Talk:J. K. Rowling

Recent changes to transgender people section

So it seems over the last couple of days, some new content has been added to the transgender people section of the article. Specifically two paragraphs have been added, the first for a September 2020 incident of Rowling promoting an online store with transphobic merchandise according to the source, and the other for a March 2024 incident between Rowling and India Willoughby which was later reported to the police as a potential hate crime.

Thoughts on whether we should keep one or both of these additions? On the one hand, it goes back to issues raised during the FAR about content being added piecemeal over time, and an undue emphasis on WP:RECENTISM. On the other, the spate between Rowling and Willoughby does seem to be an escalation of what she's previously been heavily criticised for. I'm somewhat minded to remove the September 2020 incident, as from memory it wasn't remarked on in any of the scholarly sources we reviewed at the FAR. Not so sure about the Willoughby stuff however.

Pinging recently active FAR participants @SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Czello, Firefangledfeathers, Bastun, Vanamonde93, Olivaw-Daneel, AleatoryPonderings, Johnbod, and DrKay: Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree about 2020. I think 2024 should go in, but perhaps without the police report, unless the police show any sign of taking the matter up. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The 2020 stuff should go. Links to a store that sells stuff is a weak link and AFAICS from the source, the t-shirt said "this witch doesn't burn" and the story would be more relevant if the t-shirt was clearly transphobic. I think the 2024 stuff should remain for now and be monitored. The "reported to police" aspect appeared in the titles of stories in The Times and The Telegraph, so isn't a minor aspect of the story as far as those newspapers consider it. But I agree if the report goes nowhere then that aspect should be dropped in the coming days. If you have several newspaper headlines in the national news that a BBC TV presenter has reported your comments to the police as a "hate crime" I think people would expect Wikipedia to mention that, for now. -- Colin°^Talk 08:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Colin said it about as well as I would have. I'd support trimming the 2024 quoted material. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

However, the section seems to be growing into a running commentary of what each side said about the other, which is very much not our purpose. Can we summarise this please. The relevant aspect is a summary of what JK Rowling said (and importantly how they said it) that provoked the complaint to the police. What JK Rowling has tweeted in response to that is pretty irrelevant really. This isn't an article on why these two people hate each other. -- Colin°^Talk 16:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking good. I think what's currently in the article strikes a reasonable balance. Gives an overview of what the incident entails, and the responses to it from each party without going into too much detail about the particulars. I'm a little uneasy over the "a man revelling in his..." quotation, but I think that's more to do with my own feelings surrounding the statement in general than whether it should or should not be summarised in some way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good. What, at the moment, is the notable aspect to this story? Is it that it escalated to the point where an official police complaint was made? Because surely a twitter spat in this topic domain and non-professionally-legal people making legal-sounding threats or legally iffy boasts is not news never mind WP:NOTNEWS. -- Colin°^Talk 19:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

According to a tweet from Willoughby last night the spat has been recorded as a non-crime hate incident, although that has yet to be reported/confirmed by any reliable sources. If that is confirmed, I suspect this could be perceived as a shift in rhetoric from Rowling, as I don't recall her targeting an individual in this manner before, and that may be picked up in the next round of scholarly sources.

Right now though, I think the noteworthiness is that this escalated to the point where a police complaint was made. I believe, from a quick Google search anyway, that this is the first time that her own actions have been reported to the police. It's relatively weak though, and we should probably assess this again at the end of next week to see if there's any indications of enduring coverage of it.

That said, from a quick look at Rowling's twitter feed, she's still tweeting about Willoughby so this may all wind up in court one way or the other. Even if we ultimately remove the current paragraph, we should probably keep an eye out for any follow-up actions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the 2020 paragraph, just wanted to expand a bit and explain my reasoning. I've been following this controversy somewhat closely since the beginning, and I've felt for a while that this section puts a lot of weight (too much, in my opinion) on what she has publicly said, while discounting the rest. Rowling has repeatedly engaged with people whose views on (against) trans people are much more explicit than hers, while also publicly saying stuff like "I know and love trans people", "My views have been misunderstood", "Trans people deserve peace and security", etc. Are such statements necessary in detailing her views? Absolutely. But, in my opinion, so is the rest. "Views" isn't "statements", and IMO there's more than enough evidence, even before her recent misgendering of India Willoughby, to suggest that her views don't align perfectly with her statements. An example: in 2018, a year before the Forstater case, she liked a tweet referring to trans women as "men in dresses". She later stated that she had meant to screenshot it, and her spokesperson called it a "middle-aged moment"[1]. The problem with that defence is that, in the following six years, while Rowling's official stance was still somewhat nuanced, she liked, retweeted, followed dozens of other outspoken transphobes. Those can't all be middle-aged moments, and their accumulation is a significant (and, IMO, an underreported) reason as to why she's been criticized and referred to as transphobic. I think they should be treated as part of her views, along with her statements, even (and especially) when the two appear to contradict one another. As it stands now, I think the article is imbalanced and misrepresents, by omission, the criticism directed at her. This isn't me specifically advocating for the return of the 2020 incident (although I do think it's a notable example of what I mentioned), but for this larger issue to be addressed. WikiFouf (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, if what you just wrote above was text from a reliable source, we could cite this, but we can't just cite random events to build a case to the reader. The t-shirt thing is very week. She's bought a t-shirt and said where she got it from and that isn't the same as saying she agrees with 100% of all the merchandise and a long step from saying that because the shop is run by someone who is the founding member of something many view as transphobic Rowling actually secretly shares all their views. I've probably bought underpants from a shop run by people who make large donations to the Conservative party in the hope of future knighthoods but it doesn't mean I secretly love Sunak. Your complaint that these accumulated links is "underreported" is a classic WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument. We have to have reliable secondary sources joining these dots and if they don't then we can't just go pushing the dots onto the page in hope a pattern is clear to our reader.. -- Colin°^Talk 18:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Colin here. A stronger argument could, in the future if it's covered by higher quality sources, be made on her recent £70,000 donation to a legal challenge by For Women Scotland seeking to exclude trans women with gender recognition certificates from being considered as women under the Equality Act when applying the EA to women only shortlists for jobs. To me, that seems like a much stronger example of supporting a cause that many perceive to be transphobic.

However, I think we should wait for this to be covered by higher quality academic sources, as I'm fairly certain that this is the sort of thing that would be covered in an academic source about the change in her expressed viewpoints and actions over time. There have already been several papers published on the controversy surrounding her earlier words and actions on this issue, so this donation seems like the sort of thing that would be covered in a future paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely agree that this is more notable than what I added. WikiFouf (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said myself, sure, her "middle-aged moments" can all be given benefit of the doubt in a vacuum, it's their accumulation that makes them notable. She follows transphobes, liked transphobic tweets, and none of that made it into this section, even though that type of stuff formed the beginning of her whole controversy (as Rowling describes herself). I agree with the need for quality secondary sources, but let's also not forget that this section should accurately summarize her views. Again, my concern is that, as it stands right now, this section only uses her own statements to reflect those views.

This source, which is of good quality and is already used in the section, partly documents this accumulated smaller stuff that I'm referring to. Would be a worthy addition, IMO. WikiFouf (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this the right article for that level of detail though? Political views of J. K. Rowling seems like a more ideal target for that deep a summary. That's not to say there's not room for some sort of updated summary here, if the sourcing allows for that. The sourcing we have for that at the moment is circa 2022/23, so there is another 1 to 2 years of newer sourcing in theory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

In the context of better documenting the progression of her views, I think that stuff would only be a detail if it wasn't what started the whole thing. Rowling herself writes about it at the start of "TERF Wars" : "All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’." WikiFouf (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool, these are points to eventually make in the discussion below on re-writing that part of the transgender people section. For now though, let's focus on finding all of the high quality sourcing that we could potentially use when re-writing that content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems we've got another new addition, after Rowling's commentary has moved from the Willoughby stuff to what The Forward (source) LGBTQ Nation, and a few other sources are describing as holocaust denial. At this point, I'm thinking we remove the Willoughby stuff, as from a quick search further sourcing on it hasn't developed, and cautiously look at what sourcing develops for the holocaust denial commentary over the coming days.

I'm concerned that the addition of each of these breaking news is slowly bringing us back to the state the article was in, at least in part, prior to the FAR in 2022. There's also the question of, is this really the best article to put this exact content in? Political views of J. K. Rowling is a better place for that level of detail in the long run per summary style. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th @Victoria I really don't get how her explicit denial of someone's transgender identity could be considered accessory in the context of a "Rowling's views on transgender identity" section. I understand that there might not be further sourcing yet, but some things are just inherently relevant, aren't they? It seems like they are, because there's a near full paragraph in the same section detailing the content of her "TERF Wars" essay and its content is exclusively backed by breaking news sources. No one demands further sourcing from that paragraph because it is, of course, inherently relevant to the section, so why are different standards applied elsewhere? WikiFouf (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that these are each individual incidents. They tell us nothing about how Rowling's views on transgender issues have developed over time. When we wrote that section during the 2022 FAR we didn't really have the sources to give an overview of how her views had changed over time. So we did the best with what we had available, and that resulted in us highlighting two instances that multiple high quality sources drew attention to.

We're in a different place now, a lot has happened over the last two years, and there seems to be sourcing now available that would potentially let us do what we couldn't do before. As such, I've started a new discussion below, with the end goal of re-writing the second paragraph of the transgender people section to one that more fully covers the shift in her views, from that middle-aged moment in 2018, to what we see today. We likely won't be able to cover the most recent demonstration of her views (ie, Willoughby and the Holocaust denial) because those are too recent to have been covered by the highest quality sources, but my instinct is that we will be able to give a broader overview of how her views and expressions have become more extreme over time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

They tell us nothing about how Rowling's views on transgender issues have developed over time. Neither does "TERF Wars", doesn't it? As rich a source as it is in the context of this section, it has a specific date on it, just like the Willoughby tweets. And yes, those tweets are an individual incident, but so is, for example, Rowling returning that humanitarian award. That event is backed by a single Guardian article — no secondary/scholarly source — therefore some editors at some point had to determine that it was relevant to this section. Why can't the same be done for the Willoughby incident, which I would argue is considerably more notable?

Great initiative on the new discussion. I'll just say I think restructuring the whole section, at least a bit, might be necessary when trying to better represent her shift in views. WikiFouf (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither does "TERF Wars", doesn't it? I defer back to what I said earlier, we wrote that section with the sources we had available in 2022. I believe there is better sourcing available now, and finding and assessing those sources is where we should focus our effort for now. Once we have collated them, we can look at the full scope of the changes that are warranted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

we wrote that section with the sources we had available

If it was fine to cover other (less significant) topics with even a single reference from a news article, as pointed out, why is the following true?

We likely won't be able to cover the most recent demonstration of her views (ie, Willoughby and the Holocaust denial) because those are too recent to have been covered by the highest quality sources

Her comments on Willoughby have been covered by numerous reputable news outlets. Sources covering them have a quality at least as high as those used in several other parts of the article. Surely if the sourcing was good enough to include those other topics, which have been discussed, the sourcing is also good enough to include Rowling's comments on Willoughby too.

I think you want to use the highest quality sources available as references for new content in the article, and to use academic sources for this reason but also to enable broader coverage and context (including, on trans people, how her comments have changed over time) than would be available from individual news outlets. I completely understand your motivations in this regard. However, lots of the contents of the article at present - including in this section - fail to meet these criteria. It's inherently unfair to require new topics to meet them before being added without them also applying to topics already in the article.

I think it's good that we're discussing the matter and hearing different views. I think further dialogue on exactly what should be included on this topic and future drafts will help us find a consensus to close the issue. Thanks again for your thoughts! 13tez (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It's inherently unfair to require new topics to meet them before being added without them also applying to topics already in the article. No. This is the exact same process we went through in January 2022 when building the content for that section. Every piece of content in that paragraph was driven primarily by a scholarly source. The citations to news sources, like The New York Times, or magazines like Vanity Fair, are used to augment the information from the scholarly sources where they are unclear, or to provide exact quotations where we felt they would be helpful.

If you review the January 2022 discussion in Archive 3 you'll see that one of the first things we did was construct a list of all of the sources that would be helpful in writing that section. We then analysed and refined that list, eliminating some sources from consideration as part of that process. I'll quote now from the editor who lead the 2022 FAR Since the article should/must employ summary style, and there is a sub-article at Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people where detail can be explored, we should not be using tweets or primary sources on this (main) article.

Now the sources you're discussing on the tweets involving Willoughby and the Holocaust are typically considered primary sources per WP:RSBREAKING. This is to be expected as the tweets themselves are a few days to a couple of weeks old. We don't know yet how either of those two incidents will be viewed in 5 to 10 years time. Maybe Rowling will continue on her current trajectory, and make more extreme comments over time. Maybe she'll change her mind, and apologise for these comments. We just don't know. This is why when we add content to an article, we rely on high quality secondary sources, as they typically provide an analysis and help put these events into a broader context.

These two incidents are too recent for any high quality source to have analysed them and put them into a broader context. With scholarly sources there is typically a lag time between when something happens, when an academic can write about it, and when that writing is published. That lag time can vary, I've seen it be as short as 3 months, or as long as 18. The exact duration depends on how long it takes the author to write, and how long it takes the paper to go through the peer-review process. I would not expect any high quality sources on either the Willoughby or Holocaust tweets until at least July-September, if not the end of the year.

And this is fine, Wikipedia is not a breaking news service. Though we often have articles about current events, that's not typically what we're here for.

The reason why I keep referring back to the 2022 FAR is because, this is a featured article. That means it is written to a much higher and stricter standard than most of our other content, and that means we're much stricter on what sources can and cannot be used in the article. In 2022 we needed the intensive FAR because, in the 15 years from when the article was first promoted, not only had the FA standards changed but so too had the quality of the content in the article. Countless good faith editors had made significant additions and changes to the article over that time period, and a lot of them weren't written to the FA standard. The quality of the content on Rowling's views on transgender people in particular was quite low, because it inevitably followed the same cycle we're seeing right now. Rowling would say something highly controversial, and editors in good faith would rush to add that to the article based on whatever breaking news coverage was available at the time.

The reason why you're seeing resistance on immediate changes from myself and other editors who participated in the 2022 FAR is because, we frankly don't want to have to go through that process again. I was only directly involved with that process for one section, the transgender people section, because LGBT+ issues are where my primary editing focus lies, and that process was exhausting. It took 4 months for the article to be re-written from top to bottom, based on the highest quality sourcing available. We have an interest in keeping the article as a FA, and that means taking a slow, methodical approach when discussing content additions and changes. That's why I've started the various draft discussions, because I'm familiar with that process and know what's involved in keeping this content to a reasonably high quality.

Now I realise this may seem frustrating or confusing to newer editors, and those unfamiliar with writing content for featured articles. I went through that confusion myself when I saw the start of the 2022 FAR, and asked myself more than a few times why the standards for inclusion of content and sourcing were suddenly so much higher. Writing FAs is tough, and the reason for all of this is lain out at WP:FACR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Sideswipe9th, thank you for the continued dialogue.

Every piece of content in that paragraph was driven primarily by a scholarly source.

I think these are the points I didn't understand until now (please correct me if I'm wrong): you think that Rowling's comments on Willoughby should be added, if anywhere, to the second paragraph in the section on her views on transgender people, which is currently foremost supported by academic sources (maybe except "Rowling responded... sex is real"?), and you don't want that point to change because academia can give a broader perspective. You also don't want to change it now, only to have to rewrite it again later?

I certainly agree that academia would be preferable and that it would allow broader perspective and deeper analysis than news articles. I've been looking more widely at the article (and section) as a whole, in which news articles are used as the foremost - and sometimes only - source. It seems somewhat artificial to me, however, to hold this particular paragraph to requiring references from academia (maybe except "Rowling responded... sex is real"?) but not the rest of the article. I suppose you think this because you think that paragraph is the natural place for these comments, and you would want to re-write it later to return to academic sourcing, and you don't want to repeat that work? Assuming I'm right there, I think I know understand your position, which is progress.

I think my position on this would be that because Wikipedia is WP:IMPERFECT and a WP:Work in progress, further relevant topics should be added (with consensus) before full re-writes are made. I do, however, recognise the value of a re-write of the type you are proposing, to give the change over time in her comments, up to and including her most recent ones, and give a broader perspective when they're discussed in academia. I also believe, conversely, we shouldn't wait until a topic is discussed in academia, which as has been mentioned will take months, to include if it can already be referenced from other reliable sources.

You pointed me to section 1.c of WP:FACR before while explaining references should come from academia, but it does not say this. It certainly doesn't say (or imply) that articles from reputable news outlets cannot be used. Is this a convention or written somewhere else? News articles are used as the only references in other parts of the same section and article, as I've discussed, and maybe even in this paragraph in "Rowling responded... sex is real". Therefore, I don't think a lack of sources covering this topic from academia are a reason to exclude it from this article, even though it is a featured article.

we should not be using tweets or primary sources on this (main) article. Now the sources you're discussing on the tweets involving Willoughby and the Holocaust are typically considered primary sources per WP:RSBREAKING.

None of the sources I provided as examples were tweets. They are all news articles. I agree that it makes sense to use secondary sources on her comments to help us provide broader context. I had a look at WP:RSBREAKING, which says:

"All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources" and "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies...It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements."

The implication here is that news reports released within a day or two of an event are considered primary sources on that event. Secondary sources would include news reports released after this amount of time, when the facts will have become clear, and articles written beforehand which journalists have had time to review and correct as required. I think this policy makes sense for the reasons described, and I also think it makes sense that featured articles are stricter about requiring sources to be secondary or tertiary in this manner.

JK Rowling's first tweets in which she misgendered Willoughby were made on 4 March 2024, 243 days ago. This is comfortably past the timescale WP:RSBREAKING sets out to define breaking news and the time needed to review facts. I think, therefore, that news articles covering these comments have now had ample time for review and correction, so should not be considered breaking news (and therefore a primary source). We should also consider that this topic is not an event passed by word of mouth (which could lead to inaccuracies): Rowling's statements were publicly available for every journalist to review personally. This contrasts with some of the examples set out in WP:RSBREAKING. Moreover, The Times covered Rowling's comments after this two-day threshold, so, per WP:RSBREAKING, their article(s) wouldn't be considered breaking news so wouldn't be considered a primary source. Therefore, we do have sources that are both reliable and secondary to use as references for her comments on Willoughby.

Now the sources you're discussing on the tweets involving Willoughby and the Holocaust

I'm not discussing her comments on trans people in Nazi Germany. As I've said elsewhere, although I think they are significant, they haven't received sufficient coverage to warrant their inclusion here. All the articles I have shown here as examples cover her comments on Willoughby.

The reason why you're seeing resistance on immediate changes from myself and other editors who participated in the 2022 FAR is because, we frankly don't want to have to go through that process again.

That makes sense. I just see a contrast between news articles being accepted to substantiate other topics currently in the article, no strict requirement or even preference for academic sources in WP:FACR, that there are now secondary and reliable sources available per WP:RSBREAKING, and that changes should be made when this is the case per WP:IMPERFECT and a WP:Work in progress rather than waiting for a paragraph/section re-write to make any update to the article. I hope you understand my position and my reasoning behind it, and apologies if I'm misunderstanding or ignorant of the guidelines.

Thanks again for your thoughts! 13tez (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I defer back to what I said earlier, we wrote that section with the sources we had available in 2022. I also want to insist on that point: if this is a good explanation for using those sources then, why can't it also be used now? And I don't advocate using these sources lightly, at all: my view is that the Willoughby stuff is particular because it's inherently notable, just like "TERF Wars" is. That series of comments is objectively transphobic in a way that no prior Rowling statement was. How could it possibly be omitted?

As a fairly new editor, I genuinely feel a lot of admiration for all the hard work that goes into writing FAs. At the same time, I think valuing meeting the FA criteria over the completeness of the article is mistaking the finger for the moon. At the end of the day it should come down to: if a reader comes to Wikipedia for information on a given topic, what do they need to know about said topic? You must have asked yourselves some version of that question when you determined that the "TERF Wars" stuff had to be included in the section, right? Why are the standards now different? WikiFouf (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed everything about March in this edit. The purpose of this article is to present a biography of Rowling's entire life and body of work, complete with literary analysis of her work, all within a reasonable number of words. Because this is a WP:Featured article it needs to adhere to strict secondary sourcing requirements - in other words limited to scholarly commentary. Furthermore, because it's a top level biography with many sub- or daughter articles, it needs to be written in WP:Summary style. Finally it must adhere to WP:Biography of living persons policies and care must be taken because it falls within WP:Contentious topics. We have to avoid WP:Recentism and WP:Undue. If and when better quality sources are available to replace the material I removed, then we can use those and present it in a couple of sentences written in summary style. Victoria (tk) 01:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree. After some thinking, what I think would be most useful here is if we can find a source that documents and summarises the progression of Rowling's views over the last few years. How they've moved from that mistakenly favourited tweet, through to her current misgendering of Willoughby and what some sources are describing as holocaust denial. We don't need to document every instance, and summarising the progression of her views is more encyclopaedic.

We have some of that already, the sources for the Forstater stuff through to the June 2020 "people who menstruate" tweet. We likely won't be able to find anything particularly high quality on the stuff that's happened this month for a short while, but replicating that summary with the more recent developments should be the end goal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should wait until all the recent stuff is picked up by a better source. I've not seen it mentioned in the New York Times (which I usually read daily - though I could have missed it). We're only half way through March and there's a new entry every day. This article is not a digest or compendium of her X/Twitter posts. Ideally some of the mentions from earlier years can all trimmed down too, the more recent ones added, and it all be presented in a succinct summary. But it's really best to wait until a good secondary source exists. In the meantime there's Political views of J. K. Rowling, and I've noticed that the Willoughby post/s is/are linked in that article to here, which is appropriate. I think basically we agree. Victoria (tk) 01:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the article should include a summary of Rowling's comments on Willoughby because they received significant coverage in the media, including from many reliable sources, and are a clear escalation of her comments on trans people. The article gives the same amount of detail to topics on which the media gave less coverage and are less significant. For example, her prior comments saying people's "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real" received less coverage and aren't as overtly combative as publicly misgendering and insulting a trans woman, but this article does include them. Furthermore, her donating money to help lawyers flee the Taliban hardly received any news coverage, but that too is still included without dispute. Quite a few people don't want to bloat the article, so they're opposed to adding anything to it on this particular topic. But, by the standards currently being set to add it, much of the present contents of the article should be removed.

Therefore, I propose we include (only) the following summary of her comments on Willoughby in the article. It is a short, well-referenced summary of events and only covers the main point. We won't go into any follow-on events; they can stay in Political views of J. K. Rowling. In so doing, we'll avoid commentating on further developments. A few people have said they are worried about this happening. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this proposed edit:

In March 2024, Rowling faced criticism after posting several tweets in which she deliberately misgendered the broadcaster India Willoughby, a transgender woman. Rowling called her "a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks 'woman' means".

@Victoriaearle Hi, I hope you're doing well. Judging from your reply in this thread and comments in your previous edit, your objections to adding this topic to the article seem to be:

• adhere to the edit notice
  • The edit notices for this article refer to WP:BLP, WP:CTOP, and WP:FA. These are all discussed below.
• use reliable sources
  • The sources I used (The Independent, Sky News, and PinkNews) are all listed at WP:RSPSOURCES, where they are all rated as being reliable.
• write in WP:Summary style
  • My proposed edit is a trimmed-down, two-sentence version of the prior content on Rowling's comments on Willoughby that only covers the main point. It does not go into further details, even though reliable sources also covered them, which are in the spin-off Political views of J. K. Rowling article.
• Because this is a WP:Featured article it needs to adhere to strict secondary sourcing requirements - in other words limited to scholarly commentary
  • As well as being reliable, the sources in my proposed edit are secondary. The primary source was Twitter/Rowling's tweets. These news articles discuss the tweets, so they are secondary sources. There is no mention of sources needing to be scholarly in WP:FACR. Nor are all the other points in the article supported by scholarly commentary. For example, her comments on Israel/Netanyahu were referenced from articles in reliable news sources. My proposed edit is referenced in the same manner.
• adhere to WP:Biography of living persons policies
  • Every point in my proposed edit is verifiable from its references to reliable sources. Per WP:PSTS, and as previously discussed, these reliable sources are secondary sources. Therefore, it is not original research. My proposed edit factually describes what Rowling said and its significance. It does not opine, for example, about whether Rowling is a transphobe. Therefore, as far as possible with disputes, which Wikipedia aims to describe, it adheres to WP:NPOV.
• fall within WP:Contentious topics
  • There aren't really any specific guidelines here.
• avoid WP:Recentism
  • I am not arguing that the article should cover Rowling's comments on Willoughby because they are recent. If that was true, I would be arguing for the inclusion of her comments on transgender people in Nazi Germany, which are more recent. Rowling's comments on Willoughby should be in the article because they received significant coverage and represent an important development and escalation in her public statements on trans people. As I highlighted, they received more coverage in the news than several other topics that are in this article without dispute, including (but not limited to) other comments on trans people.
• avoid WP:Undue
  • Although my proposed edit doesn't criticise Rowling, it mentions she was criticised for her comments. Coverage in reliable sources includes this fact. Therefore, my proposed edit doesn't give a fringe view disproportionately large coverage. My proposed edit above is short and only covers the main point, which received significant coverage. Therefore, it doesn't give undue weight through a disproportionately large depth of detail or quantity of text. My proposed edit is not prominently placed, juxtaposed with any other statement, nor uses any imagery to gain undue weight. Therefore, it adheres to WP:WEIGHT.

13tez (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The amount of text you're proposing for this one, brief incident is disproportionate to the scope of the section. You're proposing what amounts to a short paragraph for one incident. That level of detail you're proposing is likely due for the Political views of J. K. Rowling sub-article, because that dedicated articles is where you can go into that level detail about single key instances, but for this article it seems like overkill.

If we're to include even the briefest summary of the spat between Rowling and Willoughby, and by that I mean a few words total, I think we need to put that into context of how her views have shifted since 2017. Rather than highlight individual incidents in isolation, what we should be doing here is describing how her views have developed over time, and in the eyes of many become more extreme. Now within that, there would likely be scope for highlighting a couple of key instances or milestones. Moments where the highest quality sources available recognise them as tonal shifts. When we wrote the transgender people section during the FAR in 2022, the sourcing didn't really exist at that time to give an adequate summary of the tonal shifts in her commentary. But I think it might now, at least for events up to 2023.

I think what we should be doing now is to identify the highest quality sourcing available, ideally scholarship, that'll allow us to replace the second paragraph of the transgender people section with one that'll more accurately document the shift in Rowling's views over time. Sources that remark on how she's gone from the "middle-aged moment" in 2018, to (eventually) what some sources are describing today as Holocaust denial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Sideswipe9th, thanks for your thoughts.

The amount of text you're proposing for this one, brief incident is disproportionate to the scope of the section. You're proposing what amounts to a short paragraph for one incident. That level of detail you're proposing is likely due for the Political views of J. K. Rowling sub-article, because that dedicated articles is where you can go into that level detail about single key instances, but for this article it seems like overkill.

I don't think it's disproportionate at all. The edit I proposed above is two lines long (42 articles: 2 lines). Other topics present in the article such as her essay (35 articles: ~1.5 lines) have a similar ratio of press coverage to their text in the article.

If we're to include even the briefest summary of the spat between Rowling and Willoughby, and by that I mean a few words total, I think we need to put that into context of how her views have shifted since 2017. Rather than highlight individual incidents in isolation, what we should be doing here is describing how her views have developed over time, and in the eyes of many become more extreme. Now within that, there would likely be scope for highlighting a couple of key instances or milestones. Moments where the highest quality sources available recognise them as tonal shifts. When we wrote the transgender people section during the FAR in 2022, the sourcing didn't really exist at that time to give an adequate summary of the tonal shifts in her commentary. But I think it might now, at least for events up to 2023.

Yeah, including only a couple of key instances in her main article makes sense. Part of my reasoning for including this instance in particular is because it's such a clear escalation. I don't think we need a commentary on how her stance has slowly shifted over time; to be honest her comments do that for themselves and everything is supposed to be concise anyway. What do you mean "the FAR in 2022"?

I think what we should be doing now is to identify the highest quality sourcing available, ideally scholarship, that'll allow us to replace the second paragraph of the transgender people section with one that'll more accurately document the shift in Rowling's views over time. Sources that remark on how she's gone from the "middle-aged moment" in 2018, to (eventually) what some sources are describing today as Holocaust denial.

I agree. I think that it would probably be best to re-write and summarise the section entirely when new articles come out summarising the change in her views, from her initial likes to her more recent statements. Thanks again. 13tez (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "the FAR in 2022"? The Featured Article Review from December 2021-April 2022. During that four month period, the article content was extensively reworked to bring it back up to the standard of a featured article. There were five (archive 1, archive 2, archive 3, archive 4, archive 5) separate sub-pages to the review where every paragraph and sentence was reviewed in some way. Where changes were needed, they were extensively workshopped prior to being installed in the article and subject to a strong consensus.

The current text of the second paragraph of the transgender people represents what sourcing was available at the time of the review. It's imperfect because the sourcing at the time was imperfect, and there wasn't really any timelines within high quality sources (ie scholarship level) to summarise the shift in her expressions over time. It's possible we might have some now, though given the lag time it takes for scholarship to pass peer-review and get published, we won't be able to cover the most recent stuff. But if the sourcing does exist, we would be able to summarise what reliable sources consider to be the important moments, rather than whatever the current controversy of the week/month is.

The text on Willoughby that you've proposed represents last week's controversy of the week. This week it's been the comments that have been described as Holocaust denial. We don't know yet how those comments are going to be assessed in the broader context of her expressed views on this topic. Maybe they are important, maybe not. We won't know for some time until it's covered by high quality sourcing, instead of the more breaking news style sources we have at the moment. They have their place in the political views sub-article, but it is unclear whether or not they have their place here.

I think the best thing that anyone here can do right now is to start looking at research papers that were published within the last year, and try to identify any that describe a tonal shift in her views over time. Once we have those sources, we can look at potentially re-writing the second paragraph of the transgender people section, to give a broader overview of how her views have changed over time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

What do you mean "the FAR in 2022"? The Featured Article Review from December 2021-April 2022. During that four month period, the article content was extensively reworked to bring it back up to the standard of a featured article. There were five (archive 1, archive 2, archive 3, archive 4, archive 5) separate sub-pages to the review where every paragraph and sentence was reviewed in some way. Where changes were needed, they were extensively workshopped prior to being installed in the article and subject to a strong consensus.

Thank you for clarifying.

The current text of the second paragraph of the transgender people represents what sourcing was available at the time of the review. It's imperfect because the sourcing at the time was imperfect, and there wasn't really any timelines within high quality sources (ie scholarship level) to summarise the shift in her expressions over time. It's possible we might have some now, though given the lag time it takes for scholarship to pass peer-review and get published, we won't be able to cover the most recent stuff. But if the sourcing does exist, we would be able to summarise what reliable sources consider to be the important moments, rather than whatever the current controversy of the week/month is.

That makes sense. It'll of course be better sourced when someone publishes an article about all this, up to and including her most recent comments. I think the news has been carried by outlets which would be accepted in peer-review. The Times, The Independent, and Reuters are all scrupulous enough that they'd be accepted as factual sources in research, and they all carried the story. Realistically, Sky News and The Telegraph would also be accepted as a source in plenty of articles too. Regardless, other parts of the article are supported by similar sources that are reliable but not scholarly or "high-quality" (though the latter term is vague and seems subjective). In fact, all the outlets I listed are already used in references in the article. It wouldn't be fair to exclude this topic from inclusion because of a lack of such better sources without also removing the content in the article supported by these outlets.

The text on Willoughby that you've proposed represents last week's controversy of the week. This week it's been the comments that have been described as Holocaust denial. We don't know yet how those comments are going to be assessed in the broader context of her expressed views on this topic. Maybe they are important, maybe not. We won't know for some time until it's covered by high quality sourcing, instead of the more breaking news style sources we have at the moment. They have their place in the political views sub-article, but it is unclear whether or not they have their place here.

I don't disagree that Rowling has had her share of controversies, including on trans people. I think that these two instances are distinguished from others by the fact they're clearly an escalation of her anti-trans stance. Unless she goes even further, this should make them distinct from her other trans commentary for a while. I think her comments on Willoughby are different from those on trans people in Nazi Germany because they also had significant coverage in the media. Her comments on trans people in Nazi Germany didn't, so aren't notable enough to warrant their inclusion in her main article.

I think the best thing that anyone here can do right now is to start looking at research papers that were published within the last year, and try to identify any that describe a tonal shift in her views over time. Once we have those sources, we can look at potentially re-writing the second paragraph of the transgender people section, to give a broader overview of how her views have changed over time.

That would certainly be useful to give context to the change in her views, but again I don't think it's reasonable to require new content to have references in academia or "high quality" sources when this same criterion is not met by a lot of the article at present. Thanks again though! 13tez (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the news has been carried by outlets which would be accepted in peer-review. So the thing with The Times, Independent, Reuters, and the rest, is that they're not scholarship. They're journalism and journalism can have its place in articles, but in general Wikipedia tends to prefer scholarship especially for featured articles. For the type of content we'd eventually be workshopping here, scholarly sources would be most helpful as they can put it into a much broader context than the readership of any one news organisation.

I think that these two instances are distinguished from others by the fact they're clearly an escalation of her anti-trans stance. Personally I don't disagree that her commentary over the last two weeks represents an escalation of her views, however we don't write our articles based on editor's personal opinion. We write our articles based on what reliable sources say on any given topic. We could only ever include content about it being an escalation of her views if reliable sources state it.

I don't think it's reasonable to require new content to have references in academia or "high quality" sources See WP:FACR#1c. What we're covering in the transgender people section of the article is highly contentious topic matter. Per WP:BLP we have to be extremely cautious with writing biographies in general, and the contentiousness of the topic matter only increases the need for caution. Currently in that section, a lot of the content is cited to academic sources first, and non-academic sources secondarily. We cite papers by Duggan, Pape, Pugh, Sussa and Sullivan, and Schwirblat et al. as the basis for a lot of the content. Where necessary we then also use lower quality journalism sources to expand briefly upon or to otherwise support the scholarly sources when clarity is needed. Policy tell us to use the highest quality and most authoritative sources when writing an article. As this is a featured article, and this is highly contentious topic matter, it is quite reasonable to require the rewrite of a section to cite and reflect the highest quality sources available. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me again.

I think the news has been carried by outlets which would be accepted in peer-review. So the thing with The Times, Independent, Reuters, and the rest, is that they're not scholarship. They're journalism and journalism can have its place in articles, but in general Wikipedia tends to prefer scholarship especially for featured articles. For the type of content we'd eventually be workshopping here, scholarly sources would be most helpful as they can put it into a much broader context than the readership of any one news organisation.

I agree that scholarship would probably have a broader analysis than any one source and would be better than news sources. I did read WP:FACRITERIA, including the section you mentioned later on, and it doesn't say that scholarship is preferred. Maybe it implies it by mentioning "survey of the relevant literature" and "high-quality reliable sources", but high-quality is vague, reliable already has a meaning on Wikipedia (WP:RSPSOURCES) met by the news sources I've mentioned, and it certainly doesn't say to exclude news articles anywhere.

I think that these two instances are distinguished from others by the fact they're clearly an escalation of her anti-trans stance. Personally I don't disagree that her commentary over the last two weeks represents an escalation of her views, however we don't write our articles based on editor's personal opinion. We write our articles based on what reliable sources say on any given topic. We could only ever include content about it being an escalation of her views if reliable sources state it.

That's true, but the fact her comments on Willoughby received significant coverage and were unprecedented can be objectively substantiated.

I don't think it's reasonable to require new content to have references in academia or "high quality" sources See WP:FACR#1c. What we're covering in the transgender people section of the article is highly contentious topic matter. Per WP:BLP we have to be extremely cautious with writing biographies in general, and the contentiousness of the topic matter only increases the need for caution. Currently in that section, a lot of the content is cited to academic sources first, and non-academic sources secondarily. We cite papers by Duggan, Pape, Pugh, Sussa and Sullivan, and Schwirblat et al. as the basis for a lot of the content. Where necessary we then also use lower quality journalism sources to expand briefly upon or to otherwise support the scholarly sources when clarity is needed. Policy tell us to use the highest quality and most authoritative sources when writing an article. As this is a featured article, and this is highly contentious topic matter, it is quite reasonable to require the rewrite of a section to cite and reflect the highest quality sources available.

Besides what I said before, I agree that it makes sense to use sources of the highest available quality here. Again, however, news sources are already used in this contentious topic, sometimes as the only references for contents. Therefore, it wouldn't be fair to exclude new content for the same reason. Thanks again! 13tez (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that within in this article that section should be a short summary style and not being sidetrecked by recentism or various individual claim. In addition when I read holocaust comparisons above, I can only say an encyclopedic article as general guideline should stay away from the hyperbole and not everything (potentially outrageous) somebody out there claims about LGBTQ and Rowlings needs to be in the article in this article. There is only a need to include something if there is a larger reception in serious media (rather than social media bibbles). In addition for various details there is in doubt a separate article on Rowling's political views where that belongs.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agree. The mistake that's being made, is that the sourcing bar is higher on a featured article - hence statements need to be cited to high quality reliable sources or to scholarly sources. In terms of Willoughby, a few words cited to this Reuters article (it's the best quality I can find) at the end of the "Maya Forsteter" paragraph might work. The longer we wait the better chance the story is picked up by higher quality sources and it can be revisited; if it's not, then it does suffer from recentism. There's really no rush. Generally we workshop wording changes and achieve consensus, ie. this proposal. This comment applies to the thread below as well. Victoria (tk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Reflist

References

Draft Proposal for Willoughby content

Draft 1

Bringing this to a draft, to see what consensus there is to add this in the interim while we look at sources to re-work the paragraph in the future. Current Proposed (adds 18 words) When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". In March 2024 India Willoughby reported Rowling to the police for a hate crime based on Twitter posts.

Sources
References Notes

Discussion of Willoughby proposal

This added sentence was based on this edit by Victoriaearle. It's a small mention, placed into the context of some of her previous views. Thoughts on this as an interim addition, while we look at what sourcing supports a broader rewrite on the overall progression of her views over the last few years? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's much point in including it without explaining or showing (with a quote) why it's significant: it was the first time she publicly misgendered a trans person. This is a more important point than the subsequent police report for an alleged hate crime. Currently, news articles (The Times, The Independent, Reuters, etc) are the only available references. They'd provide sufficient verification to either approach to show why these comments were significant. However, there would have to be a consensus that the articles are OK to use in the article. However, quotes immediately above reference sources like Variety, the Independent, and the NYT, so I don't think this should be an issue. 13tez (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This article, and particularly the transgender people section is written in summary style. This is because we have a whole article dedicated just to Rowling's political views; Political views of J. K. Rowling. The political views article is the one where we can go into the specific detail of what was said on Twitter that you're proposing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's an alternative summary with only 1 more character than the one currently proposed: "In March 2024 Rowling deliberately misgendered broadcaster India Willoughby, a trans woman, on Twitter." The advantage of this summary is that it covers the main point here: Rowling misgendered Willoughby. The subsequent police report, as well as other details and further developments are less important and so are included in Political views of J. K. Rowling. Several people have said they don't wish to have the minutiae included in this article. If anything on the topic is included here, surely the main point (Rowling misgendered Willoughby) should be what is included. 13tez (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the way this is worded is fairly misleading. India Willoughby isn't reporting her to the police for anything that happened in 2020, she's reporting Joanne to the police for misgendering her by calling her "a man reveling in a misogynistic performance" and saying that she was merely "cosplaying" womanhood [2] Snokalok (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Willoughby didn't report Rowling for an alleged hate crime for what she said in 2020 (the time period of the text currently immediately before the proposed change) or for no reason (if this proposed change was moved to a separate paragraph). 13tez (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool, give me a few and I'll make a second draft with this feedback for consideration. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Willoughby draft 2

Current

Proposed (adds 25 words)

When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".

When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views, Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". In another controversial tweet in June 2020, Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate", and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". In March 2024 India Willoughby reported Rowling to the police for an alleged hate crime based on a series of Tweets where Rowling misgendered Willoughby.

Sources
References Notes

Discussion Willoughby draft 2

Okay, draft 2. Based on the feedback above, I've made it clearer why Willoughby reported Rowling. I'm hesitant to use the world deliberately here however, as Reuters does not say that directly, they only include that as part of a quotation from Willoughby. I've also kept it as alleged, as it remains to be seen what (if anything) will happen with this going forward. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly better. It hits the main point now, and the police report isn't seemingly in a vaccum. You can substantiate the misgendering being deliberate. Is there a particular reason why you are citing Reuters and not other sources? Since the whole argument against including this topic was to avoid extraneous detail, should the fact Rowling was reported to the police be included? If so, should it not be the minor point, with the misgendering being the main one? The misgendering itself is the most prominent and widely-reported part of this topic. I think explaining Willoughby is a trans woman and linking to relevant articles, like I did when proposing an alternative to the first proposal, helps people understand when they might not otherwise. The police won't be taking the report any further. 13tez (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th please could you let me know what you think of this alternative version? I left out the police report because I think it's less important than her comments themselves, and it didn't go anywhere. I've included a few different sources that cover the topic so that those deemed most suitable could be selected for use in the article. Thanks!

In March 2024, Rowling faced criticism after misgendering the broadcaster India Willoughby, a transgender woman, several times on Twitter. Rowling called her "a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks 'woman' means". 13tez (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, it's too long. We don't need to have that extensive, lengthy quote in this article. This article is written in summary style, and quotes of that length have their place in Political views of J. K. Rowling. And as I said to Snokalok below in this subsection, given that the police have dropped this matter with nothing more than recording it as a non-crime hate incident, it just does not seem that notable of a single event in the broader topic of Rowling's views on trans people.

Given that we're looking at re-writing that entire paragraph anyway in the discussion below to better summarise the progression of Rowling's views over time, instead of just highlighting three events, I don't really see that much of a reason to put this much effort into something that we're very likely going to replace anyway. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Sideswipe9th, thanks again for your feedback.

Frankly, it's too long.

Here's a shorter version we might be able to agree on. Please let me know what you think.

In March 2024, Rowling faced criticism after repeatedly misgendering the broadcaster India Willoughby, a transgender woman, on Twitter.

We don't need to have that extensive, lengthy quote in this article. This article is written in summary style, and quotes of that length have their place in Political views of J. K. Rowling.

Well, the quote I included is 79 characters long. The quote "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", used in the same section, is 142 characters long. The quote "[safeguard] the press from political interference while also giving vital protection to the vulnerable" is 104 characters long and can be found in the Views -> Press section. Quotes longer than this one are used in the article, so it's not fair to say this one is too long in and of itself.

And as I said to Snokalok below in this subsection, given that the police have dropped this matter with nothing more than recording it as a non-crime hate incident, it just does not seem that notable of a single event in the broader topic of Rowling's views on trans people.

That's fair. I think it's subjective, and we just disagree on the matter. I think it's such a clear escalation of her rhetoric that its inclusion is warranted. We probably just need to vote on whether it's important/significant enough to warrant inclusion. Maybe it makes sense to make a most agreeable draft for inclusion, then put it down to a vote?

Given that we're looking at re-writing that entire paragraph anyway in the discussion below to better summarise the progression of Rowling's views over time, instead of just highlighting three events, I don't really see that much of a reason to put this much effort into something that we're very likely going to replace anyway.

That makes sense. I understand not wanting to redo work when the second paragraph is re-written, assuming that, were Rowling's comments on Willoughby to be included in the article, that they would be in that paragraph. However, since Wikipedia is WP:IMPERFECT and a WP:Work in progress, I still think that (barring any other reason) this topic should be included before then. We shouldn't wait to include a topic because reliable but not yet ideal/academic (as seems to be the desire) sources are available to support it. I think the same reasoning was used in the past, as you've said:

The current text of the second paragraph of the transgender people represents what sourcing was available at the time of the review. It's imperfect because the sourcing at the time was imperfect

Thanks again for your thoughts! 13tez (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This is much better, though I'm also wondering - if we're time-skipping from 2024 to now, is the Willoughby misgendering the most notable thing in those four years? I mean personally I think the slightly more recent event regarding the Hirschfeld Institute would be a stronger contender,[3] but I recognize that the media sourcing isn't as strong right now, so with that in mind I'd ask whether we should be looking at events from 2022 and 2023. Because while Joanne misgendering a trans newscaster is not un-notable, I wonder if there aren't more notable and equally well covered events. For that matter, I'm wondering to some degree why we are - with such a strong number of incidents, singling out a bare few and not instead rewriting it as "Since then, Rowling has consistently advocated X, Y, Z". There are after all, as we saw from the post below, plenty of RSP sources that present it as a longstanding pattern rather than a few isolated events. Snokalok (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

if we're time-skipping from 2024 to now, is the Willoughby misgendering the most notable thing in those four years? See my comment opening the discussion for draft 1. This is an interim proposal, while we try to identify sourcing for a broader rewrite of that paragraph. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair. In that case, regarding Willoughby alone, I'd like to put forth the possibility of removing or reducing the space given to police involvement and replacing it with a quote of the misgendering. Because, as @13tez said, the police aren't going any further with this, it doesn't seem like a major detail in the grand scheme of things, but the nature in which the misgendering was done I believe moreso is. This wasn't simply a case of deliberately using the wrong pronouns, this was calling her "a man reveling in a misogynistic performance", which is a significantly more intense statement than just "I refuse to acknowledge this person as a woman"; and I worry that simply reducing it to "misgendering" might mislead a reader to some degree. What are your thoughts? Snokalok (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

the police aren't going any further with this, it doesn't seem like a major detail in the grand scheme of things If that's the case, then none of this is really notable, and I don't see a particularly compelling reason for us to highlight what she's said in this manner. The police recording it as a non-crime hate incident per The Times article from a couple of hours ago is more notable for the purposes of this article to me than the exact words that lead to that. Reuters and other higher quality sources might pick up on that tomorrow or over the weekend, but as some low quality unreliable sources have noted that was recorded 4 days ago, so it's also possible no further sourcing on this from high quality sources will develop. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Any objections to modifying final sentence in lede in the following way

I don't know if we need a formal RfC for this change but here we go:

"These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals" - I don't think "individuals" helps inform the reader of anything as for any given issue, some individuals will support/oppose it. This sentence in the lede should suggest what the major positions of involved parties to the issues are, not the thoughts of indivudals generally. Additionally, "some" should be removed as it implies that it is the minority of feminists who are critical of Ms. Rowling, while we really can't say that for certain and I suspect it might be the opposite, regardless "some" is not necessary as we already make it clear by also including "other feminists."

If I don't hear any objections I'll WP:BEBOLD and change it in like a week or so. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we still need to include "some" as otherwise it suggests she has been criticized by all feminists. I think we also need to include "and individuals" to make it clear that it's not just feminists who have supported her. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Then why don't we have it say "some other feminists?" I think either way it expresses a viewpoint unless you remove some from the equation, and the fact that the second part says "other feminists" is fine. And who, if not just "other feminists" have supported her? The lack of precision is what concerns me. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that fixes the issues.

According to the article, it includes performers and figures from the art world. BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What makes those figures opinions WP:DUE to issues revolving around feminism, gender, and sexuality? Based off my reading of the citations the citation regarding Eddie Izzard is probably DUE as she is genderfluid, but I'm not sure why we should be giving weight in the lede to "figures from the art world". LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So we've discussed that particular piece of content heavily during the FAR in 2022, and some of our wording was defined by a large but poorly executed RfC from November 2021-January 2022. At the moment we're kinda beholden to some of that phrasing, though the FAR drafting did try to work around it as best we could. For now I'd suggest reading this pre-drafting discussion on the status of the lead, and the the FAR drafting discussion for the lead, as that'll provide a great deal of insight for why it's phrased in the way that it is.

I'm not opposed to changing it in principle, though we do have to be careful when changing it to make sure it reflects the content in the body. It might be possible to rephrase it a little more radically based on the body content though, if we can find a consensus for changing it. We're far enough away from the RfC that in theory, we could just come to a consensus here for a change without needing to have another one. Something like These views have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors might be a good starting point for a more radical of revision it, as it's far more directly supported by the article's actual content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

These views have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations.

I would support this version; in your version it's unclear what the subject of "divided feminists" is, while the last line seems WP:UNDUE compared to coverage in the body. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

90% of this is taken from the first paragraph of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people section which says Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. The remaining bit at the start is a juxtaposition of that against the third paragraph of the section, which states LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments, and the fourth paragraph of the section, which Rowling's statements – beginning in 2017 – have been called transphobic by critics, and she has been referred to as a TERF.

As for the subject of "divided feminists" being unclear, some of that could be my choice of punctuation. How about These views have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations. They have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors (changes in bold)? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That's better, but I would prefer to keep it in a single sentence (two, in my opinion, are WP:UNDUE emphasis on a relatively minor aspect of Rowling's life and works), and I remain unconvinced that the declarations of support are sufficiently relevant to the lede of Rowling's article. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, the declarations of support piece comes from the first paragraph of the transgender people section. I don't really see any issue with that minimal mention in the lead. When it was discussed during the FAR, the biggest concern with that sentence was making sure that it didn't deviate from the massively imperfect version the 2021 RfC left us with. If we now consider ourselves free of that particular burden, then re-writing it to better reflect what we actually say in the body

As for the length and two sentences, 43 words from a lead that contains 400 others prior to the current version of the sentence, for a section that currently takes up 505 words doesn't really seem that undue to me. A two sentence structure more neatly addresses your concern about the subject of "divided feminists" being unclear. And I think that your one sentence version has a similar problem in that it's not directly explaining why the views have divided feminists. The division is because the majority of feminists and feminist bodies consider the views to be transphobic, and I think we kinda need say that descriptor up front before we can say that the views have divided feminists. Otherwise we leave open the question of "why have they divided feminists?" Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If I may respond to the last sentence there? It's absolutely fine not to answer that question in the lede. The point of the lede isn't to present all the relevant information contained in an article, but to give the reader an accurate representation of what the article contains. Why her statements divided feminists is explained in the relevant section of the page as a whole. Robrecht (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Sideswipe9th was objecting to the order of BilledMammal's sentence (which mentions a division before explaining that the views have been described as transphobic by..) and we may have gone a bit too deeply thinking about "why have they divided feminists" because in fact neither proposed sentence explains that at all, nor does the body. It isn't for this article to explain why some feminists are pro trans and some are trans exclusionary, why some think some attitudes are transphobic and some don't. The word we are looking for is "what". What is it that the feminists are divided about, wrt supporting or criticising Rowling. -- Colin°^Talk 19:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, what Colin just said. I think I just explained my thoughts on that poorly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That is 100% better than what I proposed kudos to you for whipping up such great language in like two seconds flat. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Mostly I'm just kitbashing the content that's already in the article's body. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think Siwdeswip9th's summary is better and agree that this is actually a small number of words for something that has come to dominate any discussion of Rowling (no review of her books, films or TV programmes fails to mention this, particularly wrt young audiences). I see that it is taken/summarising the body and I would question the "academic freedom" clause. I looked at the source and although it mentions Rowling, nowhere AFAICS does it say her comments have "fuelled debate" on that matter. The academics have had plenty of their own kind fuelling debate without considering the twitter comments of a children's fantasy author. So I propose those two words are dropped from the body and this proposed lead sentence. -- Colin°^Talk 08:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any issue dropping "academic freedom" from the body and the draft given what you've said. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft proposal in context

Ok, so that it's clearer for everyone, here's where we're at with the proposed changes to the lead:

Current	Proposed (adds 20 words)
These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.	These views have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations. They have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors.

And transgender people section:

Current	Proposed (removes 2 words)
Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors.	Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors.

Sources
References

Discussion of proposal

For the lead, these changes bring it more in line with the article's body text. It means we're going against the flawed 2021 RfC, but I think it's an improvement to the article and we are far enough away from that time that we can just make this change, if there's a consensus for it. For the transgender people section, this is the incorporation of Colin's proposal to drop "academic freedom" from the "fuelled debates" sentence. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the first sentence in the first proposed change, I'm uncertain about "divided feminists" however, for the simple reason that as is, it seems incredibly vague and doesn't really tell the reader, anything. What feminists, divided how? Snokalok (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the body content and the sources her statements have divided feminist opinion. If you want to see how that content in the body was developed and why that phrasing was selected, I'd recommend reviewing this discussion from June 2022, as well as this section of the FAR in March 2022. We can't really go into that much detail in the article lead, as that is what the body is for. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't enough to put it at the end of the lead. It needs to be within the first three sentences of the article. It is one of the most notable and significant aspects of who she is in public society.

Furthermore, as per comments in the "It's time to include anti-transgender activist in the first sentence" discussion, there is sufficient scholarly, peer-reviewed evidence to state that she is "widely known for her anti-trans views." The term "anti-trans" should be explicit--not making this explicit is whitewashing / shielding her, which would be a form of sociopolitical bias. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the article body content supports bringing this up to being something said within the first three sentences of the lead. While it's certainly noteworthy enough for the lead overall, when looked at in the scope of the rest of the content about Rowling I just don't see that being feasible.

As for widely known for her anti-trans views, I don't think the body content nor the sourcing we currently cite supports it with that broad a qualifier (ie, widely known). That might change if we're able to do a broader rewrite of the second paragraph of the transgender people section, per my comment above suggesting that we look for sourcing that describes the changes in her expressed views over time. But for now, I don't think it's really possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue at this point that a broader rewrite may be in order, focusing less on individual instances (which can be detailed in the separate views article), and more on the general pattern that's been established. There's certainly enough RSP sources to support that. Snokalok (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You won't find me objecting to re-writing that second paragraph. Let's start a new discussion section for that, with step 1 being finding and listing here all of the highest quality sources available that would support a substantial change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Just realised after reviewing the bold implementation of this by LegalSmeagolian that while I'd removed "academic freedom" from the body in the proposal, I'd forgotten to remove it from the lead of the proposal. I've just removed the words from both places now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I did not catch that. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It's time to include anti-transgender activist in the first sentence

We have other people once known for their work in other fields, who are now known for anti-transgender activism. Such as Graham Linehan, described in our article as "an Irish comedy writer and anti-transgender activist". For the past half decade, most coverage of Rowling in reliable sources has been about her anti-transgender views and activism. She is far better known as an anti-transgender activist than Graham Linehan ever was; in fact many RS have described her as the most famous TERF[4]. It's really all she talks about in public, and it's what RS focus on when reporting on her. If you do a Google News search every result is about her anti-transgender views in some way (I looked through the first hundred results today). And this has now been the situation for years. Also, "philanthropist", really? She donates money to anti-transgender groups. She doesn't seem to be widely known for any philanthropic efforts, to the same degree that she is known for her former work as a children's author and that she is now known as an anti-transgender activist. Any philanthropic activities (that aren't just donations to anti-trans groups) could be mentioned below instead.

Hence, based on the model of Graham Linehan and comparable articles, the first sentence should be "is a British author and anti-transgender activist". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Anti-trans activist is a pretty strong label to use for any BLP, and the sourcing requirements for it are high. For Linehan, we have an array of relatively high quality sources that explicitly describe him as an anti-trans activist, and that descriptor sees pretty frequent use in sources about him and his current activities.

For Rowling, I don't think we have any high quality sources that describe her as an anti-trans activist, or a close synonym, much less use that to the same sort of consistent degree that sources about Linehan describe his activities. Yes The Mary Sue have described her as the world’s most famous TERF, but from reading the highest quality sources available I don't think that's something that's reflected elsewhere. What other sources do you have that could support this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this until more comprehensive sourcing can be found. — Czello ^(music) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For now, I'm interested in starting a conversation regarding the first sentence and specifically the need to revisit it. I'm open to ideas regarding the exact way to phrase it, but I believe it should include something that summarizes her anti-trans or TERF activism in some way. It's simply too prominent to ignore, considering that a majority of RS over the past half decade focus on this topic. The Mary Sue article was just an example; the sources describing Rowling as (a prominent or some variation thereof) TERF, anti-trans, or in similar terms are numerous[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] (Rowling’s name is now synonymous with “TERF”) [16] (The controversial figurehead has dived full force into the trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) movement in recent years) [17][18] [19] (the [Harry Potter] franchise has, sadly, remained in the ever-present shadow of a larger conversation: creator JK Rowling's public support of anti-transgender rhetoric, as well as her support for the people and groups that spread it, all expressed on social media, her website, and in her activism. This has not been an isolated incident, but a continued stance for Rowling dating all the way back to 2018) [20][21]. Regarding Linehan, his anti-trans activism is relatively obscure compared to Rowling, and mostly limited to ramblings on his Youtube channel, and he doesn't receive anywhere near the kind of coverage that Rowling gets for her anti-trans views. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

More than enough reliable sources for a phrase along the lines of "she is known for expressing views that are widely considered to be anti-transgender" in the first or second sentence of the article, for sure. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't that Linehan's actions are more obscure or limited compared to Rowling's, it's that the anti-trans activist descriptor is more widely used in sources about him.

Taking the array of sources you've provided, several have to be eliminated immediately. The Forbes piece is by a contributor, so see WP:FORBESCON. The Yahoo piece is actually a republishing of the article by The Week, and I've already told you on your talk page to watch out for this exact problem. The reliability of Inside The Magic is unclear, and may not be suitable for BLPs.

Of what's left, USA Today doesn't describe her as a TERF and only says that others have described her as such and she disputes the term. This is the same for The Conversation, the first NBC News, Us Magazine, the second NBC News, Gamespot, CNN, and Vulture all of which describe her as expressing anti-trans or transphobic views but not being an anti-trans activist.

The Advocate only describes her as "going full TERF" in the headline, however headlines aren't considered reliable. Otherwise it describes her as "invoking anti-trans language". The first Vox piece is a useful timeline but only says Rowling has been turning toward an anti-trans stance over a long period. The Vanity Fair article says that she's transphobic because everyone she reads and listens to is. The timeline from The Week is useful for documenting the progression of her views, but does not describe Rowling in any way outside the headline. The article by Out has the same headline issues as The Advocate and The Week. The second Vox article does say that Rowling’s name is now synonymous with "TERF".

Having reviewed all of these sources, I'm sorry but I don't think this supports any change in descriptor in the article, much less promoting that descriptor to the first sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

I feel that these sources are enough to change from "criticized by LGBT rights orgs and some feminists" to simply "widely criticized as transphobic" Snokalok (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see this discussion above where a draft to replace that sentence in the lead with one that more accurately reflects the body content is underway. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, "both sides-ing" this in the article isn't rooted in reality. It's an overtly political, biased, and--yes--anti-trans move.

Additionally, there are plenty of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that characterize Rowling as anti-trans or as a TERF, as listed below. By Wikipedia's own standards, these are more reliable than the popular media sources listed above.

https://www.revistageminis.ufscar.br/index.php/geminis/article/view/759/516

McNamarah, Chan Tov. “CIS-WOMAN-PROTECTIVE ARGUMENTS.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 123, no. 3, 2023, pp. 845–928. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27211377. Accessed 15 Mar. 2024.

Duggan, Jennifer. “Transformative Readings: Harry Potter Fan Fiction, Trans/Queer Reader Response, and J. K. Rowling.” Children’s Literature in Education, vol. 53, no. 2, June 2022, pp. 147–68. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive my not being able to directly assess Martins and Sigliano, as I don't speak Portuguese. However is there a particular quote within that article that you think supports this? If so, could you please quote it both in the original Portuguese and provide a translation of it?

McNamarah only comments on Rowling once, where they say The British media ... largely welcomed author J.K. Rowling’s view that transgender equality jeopardizes cis women’s progress. That doesn't describe Rowling as an anti-trans activist, or any other related term. It merely states that the British media were welcoming of her views, just as they were supportive of Forstater's tribunal.

The closest that Duggan gets to describing Rowling as an anti-trans activist is Rowling’s personal, conservative views on sex and gender have recently been made abundantly clear through her repeated and escalating anti-trans commentary, posted between 2017 and 2020, where it's only describing her commentary as being anti-trans. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You're moving the goalpost. Please note that my suggestion for the rewrite did not describe her as an "anti-transgender activist," but as "known for having anti-trans views." The Duggan article is evidence for that.

As for McNamarah's, believing that transgender equality jeopardizes women's progress is, factually, an incorrect and anti-trans view. The article presents her view as notable and welcomed by the British media; therefore, why you may be correct that it doesn't describe her as an anti-trans *activist* per se, it does describe her as having anti-trans views that are notable (which they are).

As for the Martins and Sigliano article, this is from the Abstract: "This paper aims to analyze the dimensions of media competence present in the content published on Twitter

by Harry Potter fans and/or J.K. Rowling fans. The tweets are part of the #RIPJKRowling indexing context, which emerged from the author's transphobic positions." PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully I'm not. You said that there are plenty of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that characterize Rowling as anti-trans or as a TERF and highlighted three articles. I was able to access two of them, and quoted their content on Rowling and how they describe her. One of the sources I was unable to access due to a language barrier, and I asked if you could provide a quotation and translation that supports what you've said. The two sources I could access do not support describing Rowling as an anti-trans activist or a TERF in the article lead, in line with Amanda's suggestion that we describe Rowling as an anti-transgender activist in the first sentence of the article lead. To do that, you need to have very strong and consistent sourcing, as it's not a label we use lightly in wikivoice. Presently, it does not appear as though we have the sourcing available to make this change.

There is a rather large difference between someone who is known to hold anti-trans views, and describing them as an anti-trans activist, as has been suggested in this discussion. We currently state later in the lead that Rowling's views have been criticised as transphobic.., which is a rough synonym for holding anti-trans views, however there is also a proposal above to re-phrase that and bring it more into line with the article's body.

As for Martins and Sigiliano, I'm more interested in what the paper says outside of the abstract. A research paper's abstract is a lot like a Wikipedia article's lead. It summarises and sets the stage for everything that follows in the article's body. That paper is 20 pages long, outside of its citations, and for our purposes it would be significantly more useful use its body content, rather than the single paragraph abstract. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are. Note that I did not use the term "activist" in any of my posts in this discussion until you misattributed that term to my replies. I said that there is a wealth of scholarly evidence pertaining to JK Rowling's anti-trans views and how she has become known for them. This is true, and the listed examples prove this. Whether or not they use the term "activist" is irrelevant to my point; perhaps it is relevant to Amanda's point, but not mine nor my suggested wording, and to attribute it to mine is to commit a rather blatant straw man fallacy. That is not engaging in good faith.

Perhaps there isn't enough evidence to use the term "activist" or even "TERF." But as it stands, JK Rowling's social relevance over the last several years has revolved around her anti-trans views, and there are plenty of reliable sources to back this up. This fact should be present in the introduction of the article. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The original suggestion that started this discussion was to change the first sentence of the lead to read "is a British author and anti-transgender activist". Everything I've been replying to is on that point, and how the sources don't support that change.

Now if you're suggesting that we should state that Rowling's views are anti-trans, or transphobic, or some other synonym, we are already doing that. At end of the lead, which is the introduction of the article, there is a pair of sentences that currently read She has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights since 2017. These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.. The second sentence from that does not really reflect the article's body content, and there is a discussion above on changing it to better reflect the body. That discussion is happening separately to this one, on adding the descriptor "anti-trans activist" or some other synonym to the first sentence of the lead. If you feel those changes are in some way lacking, feel free to contribute to that discussion on that point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hard agree. Her identity is completely associated with her anti-transgender views in the public consciousness; they have eclipsed and overshadowed her fiction work, and it is socially and morally irresponsible to pretend that they haven't. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is why we need to revisit the first sentence. The current way of dealing with this in the lead may have been appropriate five years ago, but not today. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The article lead, along with pretty much the entire body was extensively re-written two years ago during the Featured Article Review, to bring the article back up to the standard of a featured article. The way in which we're dealing with the lead is appropriate based upon the content that is currently in the article's body, because an article's lead follows its body. Nowhere in the article's body do we describe Rowling as an anti-trans activist, or any other synonym, and no proposals have been brought forward to change the body to reflect that. That doesn't really matter however, as none of the sources provided so far actually describe Rowling as an anti-trans activist, so we couldn't support it in the article's body either.

I would strongly urge that all of the editors present who are unfamiliar with the featured article process, and what that means for adding content to an article to review the FAR discussion and its five sub-archives (archive 1, archive 2, archive 3, archive 4, archive 5), to get a handle on how this content was developed two years ago and what the process involved in changing it is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that while few harbor any illusions about Rowling's views and her use of her platform/wealth, and while I think that it does at this point absolutely warrant mention in the summary, there's a difference between that and being able to put the words "anti-transgender activist" in there in compliance with BLP guidelines.

If you can dig up some RSP sources calling her or describing her activities directly as "anti-trans", "terf", "gender critical", or similar, then there might be a solid case. Snokalok (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait okay I saw the sources list you posted in the other comment, yeah I'm supportive then, though I think the wording is still something that should be carefully talked over Snokalok (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the exact wording should absolutely be carefully considered. The main point was that it should be reflected in some way in the sentence. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, looking over your sources, we have four separate RSP sources (CNN, Vox, Forbes, and Vulture) directly calling her a terf, and four more (CNN, Vox, Vanity Fair, and NBC) describing her beliefs and statements as anti-trans. That's a solid evidence base for a wide variety of wordings.

Perhaps we start with something like, "JK Rowling has more recently been notable for her prominent role in the anti-transgender movement, to the point of being regarded by many as a TERF" Snokalok (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no. Please see my comment above for my overview of the sourcing, and why they're not acceptable for any change in the lead on this point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I posted this above but repeating here: to change the wording we generally workshop the proposed text and achieve consensus from all page watchers. See for example this proposal. That said, Sideswipe9th comment from above applies - the sources don't exist for the proposed change, diff Victoria (tk) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There is definitely a disconnect between the subject's ongoing campaigning (generating increasingly concerning news reports) and the way it is described in the lede, but I'm not sure if copying that phrase from another article is the right way to fix that. This encyclopedia very clearly describes gender-critical feminism as categorically anti-trans, and the subject of this BLP recently explicitly described her own views as "gender critical": https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1765518705859977328. I would suggest changing the current vague description to match how this encyclopedia currently describes the movement. Umdlye (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points, but Rowling is very famous for donating enough money to lose her billionaire status, so the philanthropist bit is relevant to the body of data on the author. 2603:7081:1603:A300:8448:8888:CC8F:BC90 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"Her identity is completely associated with her anti-transgender views" - feels to me that is primarily true for people dealing with transgender issues, but much less so for the rest. So there might be a bit of perception bias.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly focus on her anti-trans views and this has been the situation for years. When I looked through the first 100 Google News results recently all results were related to her anti-trans views in some way. She may have been a children's author two decades ago, but it is completely overshadowed by her anti-trans activism, judging by RS coverage. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Second paragraph of Transgender people section

Ok, starting a workshop for this as there seems to be a rough consensus across several of the ongoing discussions for re-writing the second paragraph of the transgender people to give a broader overview of how Rowling's views on transgender people and rights have changed over the last six or so years. Before we can consider any phrasing, the first step will be to find and assess all of the highest quality sources available that could support this re-write. I would suggest that we make separate lists for scholarly and book sources, news sources, and magazine sources, so I've added three subsections below where we can start adding links to those sources. Once you find a source, add a link to it with its title in the appropriate section. Once we've got a reasonable list of sources, we can start assessing them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(Note: I am very interested in this talk thread and wish to contribute, but am also on vacation right now, so my contributions for the next week may be sparse) Snokalok (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Quick couple of notes. When you're adding sources to the sections below, just add them with the correct CS1 template (eg {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, etc) without the ref tags. And make sure when you're adding sources to the lists that they're generally reliable. You can do a quick check against the entries on WP:RSP, but remember that list only has publications that have been discussed multiple times, so you may also need to check the WP:RSN archives. Oh, and keep it to their factual reports only. Opinion articles aren't helpful at this stage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Scholarship and book sources

• Ravell, Hannah (5 June 2023). "#RIPJKRowling: A tale of a fandom, Twitter and a haunting author who refuses to die". Sage Journals. 12 (3). Retrieved 17 March 2024.
  • Provocative-sounding title but this basically analyzes fan rejection of JKR through the concept of Death of the Author --WikiFouf (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Hobbs, Mitchell John; O'Keefe, Sarah (March 2024). "Agonism in the arena: Analyzing cancel culture using a rhetorical model of deviance and reputational repair". Public Relations Review. 50 (1). Retrieved 17 March 2024.
  • Analysis of cancel culture; JKR is one of four case studies --WikiFouf (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Gwenffrewi, Gina (1 August 2022). "J. K. Rowling and the Echo Chamber of Secrets" (PDF). Transgender Studies Quarterly. 9 (3). Retrieved 17 March 2024.
  • Analysis of anti-trans opinion pieces, including JKR's "TERF Wars", with an autoethnographic angle --WikiFouf (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Duggan, Jennifer (June 2022). "Transformative Readings: Harry Potter Fan Fiction, Trans/Queer Reader Response, and J. K. Rowling". Children's Literature in Education. 53 (2): 147–168. doi:10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9.
• Pugh, Tison (2020). Harry Potter and beyond: on J. K. Rowling's fantasies and other fictions. Columbia, South Carolina: The University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 1643360876.

News sources

Add news sources here. Remove this comment when adding the first source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

CNN dump. If you have a CNN source, post it here and give it a name. Avoid opinion pieces if possible:

"What to know about the new J.K. Rowling podcast and her history of harmful anti-trans comments". CNN. February 21, 2023.

"J.K. Rowling says it was her choice not to appear in 'Harry Potter' reunion". CNN. August 30, 2022.

"J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash". CNN. June 10, 2020.

"JK Rowling's new book sparks fresh transgender rights row". CNN. September 15, 2020.

"'Harry Potter' fan sites distance themselves from J.K. Rowling over gender identity comments". CNN. July 3, 2020.

"Authors at J.K. Rowling's literary agency quit over company's refusal to speak out on transgender rights". CNN. June 22, 2020.

"JK Rowling under fire over transgender comments". CNN. December 20, 2019.

"Trans activists call J.K. Rowling essay 'devastating'". CNN. June 11, 2020.

Snokalok (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

NBC Dump

NBC1[22] NBC2[23] NBC3[24] NBC4[25] NBC5[26] NBC6[27] NBC7[28] NBC8[29] NBC9[30] NBC10[31] NBC11[32] NBC12[33] NBC13[34] NBC14[35] Snokalok (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

These should help give some context to how her comments have changed over time.

Other

"A timeline of JK Rowling's comments about women and transgender rights". The Independent. 25 April 2023. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

"The metamorphosis of J.K. Rowling". Politico. 3 July 2022.

Romano, Aja (3 March 2023). "Is J.K. Rowling transphobic? Let's let her speak for herself". Vox. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

McKee, Jake (10 February 2023). "The long and ugly history of JK Rowling and her views on trans people". PinkNews. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

13tez (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Jacobs, Julia (12 June 2020). "Harry Potter Fans Reimagine Their World Without Its Creator". The New York Times. --WikiFouf (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Rao, Sonia; Ohlheiser, Abby (20 December 2019). "J.K. Rowling tried to make her work more inclusive. Then she tweeted support for an anti-trans researcher". Washington Post. --WikiFouf (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sources on misgendering India Willoughby in March 2024
  • Murray, Tom (4 March 2024). "JK Rowling deliberately misgenders trans activist India Willoughby". The Independent.
  • Bradley, Sian (16 March 2024). "JK Rowling reported to police for 'misgendering' trans TV newsreader". The Times.
  • Tait, Albert; Sanderson, Daniel (7 March 2024). "JK Rowling reported to police by trans activist India Willoughby for misgendering". The Daily Telegraph.
  • "JK Rowling: Trans newsreader India Willoughby calls comments by Harry Potter author 'grotesque transphobia'". Sky News. 5 March 2024.
  • Baska, Maggie (5 March 2024). "JK Rowling misgenders trans journalist India Willoughby in 'grotesque' post". PinkNews.
  • Bradley, Sian (19 March 2024). "JK Rowling's misgendering of India Willoughby was no crime, say police". The Times.
  • Perry, Kevin E G (8 March 2024). "India Willoughby's JK Rowling complaint did not meet criminal threshold, police say". The Independent.
  • Sanderson, Daniel (8 March 2024). "Police will not investigate JK Rowling over 'misgendering' trans activist". The Daily Telegraph.
  • "Transgender broadcaster reports J.K. Rowling to police over social media comments". Reuters. 7 March 2024.
  • Roberts, Hannah (7 March 2024). "JK Rowling responds after being reported to police over misgendering broadcaster". The Independent.

• Sources on Rowling's comments on trans people in Nazi Germany in March 2024
  • Fox, Mira (13 March 2024). "It wasn't just the goblins — is J.K. Rowling doing Holocaust denial now?". The Forward.
  • Hayes, Britt (13 March 2024). "J.K. Rowling's Transphobia Hits a New Low With Holocaust Denial". The Mary Sue.
  • Romano, Aja (3 March 2023). "Is J.K. Rowling transphobic? Let's let her speak for herself". Vox.
  • "JK Rowling under fire for 'transphobic' remarks, claims Nazis never burnt books on trans health". Hindustan Times. 14 March 2024.
  • Lazine, Mira (14 March 2024). "JK Rowling accused of "Holocaust denial" over posts about transgender persecution in Nazi Germany". LGBTQ Nation.
  • Ring, Trudy (15 March 2024). "Yes, J.K. Rowling, the Nazis persecuted transgender people". Advocate.

• Sources on April Fools Twitter thread:
  • Cook, James; Hastie, Paul (1 April 2024). "JK Rowling in 'arrest me' challenge over Scottish hate crime law". BBC. Retrieved 2 April 2024.
  • Evans, Greg (1 April 2024). "J.K. Rowling Mocks Trans Women To Defy Scotland's New Hate Crime Law: "I Look Forward To Being Arrested"". Deadline. Retrieved 2 April 2024.
  • Harrison, Ellie (1 April 2024). "JK Rowling could be probed by police for misgendering trans people, minister says". The Independent. Retrieved 2 April 2024.
    • Also mentions previous Willoughby incident

• Existing sources currently in 2nd paragraph
  • "Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people". The Independent. 17 September 2020.
  • "Daniel Radcliffe Criticizes J.K. Rowling's Anti-Transgender Tweets". New York Times. 7 June 2020.
  • Moreau, Jordan (6 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling Gets Backlash Over Anti-Trans Tweets". Variety.
  • "Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules". BBC News. 6 July 2022.
  • "J.K. Rowling Criticized After Tweeting Support for Anti-Transgender Researcher". New York Times. 2019-12-20.

Magazine sources

• Morrow, Brendan (13 February 2023). "J.K. Rowling's transphobia controversy: A complete timeline". The Week. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
  • Best one of those "timeline" articles, not high quality but a good starting point --WikiFouf (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• More magazine timelines for what they're worth

"The New J.K. Rowling Podcast and Her History of Transphobia". Advocate. 22 Feb 2023. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

Murray, Conor (15 Feb 2023). "J.K. Rowling Defends Herself In Podcast: Her Controversial Comments On Transgender Issues Explained". Forbes. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

"A Complete Breakdown of the J.K. Rowling Transgender-Comments Controversy". Glamour. 19 October 2023. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

"A breakdown of the J.K. Rowling transgender comments". Glamour UK. 27 Feb 2024. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

"A timeline of JK Rowling's views on trans rights as she reveals 'death threats' from activists | indy100". Indy 100. 20 Jul 2021.

Doyle, Jack (13 March 2024). "J.K. Rowling Launches Yet Another Attack on Trans Women". The Mary Sue. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

Is the transgender section imbalanced?

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

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

1. First of all, there's a nuance between statements and views. While statements are the default mode of expression of one's views, they're not the only way to express those views. The case of JKR is maybe special in that sense because the controversy around her views, as she acknowledges herself in her essay "TERF Wars", didn't start with her statements but with the scrutiny of her Twitter activity. I wondered for a while if this was just a chronically-online thing that only a couple of people remembered, but I actually found it to be mentioned as the beginning of the controversy in tons of quality secondary sources: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. Some of these sources mention a first "like" in 2017, but most of them focus on the 2018 "men in dresses" like. In our section, the first incident mentioned is Rowling's tweet in support of Maya Forstater, in 2019, a year and a half later.
2. My concern with this omission is not just that a key piece of information is missing. We have to remember that this section contains the description of a debate, therefore we need to uphold WP:NPOV. Most of the statements by Rowling that are cited currently are defensive in nature, so the full context behind them is essential to the neutrality of the section. As I highlighted in my first point, newspapers, academics and Rowling herself all recognize that she has been criticized for more than her statements, and cite the role played by her Twitter activity. Therefore, the fact that only her statements — defensive statements, for the most part — are mentioned in this section goes against WP:BALANCE.
3. Not only are just her statements cited, which statements are cited is also what I think makes the section imbalanced. In particular, the fact that her misgendering of India Willoughby is currently left out poses a problem. I understand waiting for the best quality sources, but most of her other statements currently cited in the section — for example, her first defensive tweet from 2019, or the near full paragraph on the content of "TERF Wars"; all supported only by breaking news — are backed by the exact same level of sourcing. And regardless of the original intention, we have to recognize that it may look biased to cite Rowling saying that trans people deserve "peace and security", while omitting that she also called a trans woman "a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks 'woman' means". To be clear, my suggestion is that the Willoughby incident be added back, not that other stuff be removed, although any effort to uphold consistent standards across the section will be an improvement.
4. These inconsistent standards apply beyond her statements. If the reason for omitting Willoughby is that it's an individual incident — something I would tend to disagree with, as it's also the clear expression of an opinion — then other individual incidents, which are arguably less notable and are also backed by lesser-quality sourcing, would also need to be questioned. Examples: Ripple of Hope Award, open letter condemning "hate speech".
5. This final point is maybe more trivial and unrelated, but I think the order and structure of the section should be changed, especially with the first and fourth paragraphs. Both contain information that would belong in a "general overview" paragraph, so I don't understand why they're separated. In particular, I don't see why the first paragraph mentions first and foremost that her statements have "divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people", but the fact that those same statements "have been called transphobic" is separated from the other stuff and relegated to the 4th paragraph. In any case, this would inevitably be addressed if, as some suggested, we rework the section to show the progression of her views in more of a linear way.

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

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

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

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

@Dimadick The answer to your question would be 2023, with a book that is shortlisted for Crime and Fiction Book of the Year by the British Book Awards.[43]. Beware of confirmation bias. 2A00:23C8:2C85:5F01:6117:98DF:6359:9333 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The POV-pushing last paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've now read the Suissa and Sullivan paper ( [44]) and... well, A. it doesn't source the material it claims to - there's no mention of death threats, barely mention of insults, and B. this is a very, very odd paper. Page 69 of it claims... well, let me quote the exact words: "Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’"

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

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

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

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

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

I have reverted the removal of this content, for a second time, as it was subject to extensive workshopping during a FAR process [45] to reach a consensus version [46]. It should not be removed until a consensus is reached as to how it should be changed or removed. Please avoid edit warring, and reach consensus before implementing any further changes. Daff22 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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