Talk:J. K. Rowling

Today's edits to transgender section

I've reverted three edits, diff, diff, and diff. I've not looked at the source for the first one to establish whether it actually names the actors; the second includes and unnecessary explanation imho; the third is a rewording. The section was carefully worded throughout, workshopped with a number of editors and consensus achieved. Scientelensia we need to achieve consensus for these changes. Victoria (tk) 00:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. None of the edits were an improvement, they introduced excess detail and even original research, and some parts were against the consensus developed during the FAR. Scientelensia, pls see WP:FAOWN, WP:WIAFA, and Political views of J. K. Rowling with respect to WP:SS. You might also read the Featured article review linked in the Article milestones at the top of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think if the source does include the names of specific actors, we should also, as it's an important detail for the reader that the actors in question are the actors for the three main characters. I support reverting diffs 2 and 3. Loki (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi LokiTheLiar, the first diff isn't supported by the source - it only mentions Daniel Radcliffe. We can link in here from the individual actor pages rather than adding additional verbiage here, where we want to stick w/ summary style throughout. Re the third diff, in my view "mocked" is a better description than "condemned". Victoria (tk) 21:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is Sean Smith a reliable source?

See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 1 § Biographies - to cite or not to cite

From what I can gather he's basically a celeb gossip columnist. Serendi^podous 17:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Connie Ann Kirk says in p. xii that she thinks highly of Smith's bio. Your concern was brought up in the previous thread we had on this topic, but there were also some pros to Smith mentioned. I suppose we could cite Kirk instead if needed (from what I remember, Kirk and Smith had pretty much the same content). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth (FAC's best source reviewer) had a look and agreed Smith was reliable. I could find the thread, but it's somewhere in five pages of FAR archives; if I recall correctly, it's based on the quality of the publisher. Further, having read just about every bit of biographical information published as we were re-writing, I would agree with O-D that Kirk, Smith, and just about everything else written all say the same things, and all draw from the same sources. I also seem to recall that Pugh cites Smith. Even if someone considers him a "gossip columnist", that does not preclude him putting together a good compilation of reliable information, and while I was reading every biographical article, I found no reason to suspect anything Smith wrote. Almost every instance could be double-cited to multiple other sources, which we avoided doing per WP:CITATIONOVERKILL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Addition to philanthropy section

I propose adding the following, citing three WP:RSP reliable perennial sources (The Telegraph, the Guardian, and PinkNews):

In late 2022, Rowling launched Beira's Place, a sexual assault crisis centre in Edinburgh meant to serve exclusively cisgender women. The centre has described itself as a "single-sex service", and has said that it plans to refer any "individuals identifying as trans women to other appropriate services in the area". Snokalok (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Tagging @SandyGeorgia into the discussion Snokalok (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for intruding on this conversation, but I would also like to note that this information has been discussed in a BBC article as well. Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional (BBC) source, Aoba47; that gives us several mainstream usable sources for due weight.

The structure of the Philanthropy section is a paragraph each on:

1. Women, children and young people at risk
2. Ukraine (also children at risk)
3. Medical causes
4. Proceeds from specific publications to support causes
5. Army Benevolent fund following on the revelation that Galbraith was Rowling.

Because Beira's Place deals with rape/sexual violence, it crosses the topics of paragraphs 1 and 3 (women at risk along with medical), so it is unclear to me where the content would best fit, and whether the paragraph structure should be adjusted. (One example-- not sure if it's the best one-- would be to move Ukraine from the second to third para, leaving women first, medical second; then combine Beira's place with Ukraine in a paragraph that covers these other women/children at risk medical causes.) I don't see a stand-alone paragraph about a lesser charitable donation than covered in the two main paragraphs. Besides figuring out how to incorporate this into the existing or a new paragraph structure, the POV presentation and over-quoting in the proposed text needs to be hammered out. I picture one or two sentences at most, and don't think the proposed sentence above is quite there yet. I suggest working in the format we developed during the FAR will be helpful to hammer out a consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll look it over now and reply when I have thoughts, though I do think that given Rowling's stance on trans rights and involvement in activism against such, and that every article above either heavily implies or directly states a connection to a row over rape crisis centers in Edinburgh serving and being run by trans women, the fact that Beira's Place was founded specifically such that it would only serve cis women is a very notable point that should be addressed in some capacity. Snokalok (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The current proposal addresses only that POV, and leaves out considerable other important information. It would probably be easier to craft neutral text for this article, which relies on Summary style (and where we made serious cuts to Philanthropy to keep the WP:SIZE reasonable), if Beira's Place is written first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, I read over the link, and while I do believe the article should still mention the actors criticizing her views as well, that's for another thread and I get the style we're working with now.

Anyway, what would be your suggested wording? Hammering something out is a lot easier with multiple proposals. Snokalok (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I am still struggling with structure (where the content fits); there's a twist in that BBC says it is not a charity, so while Rowling is funding a philanthropic venture, it's not like other causes as it won't accept donations. Again, getting more of the basics of the entity in to its own article will make it easier to hammer out how to handle it here, where we have to keep an eye on WP:SIZE.

(The article does mention the actors criticizing her views-- it's footnoted so we don't have a laundry list.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hence why I think it should be in the transgender views section. The place was founded over trans rights, and was deliberately made to exclude trans people, by someone who - speaking neutrally - is viewed by most of the population whether for and against trans rights, as being prolifically in the "against" camp.

Speaking simply, it's not a charity, but it *is* absolutely related to her views on trans rights. Snokalok (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I should add, the structure I feel will be easier to figure out once we have a wording nailed down - though obviously you're the more experienced editor. Snokalok (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I will put up a draft for working through proposed wording momentarily (not helped by having sprained my wrist and my computer needs to go for repair). It would be most helpful if editors new to the article would recognize that we can't add a couple hundred words every time JKR makes headlines, which is about once a month, and that new content needs to be worked in to existing content in a way that flows. I'm not entirely happy with my first draft, as it is still too long, but with computer and wrist issues, I'll momentarily put up what I've got so far to get the ball rolling. I noted that DMVHistorian's draft was much shorter, which I think is the way to go, since other issues can be explored at Beira's Place, but I had already worked on my draft when DMV put theirs up (with some differences in claims from sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to interject, I would point out that none of the sources listed use the term 'cisgender'. There is in fact nothing in the sources to indicate that the service would not be available to either transmen or non-binary people whose sex is female, as the service utilises single-sex exemptions, which also apply to these groups. I have also added an archive link to the Telegraph article for anyone without access. 2A00:23C8:2C97:1D01:ECDC:CFC3:E310:F152 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What? Yes they do: the PinkNews source says explicitly that JK Rowling’s service, on the other hand, will only serve, and only employ, cisgender women. Loki (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Philanthropy Draft 1

Current (481 words)

PROPOSED Draft 1 (517 words)

Aware of the good fortune that led to her wealth and fame, and wanting to use her public image to help others despite her concerns about publicity and the press, Rowling became, in the words of Smith, "emboldened ... to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her". In 2000, while she was still writing the Harry Potter series, Rowling established the Volant Charitable Trust, named after her mother. Its mission is to "alleviate social deprivation, with a particular emphasis on supporting women, children and young people at risk". Together with the MEP Emma Nicholson, Rowling founded the Children's High Level Group (now Lumos) in 2005. She was appointed president of the charity One Parent Families (now Gingerbread) in 2004, after becoming its first ambassador in 2000. She also collaborated with Sarah Brown on the writing of a book of children's stories to benefit One Parent Families. Rowling's charitable donations before 2012 were estimated by Forbes at $160 million. She was the second most generous UK donor in 2015 (following the singer Elton John), giving about $14 million. Lumos has advocated for reform in orphanage care in Ukraine since 2013, working with an orphanage west of Kyiv. After the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Rowling stated that she will personally match up to £1 million in donations made towards an emergency appeal launched by Lumos. Rowling has made donations to support medical causes. She named another institution after her mother when, in 2010, she donated £10 million to found a multiple sclerosis research centre at the University of Edinburgh. She gave an additional £15.3 million to the centre in 2019. During the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, accompanied by an inflatable representation of Lord Voldemort, she read from Peter Pan as part of a tribute to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. To support COVID-19 relief, she donated six-figure sums to both Khalsa Aid and the British Asian Trust from royalties for The Ickabog. Several publications in the Harry Potter universe have been sold for charitable purposes. Profits from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and Quidditch Through the Ages, both published in 2001, went to Comic Relief. To support Children's Voice, later renamed Lumos, Rowling sold a deluxe copy of The Tales of Beedle the Bard at auction in 2007. Amazon's £1.95 million purchase set a record for a contemporary literary work and for children's literature. Rowling published the book and, in 2013, donated the proceeds of nearly £19 million (then about $30 million) to Lumos. Rowling and 12 other writers composed short pieces in 2008 to be sold to benefit Dyslexia Action and English PEN. Rowling's contribution was an 800-word Harry Potter prequel. When the revelation that Rowling wrote The Cuckoo's Calling led to an increase in sales, she donated the royalties to ABF The Soldiers' Charity (formerly the Army Benevolent Fund).

Aware of the good fortune that led to her wealth and fame, Rowling wanted to use her public image to help others despite her concerns about publicity and the press; she became, in the words of Smith, "emboldened ... to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her". Rowling's charitable donations before 2012 were estimated by Forbes at $160 million. She was the second most generous UK donor in 2015 (following the singer Elton John), giving about $14 million. Long interested in issues affecting women and children, Rowling established the Volant Charitable Trust in 2000, named after her mother to address social deprivation in at-risk women, children and youth. She was appointed president of One Parent Families (now Gingerbread) in 2004, after becoming its first ambassador in 2000. She collaborated with Sarah Brown on a book of children's stories to benefit One Parent Families. Together with the MEP Emma Nicholson, Rowling founded the charity now known as Lumos in 2005. Lumos has worked with an orphanage west of Kyiv, Ukraine since 2013; after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Rowling offered to personally match up to £1 million in donations to Lumos for Ukraine. Later in 2022, during her advocacy against the proposed Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, Rowling stated she would found and fund Beira's Place, a women-centred rape help center to provide free support services for female-only survivors of sexual violence; with long wait times at existing facilities, Rape Crisis Scotland welcomed the services while noting rape crisis centres in Scotland had served trans and non-binary people without incident. Rowling has made donations to support other medical causes. She named another institution after her mother in 2010, when she donated £10 million to found a multiple sclerosis research centre at the University of Edinburgh. She gave an additional £15.3 million to the centre in 2019. During the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, accompanied by an inflatable representation of Lord Voldemort, she read from Peter Pan as part of a tribute to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. To support COVID-19 relief, she donated six-figure sums to both Khalsa Aid and the British Asian Trust from royalties for The Ickabog. Several publications in the Harry Potter universe have been sold for charitable purposes. Profits from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and Quidditch Through the Ages, both published in 2001, went to Comic Relief. To support Children's Voice, later renamed Lumos, Rowling sold a deluxe copy of The Tales of Beedle the Bard at auction in 2007. Amazon's £1.95 million purchase set a record for a contemporary literary work and for children's literature. Rowling published the book and, in 2013, donated the proceeds of nearly £19 million (then about $30 million) to Lumos. Rowling and 12 other writers composed short pieces in 2008 to be sold to benefit Dyslexia Action and English PEN. Rowling's contribution was an 800-word Harry Potter prequel. When the revelation that Rowling wrote The Cuckoo's Calling led to an increase in sales, she donated the royalties to ABF The Soldiers' Charity (formerly the Army Benevolent Fund).

Sources
Notes References Errington, Philip W. (2017). J.K. Rowling: A Bibliography. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4742-9738-7. Kirk, Connie Ann (2003). J.K. Rowling: A Biography. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32205-8. OCLC 49991592. Smith, Sean (2002). J.K. Rowling: A Biography. Arrow Books. ISBN 0-09-944542-5. OCLC 51303518.

Discussion of philanthropy Draft 1

My first draft is still too long, even after cuts to older text, and I suggest DMVHistorian's much briefer addition is the way to go. Nonetheless, I re-jigged the paragraph structure to fit the new content in; we can't just plop in a new paragraph to the article each time JKR makes headlines. I have tried to create a para structure where the first para is context/overview; second para is women/children causes; third para is other medical (as rape involves medical); and fourth is publications to fund charities. I expect multiple iterations to get the prose nailed down, and would appreciate help as I have sprained my wrist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I like how you have written it and re-structured the section. Perhaps the text starting with "with long wait times..." could be removed to shorten the section further. I have also added similar context to the Beira's Place page so it is covered there as well. So sorry about your wrist - that is never fun, especially for a writer! DMVHistorian (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just dropped my computer to repair, apparently I need a new hard drive, but I ran out of time to investigate why your text said it was a charity when other sources say it is not ???? Now confined to iPad typing for a few days ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh no - hope it gets fixed soon... Calling it a charity was a mistype on my end - I had first seen it listed as such in an MSN/Washington Examiner article (Link). I added some additional context to the Beira's Place page regarding the registered status. DMVHistorian (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks; I feared I had missed something in frustration over wrist/hard drive and my hurry to get a draft up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Works for me. Sorry this matter has been a literal pain. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Could we get more feedback from others? What do others say about cutting the length per DMVHistorian's post at 21:16, 14 December, as the content is now covered at Beira's Place? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the clause that comes after the semi-colon that begins "with long wait times ..."? The relationship between Beira's Place and Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre is perhaps best covered in the dedicated sub-article. Thoughts? Victoria (tk) 21:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

DMVHistorian also suggested losing that clause. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

As no one has disagreed with losing the clause beginning at "with long wait times", which has bloated the content about this one issue to an WP:UNDUE size, I will install without that clause. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, is this the wording we are considering; In December 2022, Rowling announced that she was the founder and funder of Beira's Place, a domestic violence charity established to provides specialist services to cisgender women aged 16 and over in Edinburgh and the Lothians who are survivors of sexual violence. ? If so, I would ask that the word cisgender is removed, as it is inaccurate. This is not a term used by those involved in the centre. They have stated that the service is making use of the single sex exemptions as provided for in the Equality Act. Both trans men and non-binary people born female are entitled to protections under that exemption. The service excludes users on the basis of sex, which would therefore mean it does not serve men, trans women and non-binary people born male. I also assume the proposal is to change the word 'charity' to 'organisation'. 109.144.213.18 (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello 109.144.213.18, the current draft language being considered is included directly above in the table with the header "PROPOSED Draft 1 (517 words)" - Thank you! DMVHistorian (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Re 109; not only is that wording problematic; the sources are not the highest quality. See the full proposal above as indicated by DMVHistorian, which re-jigs the existing paragraph structure to work in the new content contextually rather than just dropping in a whole new paragraph. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I would avoid using the term "female-only", as the implication in this case is assigned female at birth, but the term "female" is colloquially quite often applied to trans women as well. Snokalok (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "AFAB-only" or "assigned female only" Snokalok (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Every source uses women-only; most in the headline. Every source body uses female only. No source uses the term assigned female only; see WP:OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Per the Beira's Place article:

In a statement provided by the organisation, Beira's Place wrote "we believe that women deserve to have certainty that, in using our services, they will not encounter anyone who is male. Where appropriate, we will refer men or individuals identifying as trans women to other appropriate services."

Assigned female at birth is the technical term for what we're dealing with here, it's not original research, it's simple terminology. Just because the BBC doesn't see trans women as women, doesn't mean wikipedia shouldn't either.

If you like, perhaps we could simply add a parentheses of some sort saying (not including "individuals identifying as trans women", per the org) or something along those lines with citation Snokalok (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Or, come to think of it, actually we should just make it say "cisgender-women centered". That's one extra word, and conveys the org's intent far better, as "women-centered" alone is misleading. Snokalok (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Installing without the additional clause of content covered at Beira's Place, and rewriting for flow and context, results in 489 words. Keeping the size manageable meant trimming other words about JKR's much more significant philanthropy, and I concur with trimming that clause to not give undue weight to one of JKR's lesser contributions that has also been less covered by sources. It seems increasinly necessary to remind that we can't add entire paragraphs every time JKR makes news, and need to keep the flow and context and weight and size in line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Adding the citeable biological word is a good solution, but it was done in a way that compromised the prose. I have attempted repair, but the prose is still iffy now; perhaps better wordsmiths will have a look at how the entire construct can now be repaired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Gender and Transphobia in The Introductionary Paragraphs

I do not believe the introduction of this article are currently written from a sufficiently neutral point of view, specifically in that the contraversy surrounding rowling's views on gender and transness in politics are not given their due weight in the introduction, while her book series Harry potter, which is not the focus of this article, is given undue weight taking up half of the first paragraph, is the background focus of the second paragraph summarizing her life, and is given the entirity of the third paragraph for introductory literary analysis and a summary of its early critical reception.

This article is meant to be about rowling, not harry potter, and yet harry potter dominates while information about her current affairs and opinions are relegated to two sentences buried underneath four paragraphs, two standard desktop screens, and four standard phone screens. And, when the introduction does finally break the topic of conversation, doesn't to overview her opinions, but instead provides an overview of the reaction to those beliefs that is not at all descriptive. It's describing the shadows on plato's alogrical wall instead of the beliefs of the person casting those shadows, and again this article is supposed to be about rowling, not harry potter nor the people criticizing rowling. It's supposed to be about rowling.

By overweighing harry potter and underweighing rowling's current activity as a self-identified terf (as a significant portion of new articles about her have been about her alleged transphobic beliefs rather than about her work as an author), this article is failing to be neutral by eneffect minimizing rowling's very relevant current political beliefs and actions in favor of focusing on her less currently relevant old work.

It is my opinion, that revisions should be considered to bring the framing of the article's introduction more into line with my interpretation of wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and due weight. Unfortunately, I have neither the practiced ability nor the neccessary permissions to write those revisions, and am only able to voice my disatisfaction with the current version of article. Sebastiantemple (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Rowling has an article only because of Harry Potter. She was unknown before it. The vast majority of scholarly sources discussing Rowling are related to Harry Potter, and the rest are biographies, which aren't covering her recently expressed political views, as far as I'm aware. We're going to need a lot more coverage of her views in reliable sources before mentioning them in the first paragraph would be reasonable, per WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Vanamonde93, in fact, in relation to the all reliable sources, JKR's historical position as an author, and WP:NOTNEWS, the position that the lead spends too much time on current news could be taken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Vanamonde; yes, rowling only has a major article that people care about because of harry potter. But the article isn't meant to be about harry potter: Harry Potter quite deservingly has its own plethera of articles: Rowling has this one article, and it should be about her specifically especially in its introduction.

Focusing too much on harry potter in the introduction buries information about that's specifically about rowling like her philanthropy or (self-identified) trans exclusionary radical feminist beliefs.

Regarding vanamonde and sandygeorgia; I'd very happily believe that there aren't enough scholarly source yet cited by wikipedia about this portion of the the topic of JK Rowling, if that weren't the case, the introduction and article would have already been rewritten to reflect that. However, and I very strongly doubt that there aren't a substancial number of scholarly articles written about Rowling's political beliefs and action as it relates to gender.

Recognizing that google scholar isn't a source and is at best a barameter about how much scholars with a wide range of reputibility are talking about a topic where google's spiders can see, and it gives no information as to the specific opinions expressed in the literature about the topic it's returing results for, since google scholar results for article written containing these keywords since 2018 are at time of writing:

•JK Rowling: 15,800

•JK Rowling trans: 5,270

•JK Rowling transgender: 1,100

•Harry Potter: 17,900

•Harry Potter Transgender: 14,700

•Harry Potter Queer: 5,330

I feel I can safely say that a conversation about Rowling, her belief gender, and how that all relates to harry potter is currently raging in the scholarly community, especially if you consider that JK Rowling's all time google scholar results are 35,000, almost half of the scholarly material on rowling was written in the last six years, and a third of that comes up with the key word trans.

If my rude google scholar searches are indicative of actual patterns in accademic writing, and I grant that's admittedly an if, but granted that if, that indicates that there absolutely is enough scholarly writing about the topic to warrant it a greater due weight than it's been given, and wikipedia doesn't have those articles ready to cite because no one's done the effort of bringing that information to wikipedia, not because no one's don the effort of making that information available.

I am again restating that I believe revisions should be considered, and now based on your responses and my rudimentary I'm suggesting that an effort to review of current writing on the topic would be prudent, if for no other reason than to update the biliography and works cited. Sebastiantemple (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed a questionable "if". I would be the first to acknowledge that Rowling's views are likely to receive more attention in sources going forward, but when on the very second page of a google scholar search for "JK Rowling transgender" I get a medium.com article and a news piece, I suggest you need to look a little deeper. Note also there's approximately 35k results for Rowling and Harry Potter as primary search subjects. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we should compare this to another similarly large figure in the news recently - Kanye West.

Yes, Kanye West is a legendary musician and that was what made him famous in the first place, but the fact that he is now a self-declared Nazi and supporter of Adolf Hitler, is not something that should be particularly downplayed, the due weight is there. Rowling being a TERF is no different, and while this article does have a section on her transgender views, yes, it feels... sanitized. It doesn't mention any of the most glaring parts of her anti-trans activism or rhetoric, only the most favorably covered. Kanye received no such sanitation meanwhile. Snokalok (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a sticky subject. I'm going to venture that that difference between Kanye and Rowling is that Kayne has been on a wide-ranging antisemitic tirade for about 2-3 months now, Like, solid, everything he does is digging the hole deeper, resulting in near-universal condemnation and huge financial repercussions. Rowling's transphobic remarks have angered the LGBTQ community to no end, but the condemnation is not universal...the far-right and the Christian fundamentalists love it, as do a minority of feminists. She has also not suffered financially to any great extent. So, I don't think at this time there is a basis to say more in the lede of the article than we already do. I personally find this regrettable, but, the reality is that society by & large sees transphobia as just not the 3rd rail that antisemitism is. Zaathras (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And Joanne has been railing against trans rights since 2020. Kanye's antisemitism has (unfortunately) garnered support as well, and while I agree the condemnation is more universal, at a certain point I don't think we should be basing our NPOV on a both sides equivalence between the far right and everyone else. The midway point between far right and center, is still hard right. Snokalok (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, she has only aired her slanted views to social media and the occasional answered question in an interview, and has not made her beliefs self- or life-defining, and neither has the media. her transgressions, thus far, have garnered controversy but they are not career-defining. Kanye's entertainment career as he has known it is all but done. That is career-defining. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think the scholarly literature on the impact of Kanye West's music can be compared to that of JKR and Harry Potter? If so, that might explain the DUE WEIGHT miss here. Snokalok, please have a look at WP:PROPORTION for perspective relative to one of the most successful authors of all time vis-a-vis what all has to be covered in this bio, and remember taht there is an entire sub-article devoted to her political views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, just searching Kanye West on google scholar, I got 20,300 results, compared to JKR's 15,800, so yes, I'd say one of the most influential and successful musicians in modern history, is comparable to one of the most successful authors in modern history. Snokalok (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

If you add in the Harry Potter searches, that brings the results up to 35000 vs 20000, both of which are on the same order of magnitude as each other so, yeah, definitely comparable I'd say. Snokalok (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What? Absolutely Kanye can be compared to Rowling. To quote his article: West is among the most critically acclaimed popular music artists of the 21st century, earning praise from music critics, fans, industry peers, and wider cultural figures. In 2014, NME named him the third most influential artist in music.

I do agree there's a line Kanye has crossed that Rowling hasn't yet, namely that "Nazi" is an extra special taboo in modern Western culture that transphobia just isn't yet. There's a reason we have an essay titled WP:NONAZIS but not WP:NOTRANSPHOBES. Like, he came out as a Nazi with Alex Jones of all people sitting next to him trying to get him to dial it back. Even anti-semitism alone isn't the kind of taboo that openly identifying as a Nazi is.

That being said, I also agree that there hasn't been enough coverage in this article of her recent comments. The transphobia is becoming an increasingly large part of her notability, to the point where if you told me someone wrote an article on Rowling yesterday, I'd strongly expect it to be about her transphobia, and not Harry Potter or anything derived from it. Loki (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside entirely my personal feelings about these individuals and their views; LokiTheLiar is correct in saying Kanye has said things that aren't considered defensible in Western society at large, while Rowling's views would have been considered mainstream not that long ago, and are still couched in terms of "protecting women's rights" (I'm obviously not endorsing that claim, but that's how she spins it) in a way that mainstream society hasn't confronted head on. We're not going to reach a consensus here by making analogies; our only path has always been summarizing what the best sources say about her, and I venture to predict there's sources available today that weren't available a year ago. I suggest we confine discussion here to the best of these sources, and if someone wishes to adjust how we're writing about her views, I suggest your first task is to identify such sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It is completely innapropriate to compare the two. There is a reason why Nazis are taboo and gender critical views are largely not. The two things are entirely different… whereas Nazi views promoted the murder of millions, including Jews, disabled people and Black people, gender critical views do no such thing but merely criticise views that have only really emerged in the last 20 years. Moreover, while Nazi views are not widely held due to obvious reasons, gender-critical views are often held although not often shared online. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/guardian-readers-nominate-their-person-of-the-year https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/30/75-of-americans-believe-in-only-two-genders-male-a/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/two-thirds-of-voters-oppose-snps-gender-reform-plans-d8wh3wh9w Scientelensia (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Even anti-semitism alone isn't the kind of taboo that openly identifying as a Nazi is." Well, your average anti-Semite is not openly advocating for a "Final Solution" to the Jewish problem, nor embracing ultranationalism in a purge campaign against all ethnic and religious minorities. Nazism has a close association with genocide and ethnic cleansing, while other discriminatory ideologies have had less violent histories. Most transphobes are not calling for mass executions either. Dimadick (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit notice proposal

I have just noticed that this article has no edit notice, and suggest that one could be helpful. An edit notice is something that every editor sees from the edit window when editing the article. As a sample of how they work, you can attempt to edit dementia with Lewy bodies, where you will see Template:Editnotices/Page/Dementia with Lewy bodies as a sample of what was added to all medical Featured articles following on these discussions:

1. Administrator's noticeboard
2. FAC
3. Milhist at FAC

I suggest we use the boilerplate language as seen in the first paragraph at Template:Editnotices/Page/Dementia with Lewy bodies (the second para is specific to medical content), as that wording has consensus. Working in specific links to

1. Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1
2. Talk:J. K. Rowling/FAQ and
3. Template:Ds/alert

could also be helpful for this article, but brevity is key to encouraging readability. Vanamonde93 I believe you are also experienced with editnotice pages. If we can agree on wording, either Vanamonde93 or I have template permissions to add this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)