Talk:J. K. Rowling

UNDUE and low-quality source on Galbraith name

Outnproud, please see the message on your talk page regarding this edit warring on a contentious topic. Featured articles must use high quality sources, Rowling has explained her choice of the name, the addition is WP:UNDUE, and this article was the subject of a deep and broad recent Featured article review. You should gain consensus before reinstating text removed once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The article, published by Time, doesn't strike me as particularly low-quality. Is there a specific problem with it? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a particular problem; do a preponderance of highest quality sources (translation: scholarly) raise this issue ?

Rowling chose the name before 2013; it stretches credibility to think her reasons were anything other than what she stated. If the consensus is to add text about this issue, it needs to be decided a) whether it is added here or the sub-article Political views of J. K. Rowling; b) a comprehensive survey of highest quality (scholarly) sources undertaken to assess due weight; and c) prose issues.

Regardless of that outcome, edit warring on a contentious topic is a problem. Discuss first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember who has the full Pugh article (I have only the first chapter); @Victoriaearle: I believe you do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to purge this article of all non-academic sources (my aversion to the use of newsmedia as a source on Wikipedia is well known I think) but it'd likely leave it nothing but a stub. Which would be fine for me if that's the path you want to take this article. Requiring a higher standard for some content within an article than for other content seems a perilous path. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Different kinds of content requires different kinds of sources. Further, we don't use lesser quality sources to refute higher quality sources. If you find something incorrectly sourced here, please point it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe Time as "low-quality", but it isn't high quality. The mention of the Robert Galbraith Heath controversy gets a passing mention in the Time article, and it goes on to restate Rowling's method of formulating the name.

From a process perspective, both inclusion and exclusion of the content are not so drastically problematic that this is worth editing over. I urge Outnproud to self-revert. We're likely to reach rough consensus soonish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct; taking the time to get it right is the fastest and best approach. My scholarly source search is only turning up masters theses, and quite a few articles that mention Galbraith without mentioning this controversy, but I don't have full journal access (hence my ping to Victoria, as google search reveals that Pugh does mention Galbraith). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of that outcome, edit warring on a contentious topic is a problem. Discuss first. – Mind you, I'm not the same person as Outnproud.

I couldn't find any online news sources by websearch, but it didn't turn up the Time article or the one I'm about to mention either, so it might be a search term problem. The Time article links to this article in Them (which we AFAIK haven't had any problems with as a source) which does focus on this. This is still not that much, so might not be worth including, but I'd like to note that we have After the revelation of her identity, sales of Cuckoo's Calling escalated. in there, seemingly based on a two-sentence mention in the Guardian. The bar for including critical content shouldn't be higher than for content of laudatory nature. If we do include it, I think it'd be sensible to have it here where the pseudonym is also otherwise discussed, but Political views of J. K. Rowling does have a paragraph on Troubled Blood, so it could fit in there, too. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you view that content as "laudatory"; it gives context for her donation of all of the proceeds to a charity (if I recall the story correctly, it's pretty astounding for a paralegal at a law firm partner to leak client-privileged information such that the law firm then has to make a charitable donation to avoid a malpractice suit ... as well as Rowling giving all proceeds to charity ... I could be misremembering, though, since I read all of these sources a year ago). Those are plain vanilla facts verifiable to many sources (that is, due weight; that only one source is listed does not mean only one source exists). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I sent the Pugh chapter that discusses her adult fiction. See page 116 for an explanation of the name. In my view what we had here is fine for this article; anything else can go to a subarticle. Apols for short reply; will try to look over it later. I had a bit about this in a sandbox that might need to can be undeleted if we know an admin willing to do so. Victoria (tk) 16:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Struck re sandbox. It's still there. Will trawl through as soon as a I can. Victoria (tk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding After the revelation of her identity, sales of Cuckoo's Calling escalated – this is covered not only in the Guardian but also in Pugh and many other sources (eg. BBC). It's not comparable to the Heath issue. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem with using Time as a source. Insisting on "scholarly sources" seems to be an unreasonably high and arbitrary bar. Also a single reversion is not an "edit war", so let's tamp down on that particular unfounded accusation./ Zaathras (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to test that (1RR) on a contentious topic ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Giving due weight to scholarly sources is not unreasonable on a Featured article (that's part of what an FA is). If we've got one or a few mid-rate reliable sources mentioning something that scholarly sources don't even consider, that's a WP:DUE consideration. But let's wait and see what others come up with from scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings, and Olivaw-Daneel: re other sources (I've found two-- please number sources below for discussion purposes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

1. (Ravell): I have found this 2023 source:

• Ravell

Could others give opinions on the quality of this source? Next, if it's a good source, how much weight (if any) do we want to give to what some fans think based on a tweet (notice the careful wording and attribution in the source):

Nonetheless, a tweet from the theme ‘transphobia’ brought to light that this pen name Rowling chose is the same name as an American psychiatrist who ‘experimented on a gay individual through the process of gay conversion theory ... [claiming] that homosexuality could be “cured”’ (see Figure 21). Rowling is yet to comment on this correlation, however according to tweets from this hashtag fans appear to not believe this name similarity was mere coincidence.

That's one source so far, making it clear it's an opinion based on a tweet. If we're going to start introducing opinions from one source based on one tweet, that's a floodgate. (Keeping discussion focused on sources has been the way we've resolved all content matters for two years now; there's no rush, and I also recommend that Outnproud self-revert and collaborate on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

2. Pugh: I now have Chapter 7 of Pugh (the chapter devoted to Galbraith) and while it mentions how Rowling benefitted from the name, there is no mention whatsoever of this controversy, as far as I can tell from skimming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

3. New York Times, 2013, [1].

The name she chose, Ms. Rowling explained, is a mash-up of that of one of her heroes, Robert F. Kennedy, and Ella Galbraith, a fantasy name she chose for herself as a girl.

Ms. Rowling wrote the book under a man’s name, she said, to take her writing persona “as far away as possible” from herself. She said she remembered too late that the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who died in 2006, shared her first two initials, and feared that might be a clue to her identity.

Victoria (tk) 19:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's one source so far – The relevant section already cites popular sources liberally. Is there a good reason to insist on only academic sources here? As for the source itself, well. It's in a real journal. The author is a PhD student with an h-index of 0. The article itself has not been cited anywhere, though it is only a little over a week old. If we're just talking reliability, I'd say it's good enough to say that some people on Twitter think the name's an intentional reference. For considering weight, I did a little review of a few queer news sources/magazines (off the top of my head) to see what they have to say on this. Them has the article I mentioned above, plus two more that mention it ([2],[3]). Them seems like an okay source to me. I can't tell if it's been on RSN before as the title makes it very hard to search for. LGBTQ Nation mentions it ([4]). According to this RSN discussion, LGBTQ Nation has a tabloidical bent, and might be WP:MREL. PinkNews and The Advocate did not make the connection when discussing Rowling's work under the pseudonym. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The relevant section already cites popular sources liberally; what is an example of what you refer to from the relevant section? Yes, there are places in the article that use popular sources; generally all well discussed at the FAR and supported by multiple sources (DUE weight) and not controversial. If you see something different, pls give an example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

For considering weight, I did a little review of a few queer news sources/magazines (off the top of my head) to see what they have to say on this; I could be misremembering (but I don't think I am). Whenever we used such sources, it was because they were saying the same things most other sources were also saying; we were giving a good representation of all sources, but not undue weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed and consensus appears to be that most editors don't have a problem with this information and it passes FA requirements. Cheers! Outnproud (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [5]

I don't see how you come to that conclusion, unless you are misunderstanding the discussion above relative to both WP:DUE and the WP:WIAFA requirement for high-quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And we haven't yet heard from the three main contributors of the article, who are the ones most familiar with and who have access to all the highest quality sources: @Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings, and Olivaw-Daneel:. I suspect the reason we haven't heard more is that the onus is upon you to come up with due weight from high-quality sources to support the content you want to add, and since you haven't done that, there has been little need for further discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

At least at first glance/first research the "controversy" over the pen name feels rather hyped and constructed to me. As long as this isn't seriously considered in scholarly sources, I'd strongly oppose the inclusion. Finding a "bad" (but not particular well known) person with similar name and few people speculating in social media or a few press outlets, that Rowling might have picked her pen name intentionally after that person (despite her giving a different explanation) is imho borderline ridiculous and certainly no reason for inclusion into an encyclopedic biography. At this point the whole thing is essentially a baseless rumour/speculation, which deserves no mentioning. Unless it becomes a rather highly publicised/well known meme, that describing it might be justified, but the judgement for that would be via scholarly literature dealing with it in a significant fashion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Your only major edit to this article (April 2019) [6] didn't require a scholarly source and was poorly formatted and appears to be borderline puffery. Furthermore, that non-scholarly source remains in the Philanthropy section including a REPETITION of the exact same info in the Galbraith para. Even after an April 2022 FAR.

The same info TWICE. Which also begs the question - How did this article pass an FA review? Outnproud (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [7]

The information is not duplicated in the two sections, and that sort of uncontroversial content does not require a source any better than the one used. The article passed a five-month FAR, with more than five pages of discussion, with a record number of participants. Hope that helps you understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Link to the previous time this issue came up. I don't see much change in the sourcing since then, so I agree with the consensus there (don't include). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussions don't hold precedence, particularly when there is more info. Outnproud (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the Time article, which grounds the new content, is remarkably thin. It says, "And Rowling’s choice of pen name has also been subject to controversy—Robert Galbraith Heath was the name of a mid-20th century anti-LGBTQ conversion therapist. (Rowling has previously said that the name was a conflation of her political hero, Robert F. Kennedy, and a childhood fantasy name ‘Ella Galbraith’.)" So there is controversy because unnamed people are drawing a connection there is no other basis to draw? A Them article cited above ([8]) makes a similar "there is controversy" assertion without explaining who has drawn this connection and if Rowling or others have responded to it. And. "Robert" and "Galbraith" are common English names. Ultimately, I'm not concerned about the quality of the sources providing these assertions—I have no reason to doubt the credentials of Them and Time. I doubt the quality of the assertion they are making: it is unattributed innuendo. I no longer have university access to Pugh's book; he's likely the only scholar who would have commented on this (or not). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand your misgivings about what defines the controversy, but that's how it was reported, therefore a matter of record. As a Wikipedia editor, you can't define the content based on your own interpretation. Therefore, your acceptance of JKR's account at face value as the only viewpoint, then justifying it with "Robert" and "Galbraith" being common names was incorrect. Whilst "Robert" is a very common name in the UK, "Galbraith" is not. Also the similarities in the name requiring disambiguation should have been in your consideration. However, your analysis on the sources being of sufficient quality is correct but worded negatively. Pugh's book was published in June 2020, therefore unlikely to have a record from late 2020 onwards when these articles came out. JKR publicly acknowledged the controversy in a tweet, claiming the accusations were unfounded, making this notable. Outnproud (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [9]

• {{rpp}} I lack the time to explore this issue at present, but I would generally say that I would need to see multiple high-quality sources for a certain line of critique before incorporating it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You may need multiple sources but Wikipedia doesn't. One reliable quality source is sufficient. However, here are many more quality sources: [10] [11] [12][13] Happy reading... Outnproud (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [14]

Those are not high-quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

One high quality source has been provided, which editors don't have a problem with, and that is sufficient. Outnproud (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [15]

In summary, consensus remains that most editors don't have a problem with the information. A previous discussion's consensus was to exclude with the caveat to provide more information from reliable quality sources and evidence of coverage in future. In the current discussion, with quality sources provided, some editors disagreed with the inferences of the controversy from their own POV. However, their NPOV conclusion is that the sources are of high enough quality in the absence (i.e. there is no requirement) for a "scholarly source". Cheers! Outnproud (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [16]

I'm not seeing any sort of consensus here for inclusion, nor am I seeing a consensus that the balance of the sources provided have been high quality, or that this content meets WP:DUE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is that one high quality source has been provided, which editors don't have a problem with, and that is sufficient. Outnproud (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, [17]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal on Galbraith name

Current, 31 words

Proposed, 68 words

Rowling later said she enjoyed working as Robert Galbraith, a name she took from Robert F. Kennedy, a personal hero, and Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood.

Rowling later said she enjoyed working as Robert Galbraith, a name she took from Robert F. Kennedy, a personal hero, and Ella Galbraith, a name she invented for herself in childhood. Followers of the hashtag #RIPJKRowling believed that the name was similar to Robert Galbraith Heath, a psychiatrist who had experimented with gay conversion therapy in the 1970s; Rowling's spokesperson said the claim was "unfounded and untrue".

Sources

References Pugh, Tison (2020). Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions. University of South Carolina Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvs09qwv. ISBN 978-1-64336-088-1. OCLC 1142046769. S2CID 225791872. Ravell, Hannah (2023). "#RIPJKRowling: A tale of a fandom, Twitter and a haunting author who refuses to die". Public Relations Inquiry. 0 (0): 1–32. doi:10.1177/2046147X231180501.

Discussion of proposal on Galbraith name

• Oppose any addition, and certainly oppose the addition of 37 WP:UNDUE words to add a topic that is not mentioned in a preponderance of reliable or high-quality sources and is basically based on a tweeted rumor. The best source, Pugh, omits it altogether. I agree with Kmhkmh that "the whole thing is essentially a baseless rumour/speculation, which deserves no mentioning. Unless it becomes rather highly publicised/well known meme ... ". I concur with Olivaw-Daneel that nothing has changed since we last visited the topic in terms of it earning due weight. I agree with AleatoryPonderings that it is "unattributed innuendo". As Vanamonde93 states, in accordance with Kmhkmh, we should "see multiple high-quality sources for a certain line of critique before incorporating it", because it is nothing more than a tweeted rumor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support: the sourcing for this is as strong as anything else in this article. There's no reason to exclude it other than the general reluctance of editors to say negative things about WP:BLP subjects, which, while understandable, is against WP:NPOV. Loki (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Absent something beyond speculation this sort of content is undue. I also agree with the "unattributed innuendo" aspects. Springee (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per wp;undue as linked above. This essentially boils down to "some people on a social media site started a rumour, let's republish it." There's nothing to suggest the rumour is true or that the opinions of the #RIP contributors are inherently notable enough to guarantee inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unsubstantiated internet rumours are also a dime a dozen; if we set this as the bar for inclusion we'll end up copypasting half of reddit. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While the sourcing is OK, and I'd weigh the paper by Ravell quite high, on balance I'm not convinced that this is due. While there is certainly a vocal subset of commentators on social media speculating as to whether or not there is a deliberate link between the names, beyond the surface level similarities, I don't it raises to how DUE describes a significant minority. The lack of easily identifiable prominent adherents beyond a subset who contributed to the hashtag is what clinches it for me. If there was, for example, one or more prominent feminists or activists who mentioned the link between the names, and this was reflected in high quality sources like Ravell, then it might be due per If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Definitely undue and really seems to be included to disparage the subject. — Czello ^(music) 17:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose generally per SG. The fact that even the highest-quality sources identified can point only to "followers of" a X-fka-Twitter hashtag without any uptake by mainstream sources or named persons—let alone experts—confirms that giving this theory encyclopedic airtime is UNDUE. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Re-raising the neutrality issue

I wasn't involved in the featured article review discussions, and I don't have the time nor energy at the moment to get into the weeds of the full discussion and workshopping process on the transgender section, but I'll assume that the contents of this article roughly reflect what was considered neutral at that time. I nevertheless have concerns that I do want to put out there; given the recency of my sources relative to the early-2022 FAR discussions, I hope I'm not retreading old ground.

My main issue is that the article doesn't adequately address Rowling's relationship to the broader discourse surrounding trans issues. The current iteration refers to her "statements" on the topic that have "provoked controversy"; this strikes me as an understatement. There are by now extensive compendia (Vox, March 2023; Glamour, April 2023) of her views and statements on transgender people / the transgender movement, showcasing a yearslong focus on this topic that I think is not adequately described by the language in the article. (In fact, Vox characterizes "transphobia" as "a huge part of her identity.")

She has also been described by Vulture (February 2023) as a "prominent symbol" of trans-exclusionary feminism, while U.S. News & World Report (June 2022) has credited her with helping the movement to achieve "international prominence." Of course, we shouldn't uncritically repeat the framing of whichever reliable sources are least favorable to Rowling, but I do believe the article on Wikipedia should reflect her influence and involvement in the broader anti-trans sphere, and that it currently understates the degree to which she has committed herself to that political project.

I'm not sure of the best way to go about improving it, but I hope at least this can spark some discussion that isn't a rehash of what's already been said and done. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You haven't listed a single high-quality source (see WP:WIAFA); it's easy to cherry pick to find sources like those you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The featured article guide states that the article should "neglect no major facts or details" and be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." With the exception of Glamour (which is not listed), all the sources I cited are considered generally reliable on the perennial sources list. In addition, most of the sources currently used are from around 2020, which means they can neither confirm nor deny what I described above as a "yearslong focus" beginning in 2019.

As far as I can tell, I've listed several reliable sources, which were not available as of the FAR discussions, to indicate that between 2019 and the present this issue has become a more significant aspect of her life and image than is suggested by the article. Certainly I'm not suggesting that the sources and perspective I've listed constitute a complete and authoritative view on the subject; I'm contending that -- given the thoroughness and general reliability of at least Vox, and the multiplicity of reliable sources taking a similar perspective -- they represent a viewpoint whose inclusion would not be WP:UNDUE and whose exclusion threatens the article's neutrality.

At the very least, I believe what I've presented is a reasonable basis for new discussion, and is not so insubstantial as to be dismissed out of hand. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a re-read of WP:RSP re Vox and Vulture with respect to high-quality. On U.S. News, my apologies-- I read U.S. News but registered Newsweek, so that is my mistake. U.S. News has one fairly minor statement about Rowling; I don't think you've given us anything new or scholarly to work with here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a fair point about Vox and Vulture; I was seduced by the green background behind their names.

I think it would do me well to clarify what specifically I'm saying, for my own sake as well as anyone else's. In essence, there are some basic statements that I believe to be true, relevant, and well-sourced, such that they ought to be in the article in one way or another, but I don't believe they're addressed in its current iteration.

One such statement is that J. K. Rowling is a prominent voice in support of gender-critical feminism. This is what I was getting at when I worried that the current language was understatement. The article refers to statements that she's made, but it does not refer to her role as part of a larger movement. Aside from the Vox article (which I think still has some value in that it compiles an extensive list of relevant comments by Rowling), this is attested by sources including the U.S. News and the peer-reviewed Transgender Studies Quarterly (August 2022), where one article describes Rowling as a "highly visible TERF" who "articulate[s] the movement's brand of transphobia."

Another related point is that recent discourse about and by J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter has tended to involve her views on transgender issues. Vanity Fair (April 2023) says that "Rowling and her opponents have remained fiercely combative on the matter, leading to boycott efforts toward anything Potter-related." The New York Times (February 2023) and Washington Post (January 2023) both commented on boycotts of Hogwarts Legacy, with the former calling it "the latest battleground over the 'Harry Potter' author’s comments on transgender issues." Her most recent public project, a podcast entitled "The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling," is one in which she "Addresses Backlash to Her Anti-Trans Comments," per Variety (February 2023).

The third is perhaps least likely to gain traction, since I imagine it was already debated to death during the FAR discussions; it's the only one where I don't think evidence for it now is much different from what it was then. Nevertheless, I'll mention it for the record: the majority of feminists disagree with gender-critical views. The article as written says that Rowling's statements "have been criticised as transphobic by … some feminists, but have received support from other feminists," that they "have divided feminists," and that "[s]ome … feminists have supported her." This appears to give roughly equal if not slightly greater weight to the feminists who support her compared to those who oppose her, when according to sources already cited in the section on her views on transgender people, trans exclusion is a minority view among feminists:

A CNN article cited for the statement that she's divided feminists states, "Feminists began to split into factions … though mainstream feminists still largely defended transgender rights, Williams said. The term [TERF] was popularized in 2008 by feminist Viv Smythe to distinguish between transgender exclusionists and the larger swatch of radical feminists who supported transgender people."

In the New Statesman's interview with Judith Butler, cited in the same place, Butler says, "I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream."

Of course, this is a hairy point, and as I say, I imagine it's been debated to death and reopening debate on it may not be constructive. I wanted to mention it for the sake of completion, explaining my own point of view, and hopefully to elicit an explanation or a link to the discussion where WP:UNDUE on this matter was addressed.

Also, I see that you were instrumental in navigating this article to a consensus where it could remain a featured article despite the significant contention around its subject. That can't have been anything like an easy task, so kudos and thanks to you for your hard work, and I mean no disrespect when I note areas where I perceive room for improvement. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It was actually a surprisingly very pleasant collaboration, involving a couple of dozen editors of decidedly different viewpoints, so every time someone comes along and cries "POV", it's curious :) Thanks for the long explanation; I'm not ignoring it, but just much too tired to respond to all of it yet tonight, and quite busy for the next two days, so I hope others will weigh in meanwhile. We always planned to revisit when better scholarly sources are available, and are still waiting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and I hope your next couple of days go well. I'll admit that perhaps neutrality was not the best way to introduce my concerns if I wanted to distinguish myself from soapboxers! I share in your hope of more discussion, both on this talk page and in the scholarly world. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussions here have barely paused for a couple of years, so I don't find the idea of any transformation in the issue in the last couple of years very convincing. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@3-edit WP:Spa. Been there. Done that. Give it a rest. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC).

There are dozens of archives of talk pages relating to this article, and I'll admit I've only looked at a few of them, so it's quite possible my main concerns have already been addressed. However, the most recent substantive talk-page discussions on the topic at hand appear to predate almost all of the sources I've brought up, so I'm hoping that new discussion might be productive.

Could you point me to the archive pages that contain discussion of the following topics (which I currently see as the main things that are missing in the article as written), so I can get a better sense of what consensus was reached?

• J. K. Rowling is a prominent voice in support of gender-critical feminism.
• Recent discourse about and by J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter has tended to involve her views on transgender issues.
• The majority of feminists disagree with gender-critical views.

I'll also note that whatever my personal views on the topic, my three edits are backed up with sources generally considered reliable, and represent my best efforts to articulate why I feel that my input is aimed at improving this article with respect to Wikipedia's standards. All three edits are also talk-page edits attempting to spark productive conversation towards a consensus, not article edits or even semi-protected edit requests. I recognize that people on this talk page may be wary of those who would use Wikipedia as a soapbox, but I'm trying my best to avoid being mistaken for that type. 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 and its associated talk pages. If I remember correctly one of the talk pages is devoted to the issue, but it's also perhaps sprinkled across other pages in the FAR. As for the sources you cite, I looked at the one from NYT. It's predominately about the release of the new game, mentions the controversy yet the game became quickly popular. I also came across another NYT piece written some weeks later - link here - which has a different take. This is why it's best to wait for it to show up in good secondary sources/biographies rather than reporting what the media says every few months. Victoria (tk) 02:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there appear to be extensive discussions on the transgender section, spanning multiple different talk page archives. Most of the discussion, as far as I can tell, appears to revolve around the extent and specifics of which statements of Rowling's to include/exclude, as well as the extent and specifics of which people's responses should be shared. I didn't find discussion of the specific points I raised above, which is what I was hoping for.

The NYT piece I shared was a reporting piece, describing a boycott in the context of a broader controversy. Citing this article was to bolster claims of fact: there was a boycott, and that boycott was just one of multiple battlegrounds. The NYT piece you found is an opinion piece, which in my understanding is not considered a reliable source in the same way that the NYT generally is. (In fact, this particular opinion piece made quite a splash at the time, so much so that other publications ran their own articles on it. See e.g. Vanity Fair, Slate, and the Independent.) 2601:189:8180:3C80:70A3:12AC:116F:179E (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that NYT piece is opinion. The point I was sorta trying to make there is that rather than scouring the net for sources - of which there are many and all need evaluating - it's best to wait for high quality secondary scholarly sources. Victoria (tk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, reading the opinion piece, it seems to be in complete agreement with the thesis that I was defending: i.e., that recent discourse about and by J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter has tended to involve her views on transgender issues. It even cites the NYT article I cited, as further reading on the claim that "an uproar ensued" regarding Hogwarts Legacy.

In any event, scholarly sources do seem to be looking at this issue as well. In a Google Scholar search for J.K. Rowling, looking at sources published since 2022, two of the first three results are articles in peer-reviewed journals (Transgender Studies Quarterly, August 2022, and Children's Literature in Education, first published online March 2021, and appearing in the June 2022 issue) that discuss Rowling's position with respect to the media, her audience, and the discourse around gender-critical views. 2601:189:8180:3C80:108:6E72:7ABF:5D1B (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ummmm ... Duggan is already in the article. And we've already reflected due weight on Rowling wrt transgender issues by a) adding that content to the lead, and b) giving it its own section with a relatively high word count. So back to your original three points. That she's a prominent voice is already incorporated and given due weight. Recent discourse per mostly pop culture-y sources falls into WP:RECENTISM; we've covered the scholarly sources. On the third point, this article is not the place to analyze what the majority of feminists think; that there is a division on the issue is covered and cited. Overall, I still think the best approach to this material is to wait for new and thorough and high-quality and comprehensive scholarly sources. Those would include sources beyond journals specializing in transgender issues, and getting into things like the freedom of speech and academic freedom and other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm beginning to appreciate what I imagine most people here recognized from the first: I came in here with far too sweeping a claim, having far too little understanding of the background of how this article in its current iteration came to be. In particular, I appreciate the reminder of WP:RECENTISM.

I do still feel, though, that there are a couple of points that are worth exploring further, reduced in scale.

The primary issue I perceive is that the article refers generally to "statements" she has made, and conveys a general impression that those statements consist entirely or primarily of the two tweets and essay mentioned. The reality that I think should be more clearly expressed is that she has engaged in a pattern of such statements stretching over several years. This is suggested in the lead ("Since 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions…"), but not clarified in the body.

The NYT article I cited says "Rowling has continued to opine on transgender issues since her 2020 essay." A sentence to indicate as much could clarify the matter and would not affect neutrality as far as I can tell. Could this be reasonable to add?

I'll hold off on my other thoughts for now, to keep from getting too long-winded and unfocused. 2601:189:8180:3C80:B9B1:A05E:7A5B:7197 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHENEWS, and its mission does not include giving blow-by-blow accounts of culture wars, however fascinating they may be to the participants. As an experienced editor has said above, it is appropriate to wait until the situation has been summarised and evaluated in a balanced way by high-quality secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC).

2601, on re-reading Duggan, I do think it possible to get a small change out of your last comment; I am iPad editing right now, but will put up a proposal as soon as I am on real computer. I appreciate the tone of your feedback and commentary. If/as you've read through some of the talk page archives on the Featured article review, you will have seen that using a Draft proposal format held us in good stead, so I'll use that format. Will get to it this morning, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft proposal to reflect discussion and new sources above

Current

Proposed (adds 23 words)

(LEAD) Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. (BODY) Rowling's statements have been called transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in response to her Twitter comments. She rejects these characterisations.

(LEAD) She has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights continually since 2017. (BODY) Rowling's statements – beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2023 – have been called transphobic by critics. She has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in response to her Twitter comments. She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.

Sources
References

Discussion of draft proposal

First, Duggan lays out continuity beginning in 2017, not 2019. Second, three new sources say it continues, but also offer her defense; leaving out her response (in her own bio) would be POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

PS, is this bit still useful? I don't think so ... in response to her Twitter comments ... I also suggest discussing removing that clause. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks reasonable, and I would agree with removing that; where she expressed the views isn't particularly relevant, and it misses that she has been criticized for expressing the same views elsewhere although I don't know if that aspect is reflected in the source. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I would second that, but I would also nitpick the use of the term "statements": Duggan's continuity begins in 2017 with posts shared on social media -- but not authored -- by Rowling, which I'm not sure count as her statements. Perhaps "Rowling's statements and social media activity"? Or would that be too clunky? 2601:189:8180:3C80:3DA7:E1B:2922:59BF (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What if we just change statements to views? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That could work, but it also seems a little less clear what it means for views to begin in 2019 and continue through 2023 as opposed to statements. Perhaps I'm overthinking it, though. 2601:189:8180:3C80:3DA7:E1B:2922:59BF (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Or 2017, rather. 2601:189:8180:3C80:3DA7:E1B:2922:59BF (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that was a bad idea (I struck it); it assumes the interpretation of her statements accurately reflect her views, which she denies. Still thinking ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So "social media activity" might be better ... will see what others think. It is true that what she shared in 2017 was not her own statement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Does Rowling use any social media sites aside from Twitter? I know she has a presence on Instagram and Facebook, but those accounts read more like they're management/PR company ran than Rowling's Twitter presence. Rowling's Twitter presence however seems to be more personal in nature.

I worry that if we lose the specificity from the Schwirblat et al. source, we're implying something that might not actually be verifiable or truthful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I'm not aware of what specificity we might be losing, as Schwirblat isn't available online. If that specificity is opaque to me, it probably is to many readers. Rowling wrote a long response on her website, and now she has also done a podcast, all other uses of the internet mentioned in scores of sources, so I'm unclear what the specificity is adding. What does Schwirblat say? (Did someone send me Schwirblat in the past, and I've forgotten where I put it??) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I've re-sent the Schwirblat paper to you now. Relevant content is on pages 367-368. Schwirblat only discusses Rowling's activities on Twitter, and doesn't mention any other website (social media or otherwise). Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again ... yes, you did send it to me last year, and it got lost in the archives complicated by my personal way-too-busy-IRLness; thanks again.

I do think that Schwirblat gives us what we need (emphasis mine):

She has impacted several generations through her storytelling, world-building and characters. Reaching beyond her influence in the literary world, Rowling has 14.2 million followers on Twitter, which acts as her main social media outlet. Rowling has been a force of influence on our culture and now operates with authority as a SMI [Social Media Influencer], giving her words the same weight and power online as they do on paper. Rowling has a bold presence on social media. She does now cower in the face of expectations and does not hold back for the sake of her reputation. She is outspoken about issues she finds important and, whether deemed controversial or not, she provides her opinion. ... [snip discussion of 2019 issue] ... Subsequently in June 2020, Rowling spoke out once again regarding her political stance about sex and the trans community. During this time, the discussion went beyond the news outlets and Twitter community and included many personal responses from people involved in the Harry Potter Franchise.

That is, we have it going beyond Twitter wrt her 2020 web essay. (I'm trying my hardest to overlook the now–not typo (hello, editor) and "subsequently"–"once again" fingernails-on-chalboard-writing :) If we still need more info on her Twitter presence as an "influencer", we could beef that up in the first lines under Views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Just quick comments: my impression is that she has actually tried to keep out of this debate/controversy/whatever in recent years, but of course journalists always ask about it. If she really wanted to wade in there's a lot she could easily do/write that she hasn't. When was the last piece (longer than twitter) she actually wrote herself on any part of the issue? I don't know but not very recent I think. The podcast Vanity Fair covers seems to be about her controversy rather than the issue itself. Secondly, I don't see she has ever claimed or appeared to be a "radical feminist" at all, so the dubious term TERF should not be used. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Johnbod, she participated in a ted talk or podcast or live interview or broadcast or some such on the matter just this year (mentioned in the sources).

  The issues with the TERF term will probably have to be sorted somewhere besides this article-- it's a global thing, where any woman who holds certain views on transgender issues is labeled a "radical feminist". The labeling per se may be problematic, but I don't think this article is the place to sort that ... here it only mentions that is what she has been called, and we can let that speak for itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's my point - per Vanity Fair that seems to be about her personal controversy rather than the issue itself. That was supposed to have been released some months ago, btw, shouldn't we cover it? Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  At the time it was released, we didn't have really good sources; now we do have some, so we might consider adding a sentence ... unsure what that sentence would look like or where it would go, because I haven't had time to focus on it. Ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  This is a bit of a strawman argument. No one is suggestion that the "TERF" term be sorted out here. They're suggesting not using it. If she doesn't use it, I don't think it makes sense to use it here, as Johnbod says. I don't think Wikipedia has room for an exhaustive list of slurs notable people have "been called". I'm not a standards guy, but I bet the standards say that random name-calling is not to be included. And if your argument is that it's not a slur, then I would disagree, as I would not appreciate being called a radical. It implies her views are marginal. 124.219.136.96 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd consider removing and continuing through 2023 per MOS:CURRENT. It's the sort of content that quickly becomes dated, and Rowling currently shows no significant signs of changing her point of view on this. Unless and until Rowling stops expressing views that others describe as transphobic, this is something we'd need to update every twelve months. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How about "continuously since 2017"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that would work for me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Great ... once everyone has opined, I'll put up a second version, incorporating all revisions so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the appropriate adverb would be "continually" (which I understand to mean "on a regular basis") as opposed to "continuously" (which I understand to mean "nonstop"), unless this is a difference between American and British English. As long as the more appropriate adverb is used, I'm on board with this proposal. 2601:189:8180:3C80:B89F:771B:92C7:87B2 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Got it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft proposal 2 to reflect discussion and new sources above

Current

Proposed (adds 15 words)

(LEAD) Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. (BODY) Rowling's statements have been called transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in response to her Twitter comments. She rejects these characterisations.

(LEAD) She has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights continually since 2017. (BODY) Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017 – have been called transphobic by critics and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist). She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.

Sources
References

Discussion of draft 2 proposal

Sorry it took me so long to put up the new summary based on our discussion from the first draft; real life has not settled down, but there it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, and I like the way you sidestepped the continuous/continuously/continually issue. Taking into account the previous discussion I'm not seeing anything I'd really change here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Installed,[18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

wording change

−

She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.

+

She says that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.

i am proposing this change in wording, as saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood already implies the deleted text. ltbdl (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the proposed change tells the reader anything useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

fewer words are better. ltbdl (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@sandygeorgia: how am i supposed to get consensus for my change, then? ltbdl (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you see the lengthy discussion above at #Re-raising the neutrality issue? If anyone agreed with your change here, only shortly after that discussion, they would have said so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

and if anyone disagreed with my change, they would have said so. ltbdl (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be better to have the explanation on why she thinks her viewpoint has been misunderstood. - Rajan51 (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

US Museum

https://deadline.com/2023/08/jk-rowling-airbrushed-from-pop-culture-museum-harry-potter-display-for-alleged-transphobic-views-1235455925/ Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Possibly material for Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights, although the material there still needs a serious pruning and better summarizing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)