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, 67 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)

To back up a bit, [Rowling's] explicit denial of someone's transgender identity is socio-political spin, not encyclopedic assessment of reliable, independent sources. At best, this is a very particular (and viewpoint-exclusive) lens through which to view what is going on, and at worst it's simply a distortion. At no point (that I'm aware of) has Rowling denied that Willoughby has a transgender identity, or what it happens to be. Rather, Rowling has denied that trans women "are" women in some particular senses; asserted that biological women and trans women have different lived experiences and should not be equated; taken the position that someone's gender identity does not require others to change their language usage, in particular with regard to pronouns; plus also somewhere claimed that some trans women supposedly engage in stereotypes of femininity/womanhood (a complaint that some American Christian conservatives have also tried as a basis for banning drag shows, etc.). And she's been very agent provocateur about these things, now especially about the possibility (this has not been court-tested yet) of misgendering being classified as a hate-crime. While any and all of this is obviously going to (in general) raise controversy and (for some) direct offense, it does not actually equate to any "explicit denial of someone's transgender identity", and WP can't say that it does.

This kind of comes down to WP:NOT#SOCIAL. E.g., it's fine and dandy for me to complain on Facebook, etc., that Trump and his red-hat MAGA worshipers are neo-fascists, and to lay out my studied reasons for this assessment, but I'm not in a position to make Wikipedia say this. (Notably, "fascist"/"fascism" don't appear in the MAGA article except in titles of cited sources, and don't appear in the Trump article at all. Even if that's a deficiency to fix, it will be by indicating that certain reliable sources consider him and his movement neo-fascist, or another fascism variant, while others do not; it won't be WP declaring him and them neo-fascists.) —2001:5A8:4260:3100:A457:D8C:E45B:2FBC (talk) [SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), using another browser since my usual one is dying on this over-long talk page.], 05:54, 11 April 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)

Some version of this content is still being added without discussion/consensus (I think?); it's not clear to me where this discussion stands, so I copyedited rather than removed it,[4] but suggest removal instead if consensus has not been reached. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 4 April 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[5]. 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[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] (Rowling’s name is now synonymous with “TERF”) [17] (The controversial figurehead has dived full force into the trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) movement in recent years) [18][19] [20] (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) [21][22]. 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)

More recently:

"Rowling, a high-profile voice in the “gender critical” movement campaign around the importance of biological sex" - Financial Times

"...JK Rowling, author and prominent anti-trans activist." - The Independent

"The Harry Potter author, a prominent gender critical campaigner," - Reuters

When will it be enough? Umdlye (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"When will it be enough?" My exact question. The amount of news confirming her status as an anti-trans activist proportional to the efforts of Wikipedia watchdogs to downplay it does come off more as an attempt to protect her than to avoid bias. At the very least, this discussion looks more like a strict hierarchy of ideas than one moving toward a consensus. PenelopePlesiosaur (talk) 14:37, 3 April 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)

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) 15:45, 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)

A quick comment: whether or not we describe her as an "anti-transgender activist", can we at least agree we can describe Maya Forstater as such? We have multiple high-quality sources describing her that way including both the Washington Post and the New York Times.

I also think that we could call Rowling's tweets "anti-trans" in Wikivoice as we do have several high quality sources saying that as well, below. Loki (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would concur we have sufficient sources to call Rowling an anti-trans activist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I also concur Snokalok (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Beware of WP:OR. None of those sources describe Rowling as an "anti-trans[gender] activist". Only the second (Vox) contains the term, and uses it for other persons. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I know these aren't the sources you were referring to in your comment, but since you're here and are better informed on these policies:

Yesterday, The Independent and Reuters explicitly referred to Rowling as a "prominent anti-trans activist" and "prominent gender critical campaigner" respectively. Would you consider the latter a synonym of the former given that gender-critical feminism is categorically described as anti-transgender on Wikipedia? Umdlye (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Umdlye: Yes, for the Independent: it explicitly states "JK Rowling, author and prominent anti-trans activist". No for Reuters as it does not contain the phrase; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Find two more WP:RSs like the Independent which say the same thing and then it's reasonable for the article to state that JKR has been described as an anti-trans activist. Bazza 7 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 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

• Whited, Lana A., ed. (2024). The Ivory Tower, Harry Potter, and Beyond: More Essays on the Works of J. K. Rowling. University of Missouri Press.
  • Considers the complicated legacy of Harry Potter and its author as readers have grown older and Rowling's reputation has wavered in the public eye. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:02, 9 April 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)
• 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)
• Williams, Deborah Lindsay (2023). "Reading Harry Potter in Abu Dhabi". The Necessity of Young Adult Fiction: The Literary Agenda. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780192848970.003.0005.
  • A chapter that explores the recent controversy over J. K. Rowling’s stance on trans people as a way to understand how—or if—adolescent readers can separate writer from text. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:43, 9 April 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[23] NBC2[24] NBC3[25] NBC4[26] NBC5[27] NBC6[28] NBC7[29] NBC8[30] NBC9[31] NBC10[32] NBC11[33] NBC12[34] NBC13[35] NBC14[36] 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.

• April Fools Twitter thread:
  • initial comments challenging police to arrest her under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021:
    • 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
  • police subsequently saying that despite having publicly misgendered several transgender women, her comments weren't criminal:
    • "Police say JK Rowling committed no crime with tweets slamming Scotland's new hate speech law". AP News. 2 April 2024.
    • Brooks, Libby (3 April 2024). "JK Rowling's posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident". The Guardian.
    • "JK Rowling hate law posts not criminal, police say". BBC News. 2 April 2024.
    • "J.K. Rowling will not face action under Scottish hate crime laws, police say". Reuters.

• 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: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. 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.[44]. 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 ( [45]) and... well, A. it doesn't source the material it claims to - there's no mention of death threats, barely mention of insults, and B. this is a very, very odd paper. Page 69 of it claims... well, let me quote the exact words: "Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’"

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have reverted the removal of this content, for a second time, as it was subject to extensive workshopping during a FAR process [46] to reach a consensus version [47]. It should not be removed until a consensus is reached as to how it should be changed or removed. Please avoid edit warring, and reach consensus before implementing any further changes. Daff22 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

After all, it's progressed to this: [48] Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring, untrue claims, and moving forward collaboratively

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not hard to find;[49] rather, I'm mostly waiting for and hoping that this talk page will move beyond the long lists of dumps from news sources, towards a focus on scholarly sources, before exploring further, as the page is now overwhelmed by less-than-useful source lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Editing a Featured article subject to double discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

References for above quotes

References

References Suissa, Judith; Sullivan, Alice (February 2021). "The gender wars, academic freedom and education" (PDF). Journal of Philosophy of Education. 55 (1): 55–82. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12549. S2CID 233646159. Schwirblat, Tatiana; Freberg, Karen; Freberg, Laura (2022). "Chapter 21: Cancel culture: a career vulture amongst influencers on social media". In Lipschultz, Jeremy Harris; Freberg, Karen; Luttrell, Regina (eds.). The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-597-420221021. ISBN 978-1800715981. Qiao, Leshui (1 June 2022). "Mainland China's TERFs' Misogyny Under JK Rowling's Anti-trans Incident". Proceedings of the 2022 8th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2022). Atlantis Press. pp. 1322–1326. doi:10.2991/assehr.k.220504.238. ISBN 978-94-6239-580-0.

Featured article review

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

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

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

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

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

The article focuses on the situation in 2020, when she's had ample coverage in the last year for ever-increasing anti-trans activity. The India Willoughby incident earlier this year, the Holocaust denial, and the widely-reported stunt attacking trans people's existence and Scottish hate speech rules this week (e.g. [50]) and many other things have resulted in a situation where pretty much all coverage of late is on her attacks on trans people, and yet, we have a kind of wishy-washy coverage of it, buried deep in the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaching consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a major, repected British newspaper, avoding mere recetism. It might serve at least to point out what's going on, and it's at least as good as [51] which is already in the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I think the most recent, very highly publicized rant is a good place to rewrite the article. And I agree with neutrality issues. “Some people call her views transphobic, but she says that she supports trans people” when we have things like this [52] and meanwhile a paragraph about all the righteous feminists that support her, has a very clear slant. At this point, I agree that it’s pretty hard (especially in light of the latest rant) to not put anti-trans activist into the summary. I don’t think there’s anyone at this point who hears her name and doesn’t think about, everything over the last couple of years. Downplaying it when it has very much become her brand, just makes this article look like a puff piece. Snokalok (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Independent: "prominent anti-trans activist" [53]

Reuters: "prominent gender critical campaigner" [54]

Financial Times: "high profile voice in the "gender critical" movement" [55]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for holocaust denial, because wording will matter here:

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

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

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

Rowling's own statement on the issue: [65] *Dan T.* (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Regional Court of Cologne, denying trans people were targeted by the nazis is legally considered a denial of Nazi crimes.[70]

As for not knowing, she actively called the events “a fever dream”.[71] That’s not not knowing, that’s denying. Snokalok (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey

I support adding these comments because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Like I said in a comment above, procedural close but support if not closed. Loki (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close or procedural oppose if left open. Not enough RFCBEFORE and no neutral statement. There's enough news about Rowling's recent statements and actions that we should carefully craft some proposals, attempt to reach a consensus, and seek dispute resolution (maybe an RfC) if we can't do so locally. It's too early in the process to lock ourselves into mentioning a specific event. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural close for the reasons Firefangledfeathers and others have already outlined. -sche (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. (Summoned by bot) Rowling's position on this issue is long established and it would therefore have DUE WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. Not including the material would smack of white washing it. TarnishedPath^talk 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is just the latest incident in a very long running episode that should be treated at a much higher level of summarisation. Maybe it could go in Twitter drama of J.K. Rowling. Also, the RfC is problematic for all the reasons highlighted. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is an issue recentism here and in general various details or "the latest" regarding her anti-trans views belong in the article on her political views rather than in this one, where a general summary of her anti trans views suffices. One that also should ideally be somewhat stable and not in need for constant updates. All that aside i have strong disliking of inserting the "latest twitter feud" or more general "latest social media driven shit storm" into biographical articles. It is imho a good rule of thumb to avoid that (certain exceptions notwithstanding)--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, not indivually noteable enough IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK here's some more.

Continuing on the relationship with the Harry Potter cast:

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

On the reception of Hogwarts Legacy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• doi:10.1007/s12124-021-09670-4, from a top-tier cultural studies journal [72], which is about the use of the victim narrative in public discourse (activists saying people shouldn't be mean to trans people because they're victims; Rowling's response that people shouldn't be mean to her because she's a victim, too).
• doi:10.1080/17577632.2022.2153216, from a middling law/media journal [73], her effect on public opinion around the 2018 consultation about the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
• doi:10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9, top-tier children's literature journal [74], long article about LBGTQ+ Harry Potter fan fiction
• doi:10.1007/s12119-022-10008-4, top-tier cultural studies journal (mid-ranked for gender studies) [75], one long sentence summarizing the contours of Rowling's political views (i.e., supporting trans folks' rights in sex-neutral contexts and opposing them in sex-specific contexts)

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

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

They do not look like this:

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

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

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

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

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

Cuts to the Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Vanamonde that scholarly sources continue to cover Rowling's writing more than her views – see this 2024 book [76], for example. The TG section likely needs an update, but I see from the source list above that it’s being worked on; let’s not change the lead before the body. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This 2024 scholarly book source sounds very promising:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five-paragraph lead?

WorthPoke2 suggests above [77] that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Please don't introduce "known for" and "notable for" into the lead of a featured article; that should be obvious or the content wouldn't be in the lead. The current lead explores the main things she was known for without wasting those (trite) words in the word count. Also, please don't try to rewrite the lead yet when NO ONE has yet attempted to draft new body content. Leads follow bodies; could we stay focused on the question of whether we should deviate from the WP:LEAD guideline to allow an extra paragraph (either now or when we rewrite the content)-- which happens at times, but is rare?[78][79] The current lead is dated and needs rewriting, but at least it was not poorly written considering it was constrained by a well-attended RFC. Vanamonde93 was one of the three main authors of the Featured version, and has been following here, but we are still missing the other two (AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel, who have access to scholarly sources), and Sideswipe9th, a competent FA writer with source access, has gone missing for a week. Victoriaearle makes a good point and I'm still unsure if we need to deviate from a guideline in this case (it's not an ultra-long article, it complies with SIZE), and am hoping to hear from more of the others before making up my own mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transgender people section: removed references should be reinstated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't close a thread because of one person. Rowling denies people exist. The Cass report is irrelevant to any discussion here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

More recent source material

Just a place to record "finds".

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

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

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

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

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

Who exactly called Rowling a TERF?

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

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

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

Bias

no actionable request, just a vague complaint

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