss it as a social media controversy. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D or Option A as second choice. Omission of a political position that while well-covered but which has mixed responses is a smart play (leaving the details to the body where there's clearly more room for discussion). But if it must be included, the current wording and position in the lede is succinct, neutral, and placed appropriately. --Masem (t) 03:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D. Don’t mention it in the lead at all. The earlier discussion found consensus to omit this subject from the first sentence, but there was no consensus to have it in the lead anywhere. The lead is supposed to reflect the article, in rough proportion to the coverage a given subject receives. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. So let’s look at the article’s contents. The main section is Life and Career; that constitutes more than half the article, with five subsections about her biography and eight about her writing; this justly makes up most of the lead. Subsequent sections are Philanthropy (a large section with multiple subsections, deserving of the single sentence it gets in the lead); Influences (not enough material to be mentioned in the lead); Views (has four subsections, one of which is Transgender people; a single subsection does not qualify for lead mention); Legal disputes (too little material for a lead mention); and Awards and Honours (a large section, mentioned in the lead). Bottom line, no, we do not single out one four-paragraph subsection and put a sentence about it in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Consensus to include in the Lead with a variant of the existing wording was established following multiple previous discussions on this talk page, which you will find in the archives (amongst many Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 8#Transgender views controversy in lead redux and Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 8#Lede sentence rewrite) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 03:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that the only reason that the paragraph is only 4 sentences is because it has its own section in Politics of J. K. Rowling that more fully covers those views. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} ^{[ talk | contribs ]} 12:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• I vote for Option D, to not mention in the lead at all. WP:UNDUE provides that "undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." Including this sentence in the lead section would give a 'prominent placement' to Rowling's views on this matter (which, for what it's worth, I am personally against and find to be trans-phobic). Her views here are are tangential to her reason(s) for notability. Moreover, one could argue that if this were to be included, then other aspects of her views from the Politics, Religion, and Press sections should be noted in the lead as well. Although all are important to include for the balance of the entire article, none warrant inclusion in the lead. There, I think that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE require no mention of this in the lead, and vote for *Option D. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D. Do not include in the lede at all because it's WP:UNDUE. The claim that the issue was settled previously is irrelevant, since consensus can change, especially when a wider group of editors becomes aware of it. I also below that some entrenched page editors are already fishing for some wiki-lawyering ways of preserving the mention in the lede if the discussion goes against inclusion -- which tells me that this is a case of righting great wrongs and further confirms my conclusion that it should be excluded from the lede -- and any admin closing this should ignore that. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  You have it backwards. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as evidenced by editors ignoring Wikipedia policies like LEADFOLLOWSBODY, misinterpreting DUEWEIGHT, and not following WP:LEADBIO which states Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole. Removing this content, given its extensive coverage in the body, is blatant suppression. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  • ^{(I did not claim that it had been settled previously, I simply replied to the assertion that the was no consensus to include, by saying that the had been a pre-existing consensus to include resulting from several past discussions, and i never implied that consensus could not change.) ~ BOD ~ TALK 08:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)}

• You have it backwards. Bullcrap. Your response is quite literally what I said was happening: a wiki-lawyering attempt at asserting the non-existent bureaucratic authority of citing Wikipedia guidelines as if they were black-and-white unambiguous requirements, AND proclaiming that a previous discussion is written in stone and cannot be altered. Congratulations on proving my point for me, and my choice stands. --Calton | Talk 08:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• • • • Calton WP:TONEITDOWN. Warm reminder this page falls under the discretionary sanctions under Gender & Sexuality. You've made your point. As someone with as much experience here as you have, please be more civil.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D - Remove from lead per WEIGHT. -- GreenC 06:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  This comment should be ignored as it gives no justification to how WEIGHT applies. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  At the end of the day, a lot of what counts as "prominent", etc., has a great deal of unavoidable subjectivity. I disagree that any comment should just be ignored and I say this as someone who chose a different option from GreenC. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  On Wikipedia we make policy based arguments to form consensus. If you cannot do that basic minimum, your comments should be ignored. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• You are confusing -- I suspect quite deliberately -- guidelines with requirements in order to reach a predetermined conclusion and trying to impose it by bureaucratic fiat. NOt how Wikipedia works, and, bluntly, YOUR well-poisoning should be ignored as irrelevant to forming an actual consensus. --Calton | Talk 08:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option D. Remove from lede. I saw this advertised at a village pump. Pretty much everything about this drama is Wikipedia at its worst, in my view. Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: Typically you have more constructive input than this... ––FormalDude ^talk 09:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• FormalDude To elaborate, then, to me this is obviously a judgement call about what's WP:DUE summary in the lede, and - despite the protestations of various POV-warriors - is not WP:CLEARLY decidable one way or the other in the context of the PW:PAGs. I gave my judgement. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• This topic has been mentioned in the lead section for almost a year, in various formulations. The idea that drama or POV-warriors were involved is, ahem, unproven. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• This topic has been mentioned in the lead section for almost a year... And this hasn't received wider attention in that time. Did you have something resembling a point, then? --Calton | Talk 09:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• B, C, A in that order, though I would be open to rewordings. Oppose complete omission or removal in strongest possible terms and I strenuously urge that anyone supporting that without a policy-compliant rationale be disregarded (since many of the people arguing for that have flatly and unequivocally presented no policy-based rationale; and an RFC is not a vote.) B is the most precise and most accurately reflecting who has said what according to the best available sources. C is a more verbose version of B that doesn't add much that I can see. A is less precise and downplays the level of coverage, but is still acceptable. Removing entirely is unacceptable given the level of coverage - while it is not the thing she is most notable for (and therefore doesn't belong in the lead sentence), it is a major aspect of her notability and her reputation today - a quick news search, for instance, shows that it not only makes up the bulk of coverage now, but that if you go back it makes up much of the coverage of her for the past year, in a plainly WP:SUSTAINED fashion; this is far beyond the level we would require for coverage in the lead in most other contexts. Just a quick summary of sustained coverage includes [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][[19][20][21][22][23]. Note that these cover over a year of coverage, many of them themselves noting the overwhelming impact it has had on her reputation. It has been extensively covered (with entire articles devoted to it) in places like the New York Times, The Guardian, NBC, NPR, and CNN for years on end. It's one thing to argue over how best to word it, but arguing for complete omission is difficult to defend. On top of this, the relevant controversy is a substantial section of the article itself, which requires inclusion in the lead per WP:LEAD. --Aquillion (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• B, C, A, Oppose complete omission or removal in strongest possible terms along with Aquillion. For reasons I have explained at length many times before. It has been an inseperable and major part of her activism for a while now, and that part only seems to be growing bigger. I understand that as an encyclopedia we inevitably lag behind what people are doing at any given point in time, but I don't see why we should ignore what is clearly becoming a very major part of her activity. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A (leave as is) or Option D (drop it from the lead completely). Given the amount of recent press reports around and the section in the article's body a short mentioning in the lead seems certainly justified. However given her general notability (to audiences at large) this seems a marginal issue, which means Option D might be a valid option as well (or might be again in the future). Personally I have the impression that with regard to (alleged) transphobia of various celebrities, that it is getting hyped to the point of hounding in some cases with little sense of nuance (and disregard for anybody not sharing the orthodoxy). Hence considering WP:BLP I tend to be hesitant to include too much of it in the main article/biography of a person.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose to options B and C, Prefer option D (remove), but am also Happy with A - options B and C suggest that she doesn't get any support from non-radical feminists, but this is contradicted by penultimate paragragh of the transgender section, so B and C are misleading. Option A is the most neutral wording, in my opinion. However, I don't see how her views on transgender issues are WP:DUE for the lead. The lead is supposed to sumarise the main points of the article. Focussing in on one aspect of the "views" section of her article, whilst completing neglecting to mention the other sections there fails WP:NPOV in my opinion. I also reject the counter-argument to this, that the length of the transgender section means it is due, it is roughly the same length as some of the other sections ("politics" and "press").(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, though it may need some slight tweaks so adding Option E as a second choice. I think dropping the "mainstream" wording like Innisfree987 suggested would probably suffice. I also oppose complete omission or removal in strongest possible terms, this idea of removing it seems ludacris to me, given that lately the only times I seem to hear about Rowling is when she makes these kinds of comments, or people are referring to her in respect to those comments. Most recent media coverage of her is also in regards to her views on trans people. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} ^{[ talk | contribs ]} 12:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D, with one of two possibilities. Deleting it from the lede would be acceptable and might be preferable per WP:RECENT. Alternatively, it might be WP:DUE to write a short paragraph about the "Views" section of the article, and include a briefer sentence (shorter even than Option A) about transgender issues there. That is, I'm suggesting it could be due to cover the whole of the Views section, but that summarizing only a negative subsection seems WP:UNDUE to me. I was brought in by the post at WP:Wikiproject Biography. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RECENT can't apply - at least to this RfC. Per MOS:LEAD, the content of the lead follows the content of the article body. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that emphasizing events since 2019 in the lede is exactly the sort of thing that WP:RECENT is talking about. But my alternative suggestion is indeed to bring the lede into closer agreement with the article body. As her political views have gotten some broader coverage (not just recently), perhaps this is indeed the better policy-based option. I will strike "might be preferable" accordingly. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• B, C, A or E. So far as I can tell, ~all current coverage of Rowling is about her stance on trans issues. Yes, this is 'recent' and not representative of the previous 20 years she's been in public life. But equally, it is significant. The lead section is very long, and a one or two sentence mention of this controversy in the lede is perfectly proportionate. The Land (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• A. D is absolutely off the table. Them coverage of Rowling's newfound TERFdom is widespread, but has not (yet) had a demonstrable impact on her career or works. She is still primarily known as one of the most successful authors of the generation. Zaathras (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• B or C. Option A is the sort of sentence that makes it seem there's good people on both sides of bigotry. Similarly, attempts to remove mentions of her immensely publicized transphobia from the lede when that dimension has almost overshadowed her career as a writer in recent years would be a disservice to the readers of this page, but a great service to the PR team of a billionaire. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Option A is the sort of sentence that makes it seem there's good people on both sides of bigotry. - funny, we used to call attackers of rights of women and gay people "bigots"; using "trans rights" as a shield to hide behind when attacking women's and gay rights so those defending them can be called "bigots" as a way around that seems to have been at least somewhat successful. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:90B0:AA68:4BDD:8E3F (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• A, leave as is. The fatal problem with B and C is that the article does not currently support a statement saying that TERFs defend her position. To the folks rehashing the previous RfC, the huge problem with removing this stuff from the lead section is the guideline at WP:LEAD telling us to summarize important points. Rowling's stance on transgender is very widely discussed. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• A Leaving it out makes no sense--it's a significant part of her current coverage and has been for a number of years. And the lede follows the article. The rest are somewhat problematic given the current article and even the sources. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• D - omit from the lede. Not central to her notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:LEDE indicates that the lede should "...summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Given that much of her recent coverage (over the last year+) has beenon this topic, I don't think there is an UNDUE argument to be made. And being "central to her notability" isn't really part of how we pick what to put in the LEDE as I read it. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Ok, to rephrase… I don’t think this actually is a “prominent controversy”. While it should be mentioned in the body of the article, I don’t think it merits being called one of the “important points” of the article, and thus should not be summarized in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Given the massive coverage, I think it is fairly prominent. The sources provided seem pretty clear it's been a large part of her coverage over the last couple of years. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D, remove. I find the arguments relating to WP:UNDUE more compelling here, particularly the analysis by MelanieN. The arguments in favor, on the other hand, seem to come down mainly to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with a dose of WP:RECENTISM. Arguments that "this has already been approved in previous discussions" ignore that WP:Consensus can change. If "lede follows body" to the point that these views need to be mentioned, why is no one insisting that we also include mention of her views on politics, religion, and the press in similar fashion? If we mention it at all, IMO that's the direction it should go: point out that her views on several topics have generated controversy rather than specifically calling out only the one that currently has activists (both here and in certain parts of the media). Anomie⚔ 17:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Anomie if you read the subarticle Politics of J. K. Rowling and the "Views" section of this article, it is one of two parts of her political views that is/has been significantly covered/commented upon by others. As can be seen in the subarticle and the sources provided this coverage has been extensive and not limited to the types of sources that gossip around or use controversy as their main content (e.g. FT, Reuters, The Economist). The other view that has received much attention is her views on the press, and while I think that her being named as core participant in the Leveson inquiry means including her views on press in the lead might be worthwhile considering, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY it is not covered extensively enough in the articled and subarticles of Rowling to have a strong case for inclusion in my opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the religious controversy is not about her as much as it is about Harry Potter, where the controversy is mostly by hyper-religious POVs so I'm not sure how notable that would be in an article about her (a member of the Church of England). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me!
  • Absolutely nobody has based their arguent on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, folks arguing for inclusion have done so mainly due to WP:DUE to the WP:SUSTAINED and widespread coveraged in the international media that has gone beyond a brief burst of news coverage in the WP:RSP, and because WP:LEAD WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and WP:LEADBIO. Other notable aspects of her life could be added to the lead, nobody has argued against that, but it is a seperate matter to the current discussion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC) (Add ...Regards simple size comparisons the Trans section compared to other sections, the Trans sectionm has been kept short in this article simply because WP:SPLIT it is more fully covered in the Politics of J. K. Rowling article were it accounts to close to half of its content, with only a brief summary kept in the main article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC) )
    • Right. People invoking WP:RGW in contexts like this, as Anomie has done here, are almost always motivated by misinterpretations they have made, both of the sourcing of this article and of the motives of *other* editors - they misunderstand what NPOV and DUE call for in a given case and therefore throw their !votes (or other interventions) in support of a specific POV that they mistake for NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Given your own track record of past POV pushing, I can see why that bit of self-serving mind-reading denigrating other editors is appealing, but perhaps you ought to take this as a wake-up call to examine your own actions. --Calton | Talk 09:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Anomie: why is no one insisting that we also include mention of her views on politics, religion, and the press in similar fashion? This is irrelevant to whether we should include her transgender views. Each section/topic should be evaluated on its own merits. That said, it is true that likely the entire views section deserves some mentioning in the lead. You yourself haven't made any argument against that, so I'm not sure why you're against this proposal which gets the ball rolling on a more accurate lead in general. ––FormalDude ^talk 19:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Re: getting the ball rolling, I've actually become pretty curious about the "philantropist" mention in the lead, because bodney mentioned it somewhere in here. What qualifies her to have such a positive qualifier compared to other individuals who have her kind of money to throw around? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but it's a question I don't have an answer for. Richard branson is not called a philantropist in the lead, bill gates is, despite both having a header about their activities around science and humanitarian causes. Are there rules about this on wikipedia? --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Rather a tangent, but I oppose use of "philanthropist" in Wikipedia's voice almost everywhere, as it is an implicitly political term with non-neutral connotations. We can describe that some people viewing the spending of Rowling, Branson or Gates positively with attribution, but then must make sure that we're giving due weight to criticisms of that spending. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  I also support the removal of "philanthropist". She is far better known for her anti-trans activities than any "philanthropy". If her anti-trans activities can't be mentioned in the first sentence, there is no reason to include a much more obscure and even dubious descriptor as "philanthropist." --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  User:FormalDude Is this the "brief consensus" you mentioned in your edit? I only see two comments arguing for the removal of "philanthropist", and one of the two expresses a general stance rather than being opposed to use it for Rowling in particular. It doesn't seem like much of a consensus to me. Natuff (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose excluding from the lead - the lead should summarize the important points of the article, and this has received widespread coverage in reliable sources for an extended time. Less strong opinions on what wording to use, assuming the same information is also present in the article body and backed up by RSs.--Alexandra^IDV 19:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D - Delete from lead per WP:WEIGHT. LondonIP (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A: I was torn between this an Option A per MelanieN, however CupOfTea does note that the current format links to it's own page, and therefore is weighty enough to include in the introduction. Option A is best per WP:NPV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spekkios (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• A > B > C and do not remove. A plethora of sources are provided by A. C. Santacruz, Aquillion, Crossroads and Sideswipe9th, who are all on the right page here. As far as I can see, D voters do not really dispute that this widespread coverage is dominant in contemporary discussion of Rowling, making it more relevant to include than what else we would consider: not Harry Potter, Cormoran Strike, Rowling's wealth or even The Ickabog (all in the lead already), but something very minor like The Christmas Pig or her opposition to Scottish independence. I really can't understand SMcCandlish's argument that the lead should not include this because it's not related to her initial notability, as if WP:LEAD does not quite clearly say we should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, or as if Coromoran Strike would have made her notable without her pre-existing fame (it would testably not have). If it was an argument about what to say in the first sentence, I'd get it, but this is the fourth paragraph. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• A, followed by B and C in that order, per Bilorv just above. The lede is there to summarize the body, and the phrasing of each option is acceptable. Inclusion in the lede doesn't depend upon what a person first became famous for. That would be like cutting off the lede for Richard Feynman after it mentions his work on quantum electrodynamics in the 1940s and refusing to include his role investigating the Challenger disaster just because it happened later. XOR'easter (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• D, leave it out entirely. She's notable as creator of Harry Potter. Her flirtation with TERFism may just scrape through as not Wikipedia:Recentism but is still not important enough to go into the lead. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Many editors are conflating how Rowling became notable with their general notability. There are a lot of generally notable things about her besides Harry Potter, especially including her views on transgender topics. ––FormalDude ^talk 08:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not important enough? People are using it to inform legislation, anti-trans "protesters" are carrying placards with her name on it, and transphobes are making posts about her on social media that border on worshipping her like some kind of deity. Give me a break —{{u|CupOfTea696}} ^{[ talk | contribs ]} 12:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't mean leave it out of the article - just the lead. See for example how the lead of H. P. Lovecraft makes no mention of his racism and even the lead of Richard Wagner only touches briefly and circumspectly on his anti-Semitism. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• D Remove from the lead (undue). Pavlor (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• D Remove from the lead per Betty Logan. Jusdafax (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• A The lede is meant to summarise the body of the article, and leaving this out would fail to do that. Oppose both B and C, for the same reason. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option D I would argue that this controversy is definitive of her personal life/views but not toward her career. Her career as an author is 99% defined by the Harry Potter universe, books and film of which the topic is in some ways superseded by her existence in and of itself. Her views probably warrant it's own section, but without WP:UNDUE weight. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• A. There are simply no valid arguments for removing from the opening section the reference to Rowling's involvement with issues involving trans persons. This is why there has not been so far and can never be any suggestions to remove it that are clearly based on policies or guidelines.

Per WP:MOS, the lead section serves as a summary of its most important contents. Inspecting the main text of the article, we trivially find that it contains a significant amount of information about Rowling's views & actions regarding issues involving trans people. The significance of that aspect of Rowling's life rightfully begat a separate section dedicated to that subject, titled "Transgender people." Moreover, in the Wikipedia article dedicated to and titled "Politics of J. K. Rowling", there's an even larger section dedicated to the same subject. In both instances, the subject is covered through extended references to sources, per policy. In conclusion, it cannot be reasonably disputed that the subject of Rowling's involvement in issues of trans people is "important" - and, therefore, according to the WP:MOS wording cited above, a brief reference to it in the lead section is essentially mandatory. As a matter of fact, ignoring and omitting that reference would constitute a gross violation of a foundational guideline.

The proper way forward is to establish mention, i.e. do away with D-suggestions to "delete," and then decide on a possibly better wording. Hence, the current necessity for option A. -The Gnome (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option E the lede section should say what her views are, not what other people's commentaries on her views are. If I have to pick one from A-C for use in the interim, I choose Option B as the best. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option A, but not in its own paragraph. This is important enough to deserve a mention in the lead, but putting it in its own paragraph strikes me as undue weight. Options B and C are inappropriate for reasons others have already given. RisingStar (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Rather than the (rather similar) options B and C, I think it would be helpful for one of the pre-formulated options to emphasize support from literary and entertainment industry figures. Not that there is uniform support for Rowling from these quarters, but the writers' letter and the indications of support from actors and comedians are at least as prominent as the declarations of Conservative politicians, at least from my perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the letter, will add another option. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Decided to append the options instead. Decided on "artists" but "entertainers" would work too. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion While I've gone for option A, can we reword options B and C to remove "a few", as this sounds rather casual and not particularly encyclopedic. I think changing it simply to "some" is fine. — Czello 18:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Czello 👍🏼. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note to closer: The premature closure and evaluation of the Rfc above by the OP who created it, as well as the presupposition of its outcome, taints this Rfc. Please see further details here. Mathglot (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Mathglot: "So if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. ––FormalDude ^talk 21:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• We don't need all these endless ill-prepared RFCs. The paragraph at the end of the lead section on her trans-related views wasn't even under debate in connection with the former RFC, and as I understand it, it has already been carefully crafted/developed over a long time through discussion here. If it needs further adjustment at some point, it's better to have a discussion before starting any unnecessary RFCs. I don't view this as a legitimate RFC for the reasons explained by others. Of course, removing the paragraph on the activity that has by far received the most media coverage over several years, and that not only has its own section in this article but that also is the dominant issue in the Politics of J. K. Rowling article, is not a serious proposal, and is completely unacceptable, non-encyclopedic and contrary to relevant content policies. If anything, this issue needs far more weight in this article based on how Rowling is covered in third party sources. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Which other encyclopedias mention JK Rowling's "transphobic views" at all? Tewdar (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  Great point. Masterhatch (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  Who, me? Or Amanda? If you mix asterisks and colons, it messes up the indentation... Tewdar (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Tewdar: no, you can mix asterisks and colons. You just need to have an asterisk before the first colon. You also need to make sure there isn't any blank lines between asterisks, as that will break indenting. It's partially why I prefer colon based indenting, it handles blank lines between paragraphs far more gracefully. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Amanda A. Brant I agree completely that removing the paragraph on her transphobia is WP:UNDUE removal both per the coverage within the body of the article and in sources. I also agree that it needs more weight in the article based on third-party sources. this NBC article, for example, goes into very long detail about her history of transphobia and links to other articles they wrote about the topic. If I dedicated more than 10 minutes to this I could probably find the same for many other news sources and other RS. When 90% of readers of an article only read the lead, it should include more description and context than the current lead does. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @A. C. Santacruz: what is the procedure if a wholly policy non-compliant option (ie option D) achieves consensus at the time of the RfC closure? Is it raised to a dispute resolution noticeboard? Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Sideswipe9th that depends (I'd imagine) on how the RfC is closed. If the closer identifies the consensus as against policy I have no idea what would be done (maybe keep status quo? I honestly am not near experienced enough to guess). If the close is such that it would violate policy, one can challenge the close using the proper procedures and follow that sequence. However, other more experienced editors probably have a better idea what would happen than I do. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Side-note, Option D is not deletion, just "other". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        • You might want to update the options list, as everyone who is voting for option D is doing so based on the proposal by SMcCandlish GoodDay, which is deletion of the paragraph, and not proposing further options. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
          • I do not think we can presume that, i maybe wrong but i doubt that is User:Always forever intention. (I am unclear if i is it getting too late to change options or to wish it had been worded differently). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
            • @Bodney: I agree on User:Always forever, as their comment does seem somewhat ambiguous. However GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Xxanthippe, Masterhatch, Unnamed Anon, Springee, Tewdar, and Pyxis Solitary are all clearly in favour of deletion. This is part of why I dislike RfCs that have an open ended "suggest another option" as part of the survey. Having been in another RfC recently where a similar situation happened, adding an explicit option D for deletion, and then pinging all who have voted for the ambiguous option D would resolve this somewhat. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
              • To confirm, I do not support removing references to Rowling's trans views from the lede, to me that's far and away the worst option. always forever (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I don't like updating the options for an RfC after significant discussion has been made per complaints raised other times I did that. In any case, the closer will have to weight the discussion in terms of what was actually said and not only straight up voting so I don't think it's a big issue in this instance Sideswipe9th. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
          • I believe "delete from lede entirely" was originally proposed by @GoodDay: Tewdar (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Thanks @Tewdar:, I misread the dates there. Corrected now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Nor do i think we should sanitise/white wash a lead paragraph that simply and correctly reflects the body and reliable sources just because a group of editors WP:IDONTLIKEIT/They don't like it when inclusion is abundantly supported. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • D being "policy non-compliant"? That would apply to B and C which are riddled with BLP and WP:NOR violations. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        • @Crossroads: B and C are policy complaint. They are neither BLP nor NOR violations. They are complaint, and supported by reliable sources in this area. Option D however would fall afoul of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and MOS:LEADBIO. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Omitting anything about Rowling's statements on trans in the overall article would be a policy violation of UNDUE, but we have no policy that says this has to be in the lede. The lede should be written neutrally, impartially and dispassionately, and should cover the major parts of the body. Not mentioning that she is an author and tied to the Harry Potter books would be a clear mistake. Whether the transphobia stuff is "major" is something to be decided by consensus because of how relatively small that section is compared to her authorship and other details. Also, we should be writing ledes towards what a person's enduring coverage, not what is "hot" about them at the moment. Now I do know that these views of hers have been going on for a few years, but whether that is enduring at this point is debatable. In other words, arguing that omitting transphobia stuff from the lede only is a policy violation is simply not true, though there is also no policy that says it has to be omitted. It's all based on consensus. --Masem (t) 04:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's also worth looking at it another way. Is her current transphobic bent likely to continue going forward? if it is here to stay (which I believe it is) not including it in the lead would just lead to this discussion coming back every few months. I think if we want to future-proof this article and create a lasting, stable version we need to look into the future as well. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Commentary on Rowling's transphobia has been a thing since since early 2018, and I'm not sure appeals to WP:RECENTISM are justified over something that has been pretty constant for almost four years now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It has not been "constant" since early 2018. There was very, very little mention of it in sources until the Forstater tweets in Dec. 2019, and even then it didn't pick up more until the June 2020 tweets and essay. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Why is nobody asking for Rowling's "anti-press activism" to be included in the lede? The article seems to have rather a lot of detail on this aspect of her views. It's almost as though nobody here is interested in "publisher's rights", or something... Tewdar (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Views on press=479 words 3,050 characters
  • Views on transgender people=497 words 3,313 characters Tewdar (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Valid point, but I feel separate from current discussion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @Bodney: is it though? The transgender people subsection in the article is a stub which links to a much more substantial piece on Politics of J. K. Rowling. Her anti-press views have no such related reading, and don't seem to have been mentioned at all post 2014. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Fair point. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• For those that are saying that there is not widespread coverage of her being characterized as "transphobic" in the media, I'd argue that when:

1. Al Jazeera (after several recent controversies stemming from comments by series creator J.K. Rowling that were seen as transphobic,Last summer Rowling made several comments that were widely viewed as demeaning toward transgender people and denounced by many,
2. AP News (J.K. Rowling is facing widespread criticism from the transgender community and other activists after tweeting)2 (She has been under hefty scrutiny about her thoughts on transgender identity from the LGBTQ community)
3. The Atlantic (note, paywalled but the piece is called "How J.K. Rowling Became Voldemort" and is about the backlash)
4. Daily Dot stars face online criticism for reunion amid J.K. Rowling’s anti-trans controversy
5. The Economist
6. Financial Times
7. Forbes Tampax was clearly trying to do what we’ve been asking all of our large corporations to do, be more inclusive. Still, some women perceive that including trans means erasing the identities of cisgender women. Earlier this year, Harry Potter series author J. K. Rowling tweeted in response to an article [...] (that's right, she is being mentioned in an article about Tampax ad campaigns)
8. Insider (formerly Business Insider) Rowling has been widely criticized by LGBTQ people and allies since 2020 when she tweeted about her belief that trans activism hurts women and lesbians.
9. MSNBC
10. New York Times (article titled "Britain’s Transgender Stand-Ups Find Comedy in a Hostile Climate")
11. New Yorker
12. NPR
13. Reuters
14. Vanity Fair
15. Washington Post

all cover events related to the Harry Potter franchise or herself with mentions of the controversy she's caused and the criticisms of transphobia she's received, I'd find it hardly convinving to say that the current public image (and thus understanding) of J K Rowling is not one tied to her trans-related opinions. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I can also add the following sources to this list.

1. Reuters Critics of the “Harry Potter” author accused her of revealing prejudice through a transphobic trope, while supporters defended her right to write fiction without people jumping to conclusions about her beliefs or abusing her. and Rowling has long faced accusations of transphobia, which she rejects, because of some of her tweets.
2. Time, though opinion piece Rowling’s views are not new to me. There have been discussions online about her transphobia for quite some time, both public and private.
3. iNews Harry Potter fans have voiced their disappointment with JK Rowling over a series of tweets about menstruation, gender and sex that some users have deemed transphobic.
4. BBC News Critics accused her of being transphobic, but Rowling said she stood by her comments, saying it "isn't hate to speak the truth".
5. Vox Now, in response to a significant UK court case, Rowling has provided what might be the ultimate, upsetting confirmation of her perceived transphobic leanings
6. The Guardian Critics accused her of being transphobic, an allegation Rowling strongly denies.

There is understandably less sources on this within UK media, due to the rather strong anti-transgender culture war currently happening in the UK. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe remove the Metro as it is not considered a RS (a free daily mail offshoot). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Done! I had no idea Metro was linked to the Daily Mail. Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

^{It is better than its parents for being briefer and having less opinion and it has claimed a general neutral political stance ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)}

This source pile does not support what you think it does. For one, the Forbes article is by a contributor and hence unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. The MSNBC article is an opinion piece and hence unreliable per WP:RSOPINION. As for the rest, they do not say she was "widely" criticized but attribute it to her critics. They almost all do not say she was transphobic in their own voice, so "by mainstream media" is not supported and hence POV OR. Lastly, these sources are not necessarily representative, and seem to have been cherry-picked specifically for using the word "transphobic". Crossroads ^-talk- 17:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly, however, says in its lead paragraph that Rowling's comments have widely been criticized as transphobic. USA Today refers to her transphobic comments in its own editorial voice and says that Rowling continued to double down even after the posts were widely perceived as transphobic, misinformative and hurtful. Vanity Fair says that Cynthia Nixon called out the Harry Potter author for her transphobic comments and refers, in its own editorial voice, to her transphobic opinions and her TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) logic. A mainstream Canadian news source says in its lede that Rowling has widely been accused of transphobia, and the LA Times refers to J.K. Rowling's tweets widely condemned as transphobic and also, in another piece, to her history of anti-trans comments and her latest anti-trans tweets in its own editorial voice. This literary journal article refers to her transphobic comments and transphobic tweets - these are all RS, and none are opinion sources. Et cetera, ad infinitum. Like it or not, this is a major strand in the coverage of Rowling over the last three years or so. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Another few sources to add. This time scholarly/scholarly adjacent.

1. TERF Wars Masters of Media, New Media & Digital Culture M.A, University of Amsterdam Coming from the British environment of transphobia it is not unsurprising that [Rowling] has adopted this radical pseudo-feminist stance on trans rights. Although her tweets garnered great media attention this year this is not the first time she has tweeted or been associated with transphobic sentiments.
2. Terfism is White Distraction: On BLM, Decolonising the Curriculum, Anti-Gender Attacks and Feminist Transphobia., Alyosxa Tudor, London School of Economics This brings me to JK Rowling’s essay in which she defends her transphobic tweets. and Do Rowling and other TERFs really believe that trans people and trans women in particular are a danger, a menace, a threat to others? and How bored and annoyed must JK Rowling be that she thinks the perfect moment in which she can reheat her transphobic comments is the height of Black Lives Matter?
3. Alive but Cancelled: The Public’s Response to the Controversial Author, Fleur Heiltjes, master's thesis, Radboud University. While this thesis doesn't state the author's opinions on Rowling's commentary as far as I can see it does include an analysis of 120 non-opinion news articles, twenty opinion pieces made up of ten professional media and ten blogs, and reactions on social media, published in the days following Rowling's "People who menstruate" tweet in June 2020, that may be useful to the discussion here.

@Crossroads: I would remind you to WP:AGF before you accuse multiple editors of WP:CHERRYPICKING. You may disagree with the weight of the evidence, but don't ascribe motive to other editor's contributions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(Crossroads can speak for himself very well if he chooses to.) Since this is your go-to finger-wag, as has been displayed in other discussions, you need to be reminded that WP:AGF is a guideline — not a policy. The mirror has two faces, and for you to assume that an editor's comments are not made in good faith shows that you need to be reminded to read the guideline. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Source 1 in your list is from a blog - it even has "blog" in the URL. Source 2 is described as "Opinion Pieces / Media / Blogs" and is from this blog. Now I'll grant that since these are from institutional websites they aren't exactly like some random blogspot, but they are equivalent to opinion pieces at best. Source 3 is a master's thesis which is unreliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Somebody pinged me in this discussion. What's the problem? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Awfully sorry, I should not have pinged you. I was just pointing out that it was you who suggested "don't mention anywhere in the lede" and used the "yo" template. Tewdar (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No prob - Option D was available & I took it. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Those adding 'Option D remove completely' should note there's an RfC immediately above this one that was snow-closed as "Keep mention in the lede but not the lead sentence." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The RFC you mentioned, should've had the 'remove completely' option. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

So? Consensus can change, and invoking the previous discussion as if it were some sort of court ruling is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What difference would that have made - only 2 people out of 18 suggested it wasn't suitable for the lede. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The option was "Option A: Do not mention them in the lead sentence." - nothing about keeping any mention in the lede AFAICT... Tewdar (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: Because it seems to be within the scope of the relevant WikiProjects, and they had not yet been notified as far as I could tell, I've just made notifications on WP:WPWW, WP:WO, WP:FEM and WP:LGBT. I don't know if there's any others that should be notified or not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh jeez, there's gonna be a huge figurative crash up. Particularly if notified WikiProject members have conflicting views. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: perhaps, perhaps not. But the content of this RfC is unquestionably within the remit of those projects. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

My 16+ years of experience, recommends we all strap on our figurative helmets. This BLP is quickly becoming a battleground for which group of editors views will prevail. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been that way for over a year, GoodDay. This is why after the effective if not intentional canvassing mentioned above, I notified Village Pump, the BLP noticeboard, and wikiprojects on fiction and such, to get broader input in this RfC. It's been going on far too long that a pair of WP:FACTIONs have been using this page as one of their WP:BATTLEGROUNDs. Those of us who are centrists on the underlying issues are tired of being caught in the constant crossfire.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force. Firefangledfeathers 04:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

     Thanks; you beat me to a couple of those. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe this means all this article's WikiProjects have now been notified. Firefangledfeathers 04:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This is gonna be the most widely attended RFC in Wikipedia's 20-year history & increasingly, the most difficult to post in, due to its continuing growth. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It's fine. The topically related VPPOL RfC about how to refer to Caitlyn Jenner back in the mid-2010s ended up turning into three RfCs and taking several months, as I recall, and it resulted in a lot of stabililty at MOS:GENDERID and at various trans-related articles. This particular thread isn't as much of a proxy for other related disputes as that one was, but it needs to be settled with a broad and firm consensus or disruption at this article will go on indefinitely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the other Wikiprojects. I suspected there were more, but I wasn't aware of an exhaustive list of them. Hence why I stated which ones I had notified, and left it open for someone or someones else to cover the gaps in my knowledge. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

More quotes from sources showing the variety of ways in which the situation is summarized in short overview sentences much like we would do for an article lead, and balancing out the sources selected above by showing it is often not saying "widely" and/or 'transphobia'. Note that this fact also applies to some of the sources quoted above.

• Rowling's opinions on transgender issues in the last year have been a cause of controversy, with some in the LGBTQ community accusing her of transphobia. Reuters
• The author, who has been criticised for her views on trans issues BBC News
• Rowling caused a social media storm last year after she shared her opinions on Twitter and months later wrote a lengthy personal essay on transgender issues, and some in the LGBTQ community accused her of transphobia. Washington Post
• Rowling has attracted criticism for her views on gender identity Evening Standard
• The author of the Harry Potter books, who has been the subject of death threats since voicing her views on the importance of biological sex...Rowling, 56, caused controversy last year when she published a 3,700-word essay on why she was concerned about children being encouraged to transition and the tension between women’s rights and trans rights. The Times
• JK Rowling...her controversial statement on trans and women’s rights The Guardian
• In a series of tweets in June, Rowling said she supported trans rights but did not believe in “erasing” the concept of biological sex. Rowling said she refused to “bow down” to a movement seeking “to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it.” Actors from the Harry Potter franchise, including Daniel Radcliffe, have previously criticized the author. AP News
• While the writer has been under scrutiny by trans activists since 2019...The recent tweets are the latest in an ongoing series of offenses and defenses about her views on gender. Yahoo Entertainment
• J.K. Rowling, who has faced backlash and fallout over her comments about transgender people NBC News
• Rowling's controversial tweets about gender identity, which some labeled as transphobic CNN

Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC) added 5 more Crossroads ^-talk- 06:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This is useful. Option E, so? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Since we don't want use other encyclopedias as a benchmark, let's take a look at this internal source (a FA, no less, with a related Cultural impact of Elvis Presley page with a subsection "Danger to American culture"). Here's a man who caused moral outrage, facing widespread accusations(!) of being a danger to young women, corruption of young people, undermining racial "stability"(!), being a danger to the security of the United States, and the "personification of evil"(!). And how does Wikipedia summarize this notable widespread criticism in the lede for this subversive and dangerous individual? "Initial controversy." And he's not even alive! (so they say...) Tewdar (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  In the Elvis version promoted to featured article status, there's a one line description in the lead of his controversy. Firefangledfeathers 14:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  That would probably be the equivalent of something like, "her views on transgender issues have been controversial", which I suggested a variation of, with minimal support, at a previous RfC. Tewdar (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Tewdar: I'm sure you understand the difference between someone being controversial because they challenged the status quo (in the 1950's), and someone being controversial for their views on minority communities (today), so I hope you can see how your example isn't very relevant and doesn't really contribute much to this discussion. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} ^{[ talk | contribs ]} 14:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Nope, I totally disagree. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't say much about Elvis controversies, because they occurred in the 50s and YOULIKEIT, but we should say a great deal about Rowling controversies, because they are happening now and YOUDON'TLIKEIT. Isn't this the very definition of RECENTISM and POV? Please explain. Tewdar (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Surely we should base our treatment on how recent, reliable sources treat each of these issues? Or hasn't that occurred to you? Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  All of the very utmost highest quality premium reliable scholarly and popular biographies of Elvis continue to provide significant coverage of the extreme controversies that Elvis was part of back in the 50s and 60s. And yet "initial controversy" is all he gets in his lede. He hasn't been up to much lately, though, so perhaps that's why. Tewdar (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning of D-preference editors

I'm noticing that many editors who've chosen Option D, are being constantly questioned about their choice. This amounts to WP:BLUDGEON & I wish it would stop. PS - If anything, such browbeating will only make one 'more determined' to stick to their option choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, previous Talk page discussions and RfCs had concluded, for almost a year, that the last three years of controversies (covered in media and scholarship about Rowling) were DUE for inclusion in the lead. It may therefore have been unexpected by the RfC creator that this issue would become the focus of this RfC. If it had been anticipated, presumably the question "should these controversies be discussed somewhere in the lead?" would have been asked prior to the rather more specific question that was posed. And many of the "Option D" !votes have been ill-informed and/or void of a basis in policy, even more so than is usual in RfCs. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

There was no previous RfC on this matter, let alone "RfCs" plural. And this RfC clearly already has far higher attendance than any past discussion on this page. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, they are being questioned because they are avoiding answering this RfC and instead are rehashing the previous RfC. I don't think anyone is changing their mind from already quite determined to "more determined". They were already there. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

When one holds an unpopular opinion, then challenges are to be expected. Zaathras (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but "popularity" of inadequately supported opinions here holds very little water. A proposal might have many "fans" and thus be "popular" and then promptly get defenestrated. -The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions If editors argue a point, other editors are allowed to respond to their reasoning in good faith. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, you're clogging up the 'survey' subsection. Those 'discussions/challenges' are suppose to take place in the 'discussion' subsection. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that some of the contributors are explicitly here because of @SMcCandlish's notification, and the notification that they posted was not neutral and arguably non policy compliant in multiple ways, I would not consider it browbeating or bludgeoning to challenge questionable opinions. If anything, it should be the default. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow that notification wasn't even trying to be subtle in its motivations, was it? —{{u|CupOfTea696}} ^{[ talk | contribs ]} 12:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@CupOfTea696: Yeah. It's definitely regrettable that one of the standard neutral templates for that set of notifications, for which there were 9 in total, was not used. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting the sentence is not even an option in this questionable RFC. None of the comments that call for the deletion of the material have any kind of policy-based rationale, and such comments should be completely disregarded, and it is reasonable to point that out. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history here. Where is the prior RfC? Springee (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Springee, it is right above the FAR section in this talk page, caalled "RfC on lead sentence" for reference you can also see the discussion that happened in the section above that. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That RfC was SNOW closed as not in lead sentence. That only means we have a clear consensus that this content should not be in the opening sentence of the article. That RfC does not say the content should be anywhere in the lead as it didn't ask that question. Is there a RfC that actually asks if this content should be in the lead at all? Springee (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if the was an RfC but the have been multiple previous discussions Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 8#Transgender views controversy in lead redux, Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9#Should we mention the controversy over her remarks on trans people in the lead paragraph?, Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9#Lede sentence rewrite that ended in consensus. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised there were prior discussions. However, a number of editors are saying this is an invalid or poorly scoped RfC because of prior RfCs. Talk page consensus is always a good starting point but isn't always a good finish since it's not uncommon for the local page to be dominated by a few motivated voices vs a larger view that uninvolved editors may provide. Note that absent reviewing the prior discussions I can't say if that was the case here. Springee (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No more than in the politics article: The article Politics of J.K. Rowling contains two lines in the lede on her trans-related views, along with various party political and referendum declarations. None of these views should be more represented on the main article than on the specific Politics article. Munci (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Munci:If this was intended as a !vote, it is currently in the wrong section. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Thank you for clarifying. I shall copy it above. Munci (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: They're being questioned because they either didn't provide any motivation, or because their arguments for omission don't hold up. It's not unreasonable to question arguments that don't make sense. —{{u|CupOfTea696}} ^{[ talk | contribs ]} 12:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarify what option D is?

In light of this diff by @力:, could we clarify in the survey options what D actually is? With the exception of @Always forever: who clarified here that they do not support the option D as proposed by @GoodDay and SMcCandlish: but has yet to update their survey response, all other commentors who support D do so for the "delete from lead" option as far as I can tell. I don't think it would be too disruptive to change D to the version that either GoodDay or SMcCandlish has proposed, and either add on an option F for other, or just not mention it at all. If there are other contributors that have ambiguosly voted for D, I'd propose pinging them and letting them know of the clarification made since they contributed. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Option D, has to be -delete entirely from the lead-, in order for the RFC to be unbiased. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with that formulation or the "Leave it out completely." or "Leave it out." as you and SMcCandlish stated in your initial survey responses. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - I wouldn't object to the transphobia stuff being deleted from the entire article, however. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That is somewhere between a can of worms and a Pandora's box best left unopened for now I think. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And we'd need at least a short WP:SUMMARY left behind since there's a split-off article about it. Just how it works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I changed my vote above to avoid causing any confusion, thanks for letting me know @Sideswipe9th:. always forever (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, thanks for your advocacy here. I went ahead and changed Option D. @A. C. Santacruz: as part of the edit, I moved your signed 'Other' option to Option F, and I hope that's okay. Firefangledfeathers 03:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Kudos to me, for balancing the RFC ;) GoodDay (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Observation

Glass houses and stones

I wonder how we're supposed to ignore that there are editors who engage in this (and other gender-related article discussions) that think slandering other Wikipedians as transphobes is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. What kind of Wikipedia club is that? Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newimpartial&diff=next&oldid=1057275096. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the preemptive collapsing. Could this discussion happen at a user talk page instead? Firefangledfeathers 13:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC) I think Santacruz is allowed to comment on my Talk page that I have dealt with (what admittedly in their own opinion were) "transphobic" editors. I mean, it is not as though I haven't interacted with editors in the past who were removed from Wikipedia for behavioural issues arising from their transphobia. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Should post-nominals be in the lead?

I'm not going to make another RfC over the question I asked in the section header. Don't worry about that. I just want the edit war between @Blobsvolta, @Crossroads, and @Sideswipe9th to stop showing up in my watchlist. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the only one who is personally edit warring is Blobsvolta, the rest of us only reverted once each. Blobsvolta, don't hide the postnominals again. They are standard for lead sentences for those who have them. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I obviously agree with Crossroads here. While I appreciate the argument that it can be a navigation impediment, consensus site wide is to include them in this style. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I support the removal. Introducing her as "Joanne Rowling CH, OBE, HonFRSE, FRCPE, FRSL" is absolutely ridiculous and those abbreviations mean nothing to people from other countries, and that kind of material is not what readers from most countries are typically looking for in the first sentence. It is by no means mandatory to include them. Articles on high-profile figures who from a UK perspective might be entitled to post-nominals don't always include them (e.g. heads of state of other countries who have received dozens of honours from various countries don't include 10 or 20 or 30 post-nominals in the first sentence). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't see an issue with them, they are standard. See Winston Churchill, for example. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

As a foreigner I think it looks really weird there too, to be honest. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean to war edit, I just wanted a reason for the revert. However, I agree with Amanda A. Brant. Honestly, I don't believe you if you tell me that it doesn't look a bit weird to you. As a reader: I don't even know (or care lol) what those mean, and putting them in the first sentence is too much to me. But! I respect the majority's opinion. Greetings. Blobsvolta (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think the inclusion of postnomials is one of Wikipedia's most ridiculous conventions. But the site-wide consensus on this doesn't show any real sign of changing yet; it is what it is. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Τhere is absolutely no reason to break with convention about postnominals specifically in the article about Rowling. Taking into account the extreme passion exhibited from both sides in discussions related to Rowling & trans persons, one can only conclude that the suggestion to remove the titles from her article is nothing more than a sorry carry-over from that combat. There is nothing in Wikipedia against listing postnominals; on the contrary, Wikipedia explicitly permits their listing. To quote MOS:POSTNOM : When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section. And that has been the long-established convention. If anyone feels strongly against the inclusion in general of postnominals in biography articles they could post up a proposal in the MOS:POSTNOM talk page. -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, The Gnome. For the record, it wasn't my intention at all, but it is true that this is a controversial article and this proposal—or potential decision—may be misinterpreted. Blobsvolta (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"Philanthropist" in the opening sentence

I oppose the removal of the descriptor "philanthropist" in the opening sentence of the article. Her philanthropic activities have received extensive coverage by the media, to the point that it seems pointless to link to sources that attest to that. The article itself contains plenty of such sources. Searching "jk rowling philanthropist" gives me 91,300 results on Google, "jk rowling charity work" gives 859,000 results. Among the many public recognitions of her charity endeavours:

• "Harry Potter creator JK Rowling named most influential woman in the UK": Rowling, who recently donated £10 million to set up a new multiple sclerosis research clinic in Edinburgh, was chosen for her writing skills, tenacity to succeed and philanthropic nature, the National Magazine Company said.
• "JK Rowling receives Humanitarian Award from British Red Cross": The British Red Cross has presented author JK Rowling with its Humanity Award, designed to honour philanthropists and humanitarians whose work has changed people’s lives across the world.
• "JK Rowling becomes Companion of Honour for charity work": After being made an OBE in 2001, she is now becoming a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for her services to literature and philanthropy.
• "JK Rowling to receive human rights award": JK Rowling is to receive a prestigious award from literary and human rights group Pen America. [...] Pen (Poets, Essayists and Novelists) said it was honouring the author in recognition of her support for free expression and charitable causes.

The extent of coverage by the media and the recognitions by many institutions of her philanthropic work make clear that it is one of the most prominent aspects of her public persona—in fact probably only second to being the author of the Harry Potter books. Natuff (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• And my search for "J K Rowling transphobia" receives 466,000 google hits, while "J K Rowling transgender" nets 4.6 million. But the decision was made in a recent RfC not to mention this in the lead sentence - perhaps because we do not base these decisions on google hits. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I only mentioned the Google hits to show that media coverage of Rowling's philanthropic activities is certainly not lacking. It wasn't my only point though, I suggest you address the rest of my post too and elaborate on why you think she shouldn't be described as a philanthropist in the opening sentence. As you said, the transgender issue has already been debated and it's not relevant here, so why mention it? Natuff (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • As previously stated, my point was that we do not base these decisions on google hits. I don't see any evidence in your post that her philanthropy is one of the most prominent aspects of her public persona—in fact probably only second to being the author of the Harry Potter books. In fact, I would say that the controversies about trans issues now firmly place second to being the author of the Harry Potter books as what she is known for - perhaps third if her management of the Wizarding World IP is broken off as a distinct topic from actual authorship (she has played a more prominent and successful role than, say, George R. R. Martin or the Tolkien estate in that respect, I would argue). Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I certainly don't agree with your view of what makes Rowling renown besides the Harry Potter's books. As I already explained, my case doesn't rest solely on the number of Google hits. I produced sources that show how her philanthropic activity was acknowledged by notable institutions and commentators which assigned awards to Rowling because of it—weight, not just quantity. I would argue that if it is ever appropriate to describe a public figure as "philanthropist" in the opening sentence of their article, Rowling would qualify. However, after giving it some thought I must say that, since we don't have objective criteria to decide who is a philanthropist and who is not, the debate comes down to subjective views. In this case, it's probably best to leave "philanthropist" out of the opening sentence and stick with the definitions that are uncontroversial. Natuff (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
      • The main thing that led to the deletion was that a few people (Me being among them) wondered if that word wasn't a bit loaded for wikipedia, and what would qualify someone for that description. As the first removal mentioned, the "brief consensus" was that there are no clear rules for it, it is used somewhat randomly across Wikipedia, and therefore it was best to remove it. The example I used earlier was that Richard Branson and Bill gates both have fairly large sections on their contributions to humanitarian causes, yet only bill gates has it mentioned in the lead, which makes it seem like its application is more based on their general reputation rather than their actual actions. which seems like a wrong way to go about it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I support the removal of "philanthropist", both as contrary to the spirit of NPOV and based on the relative prominence of the descriptor compared to other relevant descriptors. Her alleged philanthropic activities are exceedingly obscure compared to her anti-trans activism, as measured by the media coverage. The only sources I see constantly referring to her as a "philanthropist" are anti-trans groups, and they really seem to mean her support for causes that demean marginalised groups rather than what most people would understand as any genuine philanthropy. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)