Talk:Political views of J. K. Rowling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Criticism and controversy; left wing

Criticism and Controversy

I’m proposing a Criticism and Controversy segment for this article. Nowadays I hear nothing but bad things about her.

Left wing?

The idea that J.K. Rowling is left wing needs a lot more context. She might appear left wing to many of her US readers (some of whom have probably been contributing to this article), but things like supporting the National Health Service don't necessarily make you left wing in the UK. Furthermore, Rowling has been a fierce critic of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, when Labour shifted from a soft neoliberal party to a social democratic party (in line with most comparable European countries). I would say "centrist" is probably a better brief summation (a mix of centre-left and centre-right views), but if we're going to have this article, let's get into the details rather than offer reductive summaries. And let's make sure there isn't an implicit US-centrism here.

78.145.246.168 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I just read the introduction piece on this and wanted to second the previous comment. I believe Rowling can be reasonably described as "left of center", as is her friend, former prime minister Gordon Brown. Rowling was notably a long-time critic of former hard-left, Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Describing her as "left wing" I believe would be incorrect without also providing more context about the political environment in which that description is made. Indieshack (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Why GLAAD yes but The Trevor Project no?

Crossroads, I would really like an explanation why does GLAAD get a pass and is included in the article, while The Trevor Project does not? Why doesn't the recognised media advocacy group which got more attention than anything in this controversy get to appear in the article? Or maybe you think we shouldn't include GLAAD as well? Maybe delete the entire paragraph? Because at least you should be consistent. YuvalNehemia (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's see what develops at the other article talk page. Perhaps both groups could be mentioned and very briefly summarized in a single sentence. But at great length? No. And again, I want to see what others say at the other article. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Let's see what develops" apparently means just cutting out the material. This article is specifically about Rowling's politics, but you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. 1.6 million ghits right now. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Replied here. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Request for Comment

Editors should be aware that a Request for Comment (RfC) about aspects of the J.K Rowling and Politics of J. K. Rowling articles has been posted on the BLP Noticeboard, here. Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That one sentence fragment

@Abbyjjjj96: FYI, this is what I am referencing:

"What I am saying is that you, like I said when I reverted your edit, are making a distinction without a difference. It is an argument specifically designed to instil fear about trans people existing in public spaces and we should treat it as such. I think including the quote reduces the quality of the article as a whole, as it is better to express a summary of what is being said, something the previous version does a much better job at. if you insist on altering the status quo, please take care not to leave it without the proper context.

furthermore, expanding on me mentioning "proper context" I think it is disingenuous to suggest this argument, presented in a whole manifesto aimed specifically at trans people, is not about trans people. It is clear from the rest of the manifesto that JKR's point is not merely about bathrooms. Would she have made this argument in isolation, I may have been more inclined to agree with you, but it is not. It is merely one of the more notable arguments in a barrage of transphobic talking points. And I repeat: We should treat it as such. To "take it literally" in the sense that you are suggesting cannot be done without taking the rest of the document into consideration."

We're not talking about a quote here, but the situation is identical, you are ignoring the entire rest of the document in favour of focusing on one specific sentence, without considering the context it is presented in. That is not a honest way to go about it. Furthermore your accusation that Bodney's quote is selective is bunk anyway, because you can't break that quote in half. The entire quote is about "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" e.g. any trans woman. the next sentence segment: "then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside" Does not change the constraint set by the first sentence fragment. She's still talking about "men who believe or feel they're a woman" implying that some transgender women are just men who want to get into woman's bathrooms, which is exactly the sentiment Mermaids is refuting. It's a slippery slope argument, yes, but it's a slippery slope argument about trans women. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This! And put much more eloquently than I managed on the BLP noticeboard on that dodgy RfC this morning. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the compliment, and also for mentioning that that RFC, might not have found out about it otherwise, since it wasn't advertised anywhere. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, clear and very well explained. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I read the noticeboard. There isn't a consensus; there are back-and-forth exchanges with you then bowing out of the conversation. And yes, you were told not to make stuff up or use WP:OR, so claiming I made false accusations is another lie on your part. WP:DNTL. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, can you stop reducing the quality of this discussion by making personal jibes and accusations at other editors, it was you who made the personal attack there. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I was referencing the quote above, which I clarified here, as for the other bullshit, IDK why you keep insisting on referencing that as I explained both there and here that it is a false accusation. I again request that you stop with the accusations of lying and whatnot, because it's honestly starting to irritate me quite a bit. It's not my fault that some people don't appear to have the reading comprehension or the attention span to actually read what I write instead of assuming I just conjure my conclusions from thin air. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Nuanced views on abortion

I added the text "Rowling's views on abortion are nuanced and do not encompass pro-choice support in all circumstances, evidenced by an alliance with prominent Irish anti-abortion activist John McGuirk, head of Youth Defence and editor of Gript Media, with whom she is a listed author. ". This is an accurate reflection that Rowling permitted her article to be published by Gript Media, a US-funded anti-abortionist and right-wing hate site. The site now lists her as "J.K. Rowling, Author at Gript". This is a notable agreement between Rowling and Gript editor John McGuirk. Perhaps Bastun or another experienced editor can find acceptable wording.

References

Can you sign your posts by typing four tilde (" ~ ") characters, please? You wrote "Rowling's views on abortion are nuanced and do not encompass pro-choice support in all circumstances, as evidenced by an alliance with..." but have offered no actual evidence of her having "nuanced views" or what they might be; or anything to back that she is not "pro-choice in all circumstances". Similarly, you have offered no evidence of an "alliance" with McGuirk. All that appears to have happened is that Gript reprinted her anti-trans essay, with permission. That's not evidence of anything (except, perhaps, of Gript supporting her anti-trans views, but I've not looked through McGuirk's blog to see if it published anything supporting her). The inclusion of her on the author page is odd, but probably says more about McGuirk looking for publicity by association than it does about Rowling. In short, we could say Gript republished her essay (but wouldn't, because it'd be undue). Anything more would be synthesis and original research ("Rowling wrote for this site; it's anti-abortion; therefore Rowling must be anti-abortion") . Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Both Gript (on several occasions) and "Alive!" have published lengthy articles in support of JK Rowling's anti-trans views, combining them with denouncements of "gender ideology". She must (she corresponded with McGuirk on open social media) have been aware both of this support and of the nature of Gript at the time she granted John McGuirk permission to re-publish her article. Repeal campaigners are widely horrified. Publication on Gript is an noteworthy evolution of the public expression of her views on abortion - no, she did not denounce choice (yet), but yes, her support is limited in expression, and is now impacted by this association with Youth Defence. 78.152.250.197 (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This is indeed WP:OR and should not be included. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Transphobia

In case you folks didn't know, Janice Raymond also denies hating t women just like J.K. Rowling.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:94FE:2FE4:1F58:2AC2 (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

'Predatory' insertion

Repeated addition to "of a charity organisation for gender non-conforming children" of the phrase ", who refuted the notion that trans people are predatory," serves no purpose as a back-and-forth exchange. The insertion requires a rationale - what does it mean, why is it relevant and how is it supported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.250.197 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Rowling claimed that the bills letting trans women into women's toilets would be "opening the door to all men who wish to come inside". Mermaids replied that "We consider it abusive and damaging when people conflate trans women with male sexual predators." There's your rationale. YuvalNehemia (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

there's currently an RfC about this on the BLP noticeboard, so hopefully something gets sorted out soon-ish.Licks-rocks (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abbyjjjj96: please refer to the talk page before removing something that was under concensus. YuvalNehemia (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

TERF

Is Jk Rowling a proven Terf . A few misconstructed or misinterpreted tweets isnt proof enough . Wikipedia can add terf to jk Rowling but not abuser to amber heard. Talk about SJW culture prevailing.

Hypocrisy 101 Hpdh4 09:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Please see Talk:J._K._Rowling#Why_add_the_the_maya_forsater_situation_and_TERF_accusations_with_biased_sources - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

JK Rowling has basically the same view as Janice Raymond or Donald Trump: womyn-born womyn philosophy.J.K. Rowling defends her anti-trans comments as Eddie Redmayne condemns them--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:833:B57:898E:7C9C (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. She's a self-admitted TERF. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

What JK actually wrote in her essay is: 'If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.'

It is a term of abuse adopted by TRAs and associated with threats of violence, often sexual violence, towards women. A very large number of such threats, mostly quite sickening in character, have been tweeted at JK recently. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have now fixed the link in my post above yours, so that the link works and "self-admitted" is properly displayed. Yes, TERF stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Rowling called herself that in the linked tweet. There is clearly a division within radical feminism - a vocal minority who try to exclude the "T" from LGBT, being trans-exclusionary radical feminists; and those who try to include the "T" in LGBT. An alarming extent of incidences of actual violence, including sexual violence, to the point of murder (rather than mere threats), have been experienced by members of the trans community. This has been well documented in Europe and the U.S.A. But yes, there are indeed trolls on Twitter. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No, that's just the tweet in which JK uses the term 'TERF wars'. It doesn't say what you say it says. And in the UK, there is no sign of transgender people being at any heightened risk of violence. Although there are no official figures, it appears that, from 2008 to 2017, nine people classed as transgender were the victims of homicide. One per year. This would indicate a significantly below-average risk of homicide, perhaps only half the risk of the average person. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk Women, on the other hand, make up over a third of homicide victims, which still represents a below-average risk, since they're half the population, but not that far below, and the number of female homicide victims jumped 10% in just one year to 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/13/female-homicide-victims-england-wales Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Your original research interpretion of the published stats on violence against trans people is, I'm afraid, deeply flawed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not original research. I just gave the Channel Four source. So, just as when you falsely claimed that JK admitted to being a 'TERF', a description she clearly does not accept as valid for anyone, let alone herself, you are deliberately stating what you know to be untrue, and there's a word for people who do that. And I can't find the paper now, but someone studied those murders and found that they were all 'lowlife' murders. A couple were violent arguments over drug deals, a couple were prostitutes murdered by clients, a couple more were prostitutes murdered by their partners who were jealous over their sex work, and I forget what the rest were. And, over the same period, twelve transgender people in the UK were convicted of murder. (This included most of the nine cases already mentioned.) So, although such people are extremely rare and it's difficult to draw firm conclusions from such vanishingly small numbers, over that decade in the UK, transgender people were about 30% more likely to commit murder than to be murdered. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Murders in the UK are not very high List of major crimes in the United Kingdom, also its not good claiming trans folk commit more murders without showing solid evidence, and even then we should be careful of tarring a whole minority, it would be same with every other minority. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is disgraceful - excusing and justifying murders on the basis that the victims do not meet your standards - seriously?! They were people. Nobody deserves to be murdered. Further, I've given you references above, while you "can't remember" where you read what you're claiming, but still accuse me of being a liar?! Get a grip! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to be so angry Bastun! I don't think that Khamba Tendal is mitigating those murders, saying that they are not a terrible thing, or accusing you of being a liar. Instead they are simply pointing out that (if they can find their source) there were no transphobic murders in the UK in said time period. So the heightened risk might be due to other factors, such as the fact that transgender women are more likely to work as sex workers, a demographic unfortunately far more likely to victimised than the overall population. WeiboEditor2000Sep (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Their words are right there and in black and white - I can see plainly what they wrote, thanks all the same. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Stephen King, Rowling, and Twitter

Regarding this content:

On 30 June 2020, Rowling again took to Twitter to discuss transgender issues. One of her tweets was against violence against women. Author Stephen King retweeted this tweet. Rowling responded with thanks and gushing praise for King, who later, pushed by one of his followers, clarified by tweeting: "Transgender women are women." Rowling then deleted her praise for King and, reportedly, unfollowed him.

This should not be included because it is just a few tweets mentioned in the gossip section of a few papers, but has no lasting significance. Again, WP:NOTNEWS: not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia....Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events....most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia....Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

References

This might not belong on the main page, but here it belongs as it definitely falls under "politics of J. K. Rowling" (the thing y'all said was so missing from this page among criticism of her.

But I actually think that more relevant (and missing) is the fact Rowling apparently supports conversion therapy. YuvalNehemia (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes, the topic of Rowling's anti-transgender views is ongoing news, but just because something is newsworthy does not mean it is unencyclopedic. Rowling's views on this form part of her political views. She has contributed extensively to public discourse on the issue, even to the extent of publishing a 3,600 word essay on the topic, and the issue, her views, and the reaction to them, like it or not, are significant and will undoubtedly feature in any future biography. Your continued gaming of the WP:ONUS line of the WP:V policy is getting beyond a joke at this stage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What is even meant by the sentence: "One of her tweets was against violence against women."? That seems like a statement that's designed to cause controversy by confuscation. rowley (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

What was meant was "One tweet opposed violence against women," which I've now changed the text to. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, the reference to Bindel was removed. Doesn't that mean we need a talk page section to establish consensus for its inclusion...? No, of course we don't, because that would be gaming the system and not what WP:ONUS or WP:BRD are about. Glad we've settled that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Transgender people vs transgender issues 2

Please see Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people vs transgender issues 1 above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The Cambridge Dictionary Issue (noun) = a subject or problem that people are thinking and talking about. So the section title could be reasonably read "Transgender issues" with negative connotations, implying that the group in question are an issue. "Transgender Issues" = "the transgender problem". When discussing a person's views on a section of society, especially their civil and human rights it is not OK to merely say gay issues, lesbian issues, black problem, disability issues, Jewish problem, women's issues in the title etc. Lets us be respectful, neutral and call, when referring to people and simply not call discussions about them 'issues' or 'problems'. To call someone an Issues in Wikipedia's voice (which a heading is) is not neutral and suggests that the is a problem with them.

The section heading would be far more neutral if it was just simply Transgender people. Because Rowling's tweets and political essay are very clearly targeted at and affect trans people as a whole not just their civil rights but she also questions the very validity of their existence, both trans men and trans women (quotes from her essay are available).

As Rab V points out on the other page - "Here is how some reliable sources do refer to Rowlings' comments; NYT "Ms. Rowling’s anti-transgender comments", BBC "comments about transgender people",Variety "Anti-Trans Tweets", Associated Press "JK Rowling’s tweets on transgender people", NBC "her controversial stance on the transgender community", The Guardian "her beliefs on transgender rights", USA Today "her recent anti-transgender comments." It seems like RS support that het comments pertain to transgender people and transgender rights."

It would also bring it into alignment with the main page. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The title of this page is "Politics of J. K. Rowling". Perhaps you meant one of the section headings?

The section in question isn't about "transgender issues", "the transgender problem". or "transgender people". In my opinion we should call it what is it about; "comments on gender".

Also, pointing at the J. K. Rowling page as something to emulate is a bit like saying that, of the three stooges, curly is the intellectual stooge. We can do a lot better than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this section we are talking about, sorry my talk title was a little very vague. She is mostly referring specifically to transgender gender in these recent tweets and essay (cis—gender only when transgender is a risk to cisgender). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

LoL, but i get your point...Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed this talk sections title to be more clear. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Would we have headings on other biographic articles like "Comments on race/blacks/chinese," "Comments on Jews/Muslims/" or "Comments on homosexuality" I am not sure, but it is alot better than 'issues'? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed at the main article here. Let's just let that reach a consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

True, the really should have been a link to it, in the opening statement, apologises for not doing that. Over there the section heading has reached a stalemate with a slight majority for those with good arguements in favour of "Transgender people". The heading title discussion was started here because it was one of the major things that changed under the big revert back to the 3Oth June, and that because the discussion was on the other article it might be forgotten on this one. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Czello made an edit to the WP:STATUSQUO version, claiming consensus.[1] I reverted[2] with the edit comment

"You cannot point to a discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling and say that it establishes a consensus at Politics of J. K. Rowling. Please discuss at Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people vs transgender issues 2."

Please discuss that edit here.

Do we have a consensus for this change? If everyone agrees with it, I will re-insert it. If not, we should discuss it. If there are any attempts to edit war it back in I will ask for administrator intervention to block the edit warrior.

Looking at the edit war that got us here and the ongoing dumpster fire at the J. K. Rowling, I am seeing multiple claims that a consensus has been reached followed by claims that no consensus has been reached. Again, if we cannot reach an agreement on this page I will post a neutrally worded RfC and let the broader community break the stalemate. (PLEASE don't jump the gun and post your own RfC without discussing it first! I am not yet convinced that we cannot reach an agreement here.)

Please refer to Talk:J. K. Rowling#Transgender people vs transgender issues before commenting here. While consensus at another page does not equal consensus at this page, we certainly should pay attention to the arguments posted on the other page. In particular, does everyone here agree that a consensus was reached on that page? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, please see the section above -- Talk:Politics_of_J._K._Rowling#Bindel_inclusion. We established consensus there. — Czello 20:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding. Does everyone agree that we established consensus for Czello's change? If there are no objections I will be happy to self-revert. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with it. If it becomes less relevant as the section develops it can be re-evaluated. Ward20 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

LOL i tried to a put up a heading on the section title to discuss the section heading, its sooo confusing if we talk about a dozen areas under obe heading .... honest honest other areas can have their own heading ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Its getting extremely confusing, we should not rush we all have many rl issues to contend with and may not be able to reply for a few hours. Its unfair for contributors on all sides and neutral contributors. The is no need to rush. Let decisions sink in...24 hours? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just thinking that I really want to slow down. I was responding quickly for fear that someone would post something, get no answer for 8 hours, then edit it into the article -- and we would be off to the edit-war races again. Yes. I say let decisions sink in for at least 24 hours. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Trevor Project

I just realised the Trevor Project statement is missing from this page. I find it to not make sense - the main page has the Trevor Project quote, and this page has both GLAAD quotes and the Mermaids quote, and all of these are under consensus. I'm readding the Trevor Project sentence for now. YuvalNehemia (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

...And I just reverted you. Please discuss at Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Trevor Project and show me that you have consensus for this change. If nobody objects, I will add it back. You cannot point to a discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling and say that it establishes a consensus at Politics of J. K. Rowling. We have had far too many editors adding things without establishing that there is a consensus for them. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

....And... that is problematic. WP works on the principle of WP:CONSENSUS, backed up by WP:BRD. But Consensus (and WP:ONUS, which is part of the Verifiability policy, not the Consensus policy) have never been about getting consensus in advance. You're doing this even-handedly, I can see, which is appreciated. But it's coming on the back of a couple of weeks where one editor in particular has removed pretty much every new addition, citing ONUS, to the extent I and others feel they are gaming the system. I am not accusing you of that, or of not being neutral, but you can hopefully appreciate why I (and maybe others) might see this as problematic?

No objection to inclusion, btw. It's odd it was omitted until now.

On a related and slightly wider note, I think it's probably fair to say most people would acknowledge that what is covered in the Transgender section of the main article could and should be covered in the equivalent section in this article, with more depth, if more depth is warranted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Normally you are entirely correct about there being no requirement for prior consensus. However, this page just came out of a major edit war that has resulted in a user being blocked and on-again-off-again page protection. The editors working on this page seem to agree with my reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO version and then mediating a discussion about what changes to roll back in, rather than having more edits and more reverts. Don't worry; if nobody objects in the next 24 hours you or some other editor will put it back. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello surprise I support inclusion :) It not only makes sense that the Trevor Project should be included on this page, but Daniel Radcliffe's quote provides some relevant and important detail about the dispute. A better source for the whole quote BBC News [[ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52975994 Eddie Redmayne speaks out against JK Rowling's trans tweets]]. For most of the quote, missing the last sentence Telegraph [Daniel Radcliffe hopes JK Rowling's transgender comments won't 'taint' Harry Potter], The New York Times [Daniel Radcliffe Criticizes J.K. Rowling’s Anti-Transgender Tweets] and The Independent [JK Rowling: Rupert Grint joins Harry Potter cast in supporting trans people after writer's controversial comments]. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion about the Trevor Project paragraph the first time around took place in Talk:J. K. Rowling, and it was eventually decided to include it there. However, the discussion here was forgotten, and since the paragraph was removed until a consensus is established, but was never readded once it was, I did it myself, admittedly without waiting to see everyone's response. And as y'all can see, this addition is supported. YuvalNehemia (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

So far nobody has objected. If nobody objects by 07:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC), you or anyone else is free to re-insert the material. Again, sorry for the delay, but we really had to stop the constant edit warring before an administrator came along and solved it for us by blocking multiple editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Transgender people vs transgender issues 1

Given the slow-brewing edit war about what the heading for this should be, I have started a debate about it on Rowling's main talk page, here. Please participate there so we can achieve a consensus. — Czello 21:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Transgender Issues: The Transgender People heading is dishonest. Rowling's issue isn't with the existence of transgender people. She's arguing against the current handling of issues concerning transgender people. The Transgender People heading makes it sound like Rowling is advocating for genocide against an entire group of individuals. In short, it's disgusting, hysterical, and not objective. MetaTracker (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Lets not have two different discussions on the same topic on two pages at the same time. Follow Czello link. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Oh, thank goodness [that this is just a pointer to the central discussion]. I was worried when I saw three different discussions sections about this here that people were gonna try to reach two different consenuses in different forums.) -sche (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Transgender people vs transgender issues 3

(Insert joke about Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! here...)

PROPOSAL:
Please treat this as me floating an idea. If anyone thinks that I went too far and am not being neutral enough on content, you have my permission to delete this section. I don't want to be seen as taking sides here.

My proposal: because the section in question really isn't about "transgender issues" or "transgender people", in my opinion we should call it what is it about; "comments on gender". The section describes J. K. Rowling's comments about gender and other people's comments about J. K. Rowling's comments about gender. "Comments on gender" seems to me to be a neutral section title that everyone should be able to live with even if it isn't their favorite. Does anyone disagree? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hand up sorry i strongly disagree ;) this section is mostly about her views about transgender people and their rights. She only talks about gender when she feels it is threatened by transgenderism. All the reliable sources have concentrated on her views on trans people, much less on just gender. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I see. It appears that you think gender and transgender are two different things, while I think that transgender is a subset of gender. Perhaps we can come up with wording that accommodates both views. How about "comments on gender identity?" --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No i certainly don't believe they are separate, I strongly believe gender is a complex wide 3D spectrum complex thingy, its very much not separate and nor is it black and white etc etc. I accept bigender, demigender, third gender, two spirit, agender the lot. But to title this section gender is a bit like titling a section solely on motorbikes "==Transport==", it is not accurate enough. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Controversy about transgender comments? Ward20 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Controversy" is pretty loaded, kind of implying that both sides have equal weight. I think "comments on gender identity" is better but I won't oppose it. Let's wait to see what the other editors think. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Comments relating to transgender people" is better, I still prefer just the simple "Transgender people" but I can compromise. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Comments relating to transgender people" is fine with me. Does anyone object? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's too wordy and inconsistent with other subsections. I would go for ''Transgender people'', or ''Gender identity'', or ''Feminism and transgender women'', etc... daveout 👾 ^(talk) 18:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As a strong advocate for 'Trans People," I would agree it is both a bit wordy and inconsistent, however a compromise seemed sensible after multiple discussions on two article talk pages. While I would be happy with your first two suggestions, the latter as problems in that she also comments on trans men and not all feminist share Rowling's views on trans people. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about timing

The article currently says "Rowling later published an essay on her website in response to the criticism... Among those who disputed the claims [was] CEO of GLAAD Sarah Kate Ellis who said it could create a dangerous environment for the trans community."

Looking at the citations it looks like the criticism by Kate Ellis preceded the essay and was in response to the earlier tweets. Am I getting the timing wrong, or does the article get the timing wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It is confusing, but as far as I can tell the essay was published on the morning of the 10th and the ET interview was published in the evening of the 10th. The confusing part is that the Ellis sentence about "J.K. Rowling's comments" links back a few days to the 8th. Toward the end of the ET article it talks specifically about Rowling's essay. Perhaps a bad link by the editing team?

In any case, there is an easy fix if the ET article is suspect. People, June 10, 2020 08:15 PM, "GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis calling it a "misinformed and dangerous missive about transgender people" that "flies in the face of medical and psychological experts and devalues trans people accounts of their own lives."[3] Ward20 (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion we should make this page as NPOV as possible, and not worry about the main page. This is a highly contentious topic, but I believe that we have gathered together here a group of editors who, while they don't always agree, are all absolutely committed to NPOV, nether allowing the article to be a whitewash that only says good things about J. K. Rowling or a blackwash that only says bad things. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Restored last stable version

Per WP:STATUSQUO, I just restored the 02:49, 30 June 2020‎ version, then rolled back in the addition of protection templates by an admin and uncontroversial typo fixes. I realize that this may not be the exact version that some here would prefer. Instead of trying to force your preferred version in with more edit warring, please propose the changes you wish to make here. We have a policy on this: WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You may also find Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest you may have gone back too far, the inclusion of the fan sites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron had been agreed as a compromise by editors for instance. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I can easily roll those back in, but only if nobody objects. Please post the exact change you would make and we will see if there is consensus for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The following should be restored:-

, as did the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, which announced that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about her achievements outside Harry Potter fiction.

&

<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights|work=The Guardian|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/harry-potter-jk-rowling-trans-mugglenet-leaky-cauldron-a9599151.html|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender comments|last=Chilton|first=Louis|work=Independent|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020}}</ref>

as this had been agreed by mutual compromise by the editors concerned. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I just re-inserted the citation from The Guardian. If anyone objects let me know and I will temporarily remove it while we discuss it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, what about the text the references relates to? did you not see above in this section I equally requested that text relating to the citation should be restored for the same reason :) as did the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, which announced that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about her achievements outside Harry Potter fiction. it would make sense to re-insert this too? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Missed that. It's in the source so I put it back. I held off on The Independent cite because it appears to be a paraphrase of The Guardian cite -- or is it the other way around? I can't help wishing that The Independent would put dates on their material. Or did they both paraphrase some third source (Reuters?) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, thank you for this. This article and the main one on Rowling have been an absolute fiasco of value-laden labeling, piling on every tweet reported in the gossip press, ownership behavior, ignoring of the need to get consensus, meatpuppetry stoked on Twitter [4], and personal attacks. As for the fansites, what was agreed on was the phrase "as did the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron". The follow-on "which announced that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about her achievements outside Harry Potter fiction." was not agreed to. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed the disputed material. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't want to get into who did what, so let's drop that bit and make a fresh start, OK? What I am trying to accomplish here is to step in as an experienced Wikipedia editor who has no real opinion about J. K. Rowling and see if I can get the edit warriors to agree on the content. If needed I will post a RfC to settle any intractable disagreement, but let's start by putting in what everyone agrees with.

Just to be clear, while I didn't enjoy the Harry Potter movies or books (which I was required to watch and read because I was the engineer in charge of creating some of the toys), I didn't dislike them. They were OK. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I do hope you stick around to 'moderate' the discussion. I think it would help a lot. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads ... While 1 or 2 new editors might not have understood for a short while that twitter was not a reliable source. Please do not attack editors you disagree with or question their good faith. Its not for us to say who had ownership issues or why someone is drawn to a discussion. I am deeply passionate about all civil liberties and Human Rights everywhere. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said anything about you. There are many editors on all sides, many of which are well-behaved. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

. ~ BOD ~, I have asked Crossroads to stop discussing other editors or how good or bad recent edits were. I ask you to please do the same, and make a fresh start. Also, I ask that if anyone does continue talking about other editors instead of content, please do not respond in any way. If it gets too bad we have ways of dealing with it, but I think we are all reasonable people here and can limit ourselves to discussion what the article should contain. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Helpful hint for everyone involved: Try to avoid all personal pronouns such as "I", "you" or "they", and don't try to game the system by using euphemisms where everyone knows who you are talking about. Just put aside any hard feelings from the past and start anew. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies regarding misremembering what had been agreed, the discussion was on the other talk page and I (sorry :) ) thought the relevant wording had been relatively stable on this page. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As so many multiple things have been reset after days of disagreements what is the best organised way to discuss those points again. A RfC about the whole section? would that fair for both old and new points. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not recommend that. RfCs are best used for situations where the editors working on a page cannot come to an agreement. The RfC brings in outside editors to break the stalemate. Let's see if we can agree first. I only went back a week with my WP:STATUSQUO reset. Pick something that you think everyone will agree with and propose it. When you run out of things that you think everyone will agree with, pick something that is disputed and make your case for your preferred version. I personally don't care what the article says, just that everyone agrees and that what you decide follows Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could break down the various reset/removed areas under different sub headings on this page, to make things tidy and to clearly see what areas are being discussed to achieve consensus. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The present material is not that different from before the reset. There are just a few of the larger points to get consensus on. I think this procedure seems to be making progress and would suggest we continue using it. That said the Steven King material I believe is notable and neutral and should be restored:

• On 30 June 2020, Rowling again took to Twitter to discuss transgender issues. One tweet opposed violence against women. Author Stephen King retweeted this tweet, leading Rowling to respond with praise for King. King later clarified his retweet by tweeting: "Transgender women are women." Rowling then deleted her praise for King and, reportedly, unfollowed him.

References

Notability in major news outlets:[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Ward20 (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the above? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe this should not be included because it is just a few tweets that got some flash-in-the-pan coverage in the gossip section, but has no lasting significance. Per WP:NOTNEWS: not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia....Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events....most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia....Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe consensus for inclusion of the above had already been reached. If the article were to exclude something that achieved major international coverage (such as the Stephen King issue) on the one hand, it is impossible to see how one could then also argue in favour of the inclusion of Bindel's remarks. "Even when an individual is notable, etc..." I am also a little concerned at the sniffy and dismissive nature of comments about material sourced to - as you put it - "the gossip section." Where something is included within a reliable source is irrelevant, once it's a reliable source. A dispute that has been reported on this extensively, between two of the world's best-selling authors, is clearly notable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As I am sure you all have noticed, I am trying to get everyone to reach a consensus on at least some things. And I am purposely ignoring the EIGHTY edits to the article and 19 talk page comments made on July 4, 5, and 6. Things happened that we are not going to talk about. An editor was blocked. The article has been in and out of protection. The administrators don't want to spend any more time on this -- they literally have a million pages that need their attention -- so there is a real chance that if we can't work together without conflict an admin will solve the problem by blocking a bunch of editors including the guilty and the innocent.

In that context, saying "I believe consensus for inclusion of the above had already been reached" is all well and good if you are pretty sure that there will be no disagreement. Saying it right after someone writes "I believe this should not be included because..." isn't helping us to arrive at a consensus. The fact that someone disagrees in proof that there is no consensus. So please, make a fresh start, address the part of the comment after the "because...", and explain why you think it should be included. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: "Where something is included within a reliable source is irrelevant, once it's a reliable source", that would be true if the only policy we were trying to follow was WP:RS, But WP:RS is just the first hurdle. To be included, material also has to jump over the WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONSENSUS hurdles. I encourage everyone reading this to review those policies and guidelines, even if you think you understand them perfectly. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, we were all asked for thoughts on it and I gave mine. To me the 'feminists such as Bindel' comment should be mentioned for the same reason we mention comments from GLAAD, etc. They are about Rowling's comments as a whole, not ephemeral tweet-coverage, and represent significant societal factions, explaining who feels what. That said, if the majority of editors want to include the King stuff, then fine. I recognize that consensus is not unanimity, which I stated in the previous section. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy, my comment was based on the section above, which saw the inclusion of the sentences on King, an edit to improve them following a comment there, and no removal of them or further objection in several days, despite an original clear statement opposing inclusion. As pointed out, consensus does not have to be mandatory. Again, I don't follow an argument that goes "Leave out King, it's celebrity gossip, include Bindel, it's..." Both are relevant for inclusion. Re the King sentences, really not seeing a BLP issue. The inclusion of the material on the disagreement between two of the world's best selling authors certainly falls under WP:DUE. Very questionable if Bindel's remarks do, but I've argued for inclusion, and stand over that. Thanks for your participation here, btw. It looks like progress is being made. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The Rowling/King material should be included for several important reasons. Her political views on transgender identity has stimulated a lot of media coverage and public controversy over a period of time,[12] and also more recently.[13] She has long been an influential public political figure; her political views are highly scrutinized.[14] Her fans, coworkers, transgender rights groups, feminists, politicians and celebrities have all weighed in on her controversial public comments about this topic (see above: Notability in major news outlets). The Rowling/King coverage was not routine. It was part of a widely covered ongoing controversy, and helps interpret her political views on gender identity. It also shows how she reacted to an opposing view of a major influential author she respected.

As far as WP:WEIGHT, I researched the Julie Bindel/support material that is in the article and found 1 major media article[15] that lead with the topic (excluding a lot of special interest sites), and about 2 other major media articles mention it. Compare that with 7 major media articles I easily found specifically leading with the Rowling/King material (see above: Notability in major news outlets). I belieive it is relevant, should be included, and has proper weight.

Unfortunately a lot of her comments have been on twitter, so the media coverage is fragmented and interpretive. There is much coverage trying to piece together her historical views, and what others have said about her brief statements on twitter. It seems for me in editing this material, the segmented coverage, because the Rowling twitter comments are terse, makes it difficult to manage. It's difficult to stay completely WP:NPOV when using so many different recent sources. Personally I think it would be easier to edit this article with more collaborative inclusion of material from the sources until the subsection is more mature, then condensing and weeding out the chaff later, while respecting WP:BLP. It is a difficult topic to put in perspective, especially when material is piecemealed in and out IMO. Ward20 (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

So, nobody has any objection to...

On 30 June 2020, Rowling again took to Twitter to discuss transgender issues. One tweet opposed violence against women. Author Stephen King retweeted this tweet, leading Rowling to respond with praise for King. King later clarified his retweet by tweeting: "Transgender women are women." Rowling then deleted her praise for King and, reportedly, unfollowed him.

...being re-inserted? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No objection. Also, I need more coffee, or something. "consensus does not have to be mandatory" should have read "consensus does not have to be unanimous." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No objection, though it would be great thing if the article section discussed the content of Rowling's essay more, maybe its because we rely on secondary media sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

More than no objection. This paragraph should be in there. YuvalNehemia (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Supporting User:Bodney's point about the essay content. It's lacking details in the main article; timing with other statements and essay length, also TERF sentence. Topics not covered from the essay are many: accusations about new trans activism, kinship and "visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women" are murdered, young women wishing to transition, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, "I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred", professional as well as personal interest, Scottish government gender recognition plans “controversial”, and probably others I missed. Listing some secondary sources discussing the essay:[16][17][18][19](paywall)[20][21][22][23]. Ward20 (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I support adding more about the essay. The existing Reuters source also contains some additional info on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there should be more from the essay (Rowling's views according to the essay, obviously supported by reliable sources). No, the Stephen King twitter thing should not be here, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. We do not record every twitter 'conflict' here; this article is about Rowling's political views, not about us reporting anything she or others write on twitter. A person's tweet should be here only if it is of major importance to the subject. Obviously her tweet about "people who menstruate" is instrumental, so is the earlier one about Maya Forstater's legal case; the same cannot be said about the incident with Stephen King, it is quite trivial. People write constantly on twitter, and we should be careful what we select to put here on Wikipedia. 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54C6 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

To combine the fact that she is a victim of domestic abuse/sexual assault, and trans access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women... is dangerously misleading

Sorry long title. It is awful that Rowling suffered abuse and assault, but this has absolutely nothing to do with any trans person. The is totally zero evidence that her ex husband or her attacker were a trans person, but this sentence could easily be read in the Wiki voice that the her attack and trans people were directly connected. They are not, the is no evidence. In fact is however appalling her personal attack was, it is not really relevant in this section, it is a entirely separate 'issue'. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This sentence is being covered at the RfC at WP:BLPN; a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here cannot override it. And frankly I am not seeing your reading as easily arrived at. It's not implying anything of that sort, but I suppose it does show why she is so worried (some may say paranoid) about such spaces. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not what the RfC is about, in both options of the BLPN RfC , the past Assault is in the same passage as the "any man who believes or feels he’s a woman" or "trans woman" in single-sex space/bathrooms.

A "She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection."

or B "She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women, while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection."? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not we personally believe that the statement is misleading, the fact remains that it was published by J. K. Rowling on her website at www.jkrowling.com under the title "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues". On Wikipedia we don't put in material criticizing a person while excluding their response. What we can do is include any notable responses to her statement, which we do. It is very important that we describe what happened from a WP:NPOV position, even if we think what we are describing is (in your words) "awful". I would say the same if someone expressed the view that they were "wonderful".

Likewise, it is not our place to says "There is totally zero evidence that her ex husband or her attacker were a trans person". Is there a notable source that says that? Again, I would be saying the same thing to an editor who wrote "I think it is clear that both her ex husband and or her attacker were a trans persons." I would tell that person to show me a source that says that.

Writing for an encyclopedia is hard. Please see Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat#Wikipedia's role as a reference work. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

But the is absolutely no evidence that he was. We do not start from the assumption that attacker was of any thing but male. We don't assume he is black or white, Dutch or Russian Orthodox until we are told so. Statements in Wikipedia need to be based on factual evidence or at the minimum clear supporting evidence in a reliable secondary source. No where does she say her attacker/s were trans. "There must be current, reliable and independent sources substantiating claims that the Earth is flat" ~> "The are no current reliable and independent sources substantiating claims that her attacker was trans" ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me where any Wikipedia article says that J. K. Rowling's attacker was trans. Do that and I will go there and either come back to you citing a reliable source that establishes that (unlikely) or I will remove the claim as being unsourced.

Can't tell me where any Wikipedia article says that J. K. Rowling's attacker was trans? OK, then tell me where any Wikipedia article says that J. K. Rowling claimed that her attacker was trans. Do that and I will go there and either come back to you citing a reliable source that establishes that she made that claim I will remove the claim that she said that as being unsourced.

What I won't do is remove a direct statement by Rowling responding to criticism while retaining the criticism. That would violate Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP policies. Whether or not her direct statement is or is not a steaming pile of crap is irrelevant. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The is no direct statement or claim from Rowling that says her attacker was trans, correct the are no sources. That is precisely my point. To state that she was attacked and go on to in the very same passage to refer to trans people strongly implies the is a connection. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your point being? That we should remove a direct statement by J. K. Rowling because she strongly implied something that we don't like? That would violate Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So sorry to repeat this ...the is *no* direct statement or single passage from JK Rowling that supports she was. To have a sentence in Wikipedia where both the attack, threat and "while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection" implies a connection, the was surely that is equally a clear breach of NPOV. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to tell me where we imply this as opposed to accurately reporting what she wrote. We didn't imply it. She did, at [24]. We just reported what she wrote. When then went on to report that Mermaids and GLAAD saw the same implication that you did and to report them criticizing those implications. Again, what would you have me do? Not mention what she wrote, leaving the reader wondering what Mermaids and GLAAD were criticizing? Leave in criticism of Rowling while refusing to accurately report her response? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth".

Where is the reference to her past abuse and assault in this passage? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a couple of paragraphs earlier. "I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead." I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.[25] (emphasis added) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I made this reply, while you were upgrading your comment, which is OK but now mine no longer relates, i think we are replying too fast, I shall reply tomorrow. ^{We are looking at the exact same document, i quoted directly from the passage in question:). What we do is simple we separate her past awful attack from the issue of access to single-sex spaces by trans people or whatever way she describes them.} ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC) edited

Ward20 is explains the problem a lot better than me. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

RedactedI believe this dicussion is going down the wrong track; the way the material is presented presently is WP:OR. Neither the cited Rowling's essay[26] nor the cited Reuters article[27] combines the two parts into a linked idea like the above article wording does:

• Essay:

"Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

New paragraph: So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."

In the middle of the next paragraph: ..."I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity."

• Reuters in entirety for context:

"When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.

LGBTQ group GLAAD accused Rowling of spreading misinformation and sowing divisiveness.

Her misinformed and dangerous missive about transgender people flies in the face of medical and psychological experts and devalues trans people’s accounts of their own lives,” it said in statement to Vice, retweeted on its own account.

In the essay, Rowling said she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault and that the trauma of those experiences informed some of her feelings about women’s rights."

There need to be some changes I believe.Ward20 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

See Guy Macon's 02:10, 9 July 2020 comment above. In the essay she talks about her abuse, then single-sex spaces, and then "I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe", etc. I suppose we could maybe split it into two separate sentences as a compromise, but I still have concerns about seeming to override the RfC. That part of the sentence was still part of the option, and the source was given, yet nobody complained it was OR. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Here, this People source, mentioned below by Ward20, is very similar to what the RfC's option A says. And in any case, it connects the same points we are discussing here in the same sentence and same order.

People: Stating that she's a survivor of sexual assault and domestic abuse, she writes, "So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman...then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."

Option A: She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Redacted:Her essay doesn't read that way, and neither does the Reuters citation in the article. Two sources to one. The way the wording is presently written is not WP:NPOV. I think we need to change and separate the ideas as much as the two sources do, or come up with more sources that support another option. Ward20 (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This article in the Independent[28] does a nice job of parsing and condensing Rowling's single sex bathroom section, but would have to be reworded considerably for WP:NPOV, and to probably add the essence of Rowling's statement,[29] "So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe".

..."Rowling seems to be saying here is that “opening the door” to all transgender people looking to use the bathroom they want would transport us into a chaotic new world, where predatory men would take advantage of this newfound opportunity to gain access to women’s bathrooms". Ward20 (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no problem with changing the section to improve NPOV, and am fine with whatever changes the editors here decide on. It is only deleting all reference to Rowling's response that I oppose, and I do so purely on the grounds that it would violate Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to write something that can be kicked around, torn apart and maybe hammered into something useful through agreement. She is a great writer and there is a lot of nuanced material in that essay. The people who oppose her views mostly admit that, and it won't make sense if Rowling's views aren't faithfully represented. Ward20 (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon + Crossroads. I apologise if I was not being clear, I try again. I was not asking for the deletion of anything Rowling is reported to have said in the RS nor anything that Rowling has written herself (and wish for any violation of Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP policies).

i) In the passage you suggested direct from her essay * I’ve ....never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. ....I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces. * [30] Nothing Rowling says indicates that the physical and mental abuse that she suffered was done by a trans person. Nothing published by J. K. Rowling on her website at www.jkrowling.com under the title "J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues" or in any secondary source informs us that her past abuse/attack had anything to do with anyone trans.

ii). Worded either way

a)“She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing males access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women, while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.

b)"She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside ....",

or c) "She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women."

All three version we link Rowling's past abuse/attack to the issue of trans (whatever you call trans people) access of women only places. This is not something Rowling wrote.

iii). It is like us writing that in the past Rowling suffered a terrible attack by a woman (with no statement or evidence to the sexual orientation of the attacker) and then quoting her stating all lesbians should be banned from single sex places.

v). Her past abuse/attack however terrible it was, it is a separate matter to trans access of single sex places and because no where does Rowling herself actually put them in the same sentence and nor should we put them in the same sentence.

Is that any more clear? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a question about how a couple of sources reported this.

The BBC reported[31] that " her interest in trans issues stemmed from being a survivor of abuse" and that "In the blog post published on Wednesday, Rowling, 54, detailed what she said were the five reasons why she felt the need to talk about the issue... Explaining her final reason, she wrote: 'I've been in the public eye now for over 20 years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor'." Why would the BBC say that, considering the fact that "no where does Rowling herself actually put them in the same sentence"? Did the BBC just make up that bit about her domestic abuse and sexual assault experience being one of the five reasons why she felt the need to talk about trans issues?

The Scotsman reported[32] "JK Rowling has said she was partly motivated to speak out about transgender issues because of her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault – as she responded to criticism surrounding her comments in a lengthy blog post on her official website". Do you have any explanation as to why The Scotsman would say such a thing despite "her past abuse/attack, however terrible it was, being a separate matter"? Did Rowling, a skilled writer, randomly insert a fake reason into an essay titled "Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues"?

Or could it be that maybe -- just maybe -- the above two sources correctly concluded that JK Rowling was talking about the same thing -- listing reasons one after another -- throughout her essay as opposed to inserting random interjections for no apparent reason? I don't think it was a valid reason, but I also don't think that she didn't give it as a reason and that multiple sources misunderstood her. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(As someone who witnessed and suffered poor low level reporting by the World Service and the Guardian I know even my favourite RSs can mess things up ~ but that's unimportant personal history.)

You put into words the whole vague uncertainty very well. When things are vague and unclear I thought Wikipedia as an encyclopedia would be extra careful in reporting her words, due the vagueness of the direct relevance of the past attack, the seriousness of the accusations of sexual attack by a minority group and the [lack of real evidence of actual risk in Rowling's own country ]. Things just do not add up. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(add in my opinion though reported in some sources as unclear and probably unconnected related personal experience and thus be a partial justification it is a bit weak _{^{like using a Antisemitic canard ( made this small as someone might object to me using a different form of prejudice as a comparison)}} or saying that all gay men should be banned, because they are all predatory. Regards sources the are lots of other sources, some are more neutral. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)]])

Partially redacted:It's true that the BBC and The Scotsman reported she was "partly motivated to speak out about transgender issues because of her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault". But it was only 1 of the 5 reasons she was motivated to write the essay. Neither Both articles mention anything about Rowling's opposition to transgender use of women's bathrooms per say, they call it "concerns around single-sex spaces." She also writes in her essay about topics besides single sex bathrooms; "Transgender activists" (a lot), TERF descriptions, gender laws eroding women's rights, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, free speech, and others.

Of course her sexual assalt motivation should be included. Her reasons for her objection to changing laws allowing transgender people to use women's bathrooms should be included too. Should they be linked in one sentence as a cause individually begets a single effect? No. Her essay does not do that, and as far as I can tell the preponderance of sources, including the BBC and The Scotsman, do not either pardon me those two do, and term it, "concerns around single-sex spaces". Reading her essay along with the secondary sources, it is not that she fears transexual people in the bathroom, rather that if the laws are lax enough, "any man" may be able use a woman's bathroom to prey on women and girls. To write it differently is not WP:NPOV. Her other motivations and concerns should be addressed too, if agreed upon. I am still collecting secondary sources to compare with Rowling's essay on my sandbox. It's a lot of work. It's easy to find if editors wish to look. There is some original research annotated in purple for my benefit that will not be part of anything on this talk page or article without a source. Ward20 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

My reading of this: 1) Rowling was assaulted by her husband, a cis man, and sexually assaulted by an unidentified person, who may or not be trans (she never stated, because why would something like this need clarity?!) She therefore (more than most, perhaps, though incidence of domestic violence is distressingly high) abhors violence against women. 2) Rowling believes that trans women, and/or cis men pretending to be trans women, conduct a lot of attacks against cis women and girls in single-sex public toilets and changing rooms. (They really don't, though! This is just transphobic propaganda.) 3) After criticism of her tweets, Rowling publishes her essay, justifying her unsubstantiated belief in 2) because 1). It's Maud Flanders levels of "Think of the children!" and - just personal opinion now - points to her poor writing ability (anyone can get lucky, and every generation gets a Hero's journey retelling.) Given the coverage it has received, we should cover the fact that she was assaulted. We should also clarify that the identity of the perpetrator of her sexual assault has never been revealed. We don't need to include the actual quote, though I've no objection to its inclusion if the clarification is included. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I support this approach this article should clarify that the identity of the perpetrator of her sexual assault has never been revealed. I guess that includes their gender orientation? Plus Rowling's accusation should be followed by a clear clarification that the evidence for transgender women or men misusing wash-rooms and women only places is non existent. (Dunne, P., 2017. (Trans)forming single gender services and communal accommodations.Social and Legal Studies, 26(5). Available at: https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/139271435/Bristol_Pure_Version_PD.pdf.Eckes, S., 2017. The restroom and locker room wars: Where to pee or not to pee. Journal of LGBT Youth, 14(3): 247-265.) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, nothing in this article "should be followed by a clear clarification that the evidence for transgender women or men misusing wash-rooms and women only places is non existent". This would be editorializing and hijacking the article, whose only scope is to present neutrally the political views of J.K. Rowling. 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54C6 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article should carry the clarification you suggested. As an encyclopedia it's not our duty to dispute Rowling's claims on behalf of others. We're not here to support an agenda. — Czello 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought or duty was to present facts neutrality, that is to neither dispute or support claims (I myself would insert questionable between dispute and claim). I am not sure where to start but in articles about other people who have say racist views, are those views simply written without checks and balances. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not doing WP:Synthesis. This means sources must be about Rowling. It is not the scope of this article to argue against (or for) her claims or survey the vast literature on transgender matters to comment on her comments. We report Rowling's views and people's reactions to them in accord with WP:NPOV, including WP:Due. That's it. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Presenting facts neutrally means not arguing against her points on behalf of others. That's not for us to do. — Czello 20:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to Guy Macon and Crossroads and any other editor that read my erroneous statement about Rowling not directly connecting her sexual assault with the her objection to single-sex spaces. She does, and I just was not recognizing the part "women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces." I think I was having a senior moment and only fixating on, "who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces." I have tried to strike out my previous comments concerning this. I still think the wording needs to describe that it is not the transgender person she objects to, but the laws or rules that might let any man into a single-sex space, also as Bastun states, being careful about her sexual assault. I might take an editing break for a few days to clear my head about this. I need to do my taxes anyway. Ward20 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Rowling wrote "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside." The first part of that sentence is literally talking about trans women (insultingly, but leave that aside). For Czello to change our corresponding sentence to "allowing males access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women" is being transphobic in Wikipedia's voice and misinterprets Rowling's actual words. Use the actual quote or leave this clumsy and insulting language out. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As it is quoted in several top level reliable sources we could simply quote Rowling's own words in a block quote. It might stop future alterations.

When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

but I fear the RfC in the other place will end up with a result in something she did not actually say. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go with the blockquote. WP:V, WP:RS, it's even used in a Reuters explainer! Reuters - imagine! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing about Reuters it misses out the middle part of the quote, which has caused problems. Guardian [ https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate] (or Guard JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault or Independent J K Rowling, predatory men and the nuance we're all missing out or NBC J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto') all of which have a complete quote of the relevant passage. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

New comments relating to transgender people

How do we want to handle this?

• "J.K. Rowling has suggested hormone replacements prescribed to transgender people are a "new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people"." -- nz.news.yahoo.com
• "In a recent twitter post, the children’s author J. K. Rowling stated an apparent concern that some gay people are being ‘turned’ transgender by homophobes via an unidentified process of conversion therapy. This suggestion has caused great offence to parents already doing everything they can to support their trans child in the face of constant threats, ridicule and misinformation from those who have never experienced trans parenthood themselves." -- Mermaids UK
• "JK Rowling Receives Backlash After New Comments About the Transgender Community... Trans activist and model, Munroe Bergdorf, responded to Rowling's tweets. 'Not once has @jk_rowling stopped to think about the damage she is doing to the mental health of trans kids. Not supporting a trans kids transition doesn't stop them from being trans," the model shared. "If anything forcing them to live as a gender they don't identity as, is conversion therapy' " -- NBC Bay Area
• "RuPaul's Drag Race U.K. star Cheryl Hole also called out the author. 'So when is @jk_rowling going to get taken down for her hate crime messages against the Trans community? AGAIN," the drag queen shared. "The HATE she is spouting off is doing nothing but damaging an already vulnerable group of people and she must have repercussions for her actions!' " -- E! Online
• "JK Rowling has once again decided to grace us with her opinion on trans people. This time, after it was discovered that she liked a tweet which characterised anti-depressants as “lazy” medicine and compared being transgender to mental illness. After the inevitable callout, the Harry Potter author responded with an 11-tweet thread that contained several troubling claims, starting with a bizarre explanation that she had: "Ignored porn tweeted at children on a thread about their art" as well as "death and rape threats", but drew the line at criticism over her apparent views. Thereafter, she moved back into familiar territory, once again outlining her concerns about young trans people transitioning and her worries over the side effects of hormone therapy" -- The Independent (UK)
• "Rowling went on to cite a documentary and several articles that discuss the long-term health risks of hormone therapy and the overprescription of anti-depressants to teenagers. These posts and statements come nearly a month after Rowling's initial comments on June 7, which caused an uproar in the LGBT and trans communities" -- CBR
• "More than 100 parents of trans kids have rejected JK Rowling’s “arrogant and offensive” suggestion that affirming a transgender child is a form of gay cure therapy." -- PinkNews

This is clearly becoming big news, and we want to do a proper job of covering it.

Might I suggest the following:

• First we decide what sources are reliable and notable enough for inclusion, and how to report what each source says. For example, the Reliable Source Noticeboard recently discussed PinkNews and the consensus was that is it is OK for statements of facts and direct quotes. So we come up with a list of the sources we want to use.

• Second, we propose some wording and discuss it, trying to reach a consensus.

• Third, we go live with something everyone agrees on, thus avoiding edit warring.

Sound like a plan? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your plan sounds good to me. To begin with, are there any of these sources that we consider unreliable? I think they all look fine to me (other than what you said about PinkNews). — Czello 13:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed on this approach. PinkNews is the only source there that WP regards as not being reliable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy with plan, all sources are biased even the bbc etc. Regarding Pink News though I am no expert and lack personal experience, I notice the is a currently a fresh discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with a mood to move Pink news from Generally unreliable to No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply. I have never thought to use it myself, generally the are usually alternative better sources available. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC) (Add: Personally I tend to offer up sources like the Independent and NBC level, and Mermaids due to their expertise. That is not saying that the others are bad, just my confidence level, I just would not use them, myself. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

I don't see anything PinkNews adds to the story, so I say leave it out. We have plenty of other good sources. If past history is any indication, there will no doubt be a followup essay or possibly tweet from Rowling that doesn't apologize but does provide reasons why she thinks that what she wrote was fine followed by another storm of criticism. Keep a look out and let us know if you see that happen. It is going to be really hard to write about this in a NPOV and encyclopedic manner, but I have confidence in the editors I see working on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

seems like an excellent approach. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I support what has been said above me. I would like to ask though, are we planning of having a similar (perhaps shorter) addition to the main page? Because it does seem significant enough to belong there. What are your thoughts? YuvalNehemia (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:Summary style, WP:Due, and the fact that these comments are still new and lasting significance is unknown, detail should stay here. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

All these should not be in the article (at least not for now), per WP:NOTNEWS, but one thing that is crucial here is that if we do address her tweets, then extreme care should be given to our choosing of sources per WP:BLP (even if a source is generally reliable, we can and should still use our judgment for individual issues), because misrepresentation and sensational reporting seems to be rampant in the media at the moment (for example I find the Independent article very troubling, and if you go through her tweets, Rowling has complained about misrepresentation of her views on mental illness medication and mental illness in general, and pointed that the tweet in question that she liked did not support what she was accused of liking). 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54C6 (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Essays impact on Equality act

An article is making it look like because of Jk Rowling A piece of legislation didn't get passed. The idea that a young adult , adult and children's author has this much clout and political influence is outstandingly demented and reeks of vitriol and stupidity. Ask yourself : When last as Jk Rowling words written or spoken stopped a law . I can understand the media covering it , Celebs can't take a shit without a front page article about them, what more. This long shot philosophy that the essay stopped the law should be taken out of the article in my opinion

So Regarding Jk Rowling's Essay and its impact on the LGBT law : Plenty of people cite information, quotes , facts and opinions of others in legislation and legislative decisions Doesn't make it the writer, gatherer or source of this information responsible for whether or not a piece of policy gets passed. That's for the policymakers and policy pushers to decide. This article is just clickbait- part of the vitriolic rhetoric directed at Rowling by the media and the fools who choose to believe the media . It's called spinning a narrative for headlines. And this is called neutral journalism.

Why is this included unless editors actually think Jks essay stopped that law when infact it probably would have faced problems either way irrespective of the essay ? Hpdh4 00:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Like, the guy himself quoted rowling's essay, as reported by multiple sources. What more do you want? --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is absurd to conclude that Rowling's essay had anything to do with that law not passing; it is irrelevant that a politician (who's not even a British politician) quoted the essay. Lots of people have commented on Rowling's essay in various contexts and we don't refer to all those people here because of WP:UNDUE. It's also a WP:BLP because it tries to link Rowling with that guy "look these two are alike". Numerous people from all across the political and ideological spectrum have commented on Rowling, and we can't just single out this politician for no valid reason. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:4332 (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for actually explaining how you apply the Wikipolicies. There's some editors here who don't and that makes it really difficult to understand what they mean.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it not irrelevant that Rowlings and the American lawmaker/politician are different nationalities, he quotes her essay in a debate that is entirely related to equality law. The two are directly connected. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the politics of JK Rowling. Rowling has made no comments on US Equality law, which is very different from both English and Scottish law. Guilt by association goes directly against WP:BLP.AutumnKing (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about an effect of her Essay had, numerous blp articles have sections that describe how someone's words had effect on events. The fact that Scottish/UK law is different, is irrelevant, her essay was used in a debate relating to US Equality law. She is an international admired author, and her writings have a global influence. From the essay Rowling clearly wants to limit Trans equality laws. (Plus Editors have repeatedly told me that Scottish Law is irrelevant in her essay). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You are drawing massive conclusions from her words, not stated by her. In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 already covers gender reassignment, and nothing in Rowling's essay is against that. Whatever other editors may have said, her essay does specifically reference the Hate Crime Bill, which is in the process of coming into Scottish Law, and talks about her government, ie the Scottish Parliament. She has made no mention of American law, making inclusion WP:UNDUE. Just because someone used her essay to oppose legislation, it does not in anyway mean that their actions are a reflection of Rowling's politics. This content is quite clearly being heavily disputed and should not be added back in unless a consensus is reached to do so. AutumnKing (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Quoting a person's essay is like using a textbook to learn from. Your using their words to give your subject matter substantial credibility. This doesn't mean that Rowling stopped the law . So ridiculous that its included as such .And even more ridiculous that the article is constructed to appear as such.

I think people are allowing their perspectives on the Jk Rowling issue to influence what is allowed onto this page. Hpdh4 13:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

We are simply saying it was cited as part of the winning argument. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be excluded from the article and not put back in Rowling isn't a politician and as such her words carry no political clout unless you count social justice politics among the Twitter,tumblr crowd as a kind of "clout" . These politicians just used her essay to back their claims - she didn't refute this law . And it doesn't matter if it was part of the winning arguement as wikipedia reports facts and not click bait headlines spun on the guilty by association narrative. Hpdh4 13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Clutching at straws. Well known political commentators like Rawlings are not separate from politics, remember she has written about many political topics before and tried to use her influence, e.g. Scottish independence, (...I think this whole article). Rawlings is not separate from politics, she totally intended that her essay about trans equality would have a political effect. This undeniable. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not proper to imply based on trivial coverage (again, WP:NOTNEWS) that Rowling was in some way commenting on US law or that her essay had an influence on not passing the law. The Republicans absolutely would have blocked this law regardless of Rowling. There are 4 against and 2 favoring this material right now. There is clearly not a consensus in favor of it as required by WP:ONUS. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is irrelevent if it might have been blocked anyway, the fact is it was used as a influential document in the Senate during the dabate. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bodney: Why did you re-add it again? Did you not read my edit summary? WP:ONUS states: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to *include* disputed content." So of the two of us, who needs to get consensus to implement their favored version? Crossroads ^-talk- 14:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

_{I apologise I did not see your edit here, made while I was editing.} ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Another Crossroads strawman. Nobody implied or stated that Rowling was commenting on U.S. law, so refuting that is a cis-gendered strawman. The sentence currently addressing this issue is entirely factual. WP:V and WP:RS are clearly satisfied. Coverage of the essay itself has already been deemed to be WP:DUE. If something such as an essay has been deemed to be worthy of inclusion, then discussing the impact of said essay in the world is also due. In this case, it was, apparently, enough to sway this Senator. I support inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Having the content here makes the implication that she was commenting on or responsible for US law. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If you infer something incorrectly, that's on you. The statement is perfectly clear and implies no such thing. Oh, and NBC News is not a "trivial" source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Restored this sentence, for now. Let's discuss, per WP:BRD. Narrow margins of "victory" such as 2:1 are a ridiculous way to enforce a WP:IDONTLIKEIT viewpoint. Let's discuss like adults? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Continue arguing I see this for what it is.

We cant assume Rowling's intentions was to influence a piece of legislation unless she states otherwise.

The credibility of the source is not in question but the agenda behind their misconstructed article is questionable. Hpdh4 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

To state the Rowling's essay was apparently, enough to sway this Senator is not attributable to the source. Drawing the conclusion that the fact he used her words means she was instrumental in forming his opinion would be WP:OR. This article is about the politics of JK Rowling not the politics of James Lankford. And per WP:BRD, Wp:STATUS QUO and WP:ONUS, the content should not be restored until a consensus is reached here on the talk page.AutumnKing (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Autumnking2012. Regarding WP:BRD, the "bold" was when it was originally added, the "revert" was when it was originally reverted, and then it should have been "discussed", with the WP:ONUS on those arguing for inclusion. People should not misuse WP:BRD to game the system. Note too that the RfC at the BLP Noticeboard is discussing the length of this section, and most comments on that so far favor brevity or even removing the section. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding "BLP does not apply here!" [33], yes, it does. WP:BLP: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia." Crossroads ^-talk- 14:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Literally ["GOP senator quotes J.K. Rowling while blocking vote on LGBTQ bill" https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/gop-senator-quotes-j-k-rowling-while-blocking-vote-lgbtq-n1231569] ...."Senator James Lankford, R-Okla., on Thursday blocked Senate consideration of the Equality Act, an LGBTQ civil rights bill, by citing "Harry Potter" author J. K. Rowling’s recent blog post, which has been criticized as a “transphobic manifesto.”" What on earth are saying by 'Drawing the conclusion that the fact he used her words means she was instrumental in forming his opinion would be WP:OR' its clearly in the source. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That demonstrates that he used her words as part of his justification for his decision, not that it played an instrumental part in forming his decision. Given that this legislation has been continually obstructed by Republicans for some time, their is no evidence to suggest Rowling's essay had any impact on the opinions of those involved. Without evidence, you are simply drawing your own conclusions. AutumnKing (talk)

Policymakers and policy pushers chose to act on information obtained from Rowlings writings .it was their choice . Jk Rowling never said to them use my words . The onus to do so lay with these politicians. People all the time quote other people ,doesn't mean that these people who are the sources of the quotes agree with their usage. Hpdh4 15:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No, and we don't say they do. Never. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Bodney. Her essay is no longer a so-called manifesto that people can quote from in internet discussions, but has a concrete impact on legislation. It was elevated to an essay quoted in congress, a status which usually only theses written professionals in the relevant fields have. Therefore it is more than reasonable to include it in the article.
{{re[ly to|Autumnking2012}} I fail to understand how WP:BLP justifies removing this paragraph. Similarly, @Crossroads: I fail to understand how WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS apply, considering the significance of the Equality Act and the unique situation of Rowling being quoted. YuvalNehemia (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. The fact that someone else used her essay is not a reflection of the political view expressed by Rowling. If it had been stated that Rowling's essay had been an instrumental factor in changing the view points of American politicians, thereby influencing them to block this bill, it could be argued that inclusion might well be appropriate. That has not happened. Someone quoted her, on a topic (ie changes to US law) about which she has expressed no opinion. AutumnKing (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If these politicians quoted famous speeches made by people like Mandela, Ghandi etc Does it mean Mandela and Ghandi voted in parliament on these laws ? The answer: No The choice of the media and politicians to raise the credibility of this essay isn't a depiction of Rowling's intentions regarding legislation that does not concern her country. Hpdh4 15:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

No one is saying she voted in the debate, what a strange thing to say. Rowling's is a celebrated international author she did not publish her essay to be read only in her home town, she is fully aware that she writes to an international audience. The effects of Her words are clearly not stopped by borders. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A simple question is...Do political essays and other works, espicially if they are quoted in the middle of a law making debate have a effect on politics and law? the simple answer is yes. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

They can, but did this incident get enough coverage to suggest that the essay actually did? No, because as Autumnking2012 said and as almost all of the American media knows, "this legislation has been continually obstructed by Republicans for some time". Crossroads ^-talk- 16:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No, and we don't say they do. Never. Your contributions here are... odd, HPDH4. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The piece of text simply states that one politician mentioned Rowling's essay to substantiate and strengthen his arguments against LGBT issues. That's a fact. Was he voting that way solely bc of the essay? Probably not. (And the text doesn't suggest that). Would he vote that way even if the essay didn't exist? Certainly. (And the text doesn't try to deny that). It's relevant and well-sourced information and should be included. daveout 👾 ^(talk) 17:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

aye to that.--Licks-rocks (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment. There are a whole lot of arguments being refuted here by those opposing inclusion that a) aren't being made by those favouring inclusion; and b) were never in the sentence in dispute in the first place. The sentence in dispute is a statement of fact: "On 19 June 2020, the Equality Act was blocked in the Senate after Republican senator James Lankford opposed it, citing Rowling's essay as part of his reasoning." That is all. We do not say Rowling voted; we do not say she stopped the law; arguing against inclusion on the basis that that is implied by the sentence is frankly absurd, HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4. We do not "try to link Rowling with 'that guy'" - Lankford spoke about Rowling's essay on the floor of the Senate, and the media reported on that, so there is no BLP issue - we are not "claiming" anything, anon IP and AutumnKing. Seriously. Note, Crossroads, I'm saying no BLP issue. I'm fully aware of the BLP policy. Nothing in that sentence comes near to infringing BLP. There may well be reasons to not include the sentence - but nobody is making them. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with what's above me. Additionally, I would like to mention that we have only 18 articles about the politics of a non-politicians, which is a testament to the fact her words and opinions, as spread to so many people that were all those who read the essay in one city it might have been among the 100 most populated cities in the United States, are impactful. And this is one such impact. It cannot be ignored. YuvalNehemia (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You're presuming the existence of this article is actually justified and it's not just a dumping ground for WP:DIARY material that was kicked out of the main article. Someday the community will scrutinize it at WP:AFD. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

So, given that this article you dislike exists, you agree that there is a place for Rowling's essay's impact on American legislation, or do you believe that this shouldn't be mentioned in an article which shouldn't exist on Wikipedia? YuvalNehemia (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I like how people think two people is majority enough to include this essay issue and its impact on a U.S law Go add what you want too I don't care anymore. Hpdh4 14:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

I count more than two, buddy.--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. A quick count shows five to me. And as mentioned above, those arguing against inclusion are doing so by arguing against points that aren't being made here on the talk page or in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Rowlings an international writer wrote her essay with an intention which included to limit trans right" = This here shows wikipedia editors are now spokesmen for Rowling . Representing her unknown intentions regarding a law far from her area of expertise or country.

Rowling's essay was written to defend her stance on the gender narrative. It was not written for politicans to misuse to substantiate their position. Citing a persons work in a debate doesn't mean they agree with intentions of its usage.

Rowling's essay exists in isolation and wasn't written with the express purpose to influence this law.

Either people have their own agendas regarding this hence its inclusion or people know something about Rowling that the public don't . Hpdh4 17:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

JK Rowling is the same as Vicky Hartzler when it comes to women's rights. Please don't give Rowling a pass because of Harry Potter.--24.99.88.86 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4: "Rowling's essay exists in isolation" not only ignores the impact it had on trans people fond of her work, but is directly disproved by a legislator citing her when explaining why he opposes LGBTQ+ rights. YuvalNehemia (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"Trans people"=Trans Woman Not seeing any hate for and from TransMen regarding Rowling . Hpdh4 11:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of the above comment? Are you familiar with WP:NOTFORUM? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Also quite a lot of trans men criticised Rowling, especially after she insisted they were women if they are menstruating. Do you really need examples? YuvalNehemia (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the Equality Act on this page. The implication of its inclusion is that somehow JK Rowling supports the action that a politician in a foreign country (for her, foreign) took while quoting her. This page is explicitly for reporting the politics of JK Rowling -- and the defeat of the Equality Act was because of someone else's views, not hers. I see so much bias against JK Rowling in the comments above. I am removing the mention of the Equality Act in my belief that the consensus is biased. Please come back at me. Zedembee (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Equality Act comment from that American politician should not be included, for reasons already highlighted above. Zedembee was reverted with the summary "Discussed on talk page, consensus is for inclusion", but I see no such consensus! So please obtain the WP:CONSENSUS first, and then add that. 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54C6 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The simple fact that the politician was in a different country is totally irrelevant, you do realise that the internet is international no borders and that political thought and Rowling is read internationally. The text simply states that one politician used Rowling's essay to substantiate and strengthen his arguments against LGBT issues. That's a fact. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 07:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that James Lankford made reference to Rowling's essay when he opposed the Equality Act is really not relevant enough to be here. Just because it can be sourced, it doesn't mean it should be included; the arguments for non-inclusion are given above by several editors. No reason why this specific person should be selected for inclusion, neither he nor his opposition to the Equality Act are relevant to the topic of this article (he didn't oppose the Equality Act because of Rowling's essay, he would have opposed it anyway; and Rowling's essay was not, in any way, about American laws), and Lankford being included in this context seems like an attempt to link Rowling to his views/politics. 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54C6 (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this, so if y'all could stop claiming that there is? Here is the page for the Equality Act and here is the page for the Senator in question. Senator Lankford's use of JK Rowling's essay to serve his own politics and purposes would be better placed on either of those pages. Including it on JK Rowling's page _implies_ that she endorses the action he took, and you know it. Its inclusion on her page is an activist position, not the neutral one befitting an encyclopedia. Best, Zedembee (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Bindel inclusion

@FlyboyExeter: Please discuss here about the Bindel inclusion, rather than edit warring. The consensus version will be restored until there is a definite reason not to include the quote from her. — Czello 17:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If we include her, we should identify her support for Rowling is biased as she is a well known transphobic, as mentioned in her article here and noted in this article too Feminist views on transgender topics#Transgender women in women's spaces and organizations. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we do need to state that. Our objective isn't to add asterisks like that, as it then implies the irrelevance of her support. If people want to read about Julie Bindel's views, they can do so on her page. I think @Crossroads: worded it well enough in this edit summary. I'm trying my best to assume good faith here, but it seems like you're trying to expunge all praise of Rowling from the section: so how would you word this in a way that doesn't go against WP:IMPARTIAL? — Czello 18:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because I feel we should identify Bindel's stance, does not mean I want to remove her. I have not tried to expunge her. Please include her, To me her support for Rowlings makes the negative trans views behind Rowlings tweets and essay even clearer.

If we can identify Bindel as a feminist and even have a supportive quote from her, we can also equally balance it by simply identifying her to be known transphobic (to be against trans people and trans rights) which is precisely what this section is about. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not our duty to moralise and stress whether Rowling's views are negative or not. Wikipedia isn't here to make arguments on behalf of other people: it's to present what's notable in a neutral way. Adding footnotes, as you did in the earlier edit, instead adds a voice to the article that would go against WP:NPOV. Again, if people want to learn more about Bindel's views they can visit her article -- and if you are fine with Bindel being included so that Rowling can be tarred by association, then readers are free to navigate to her page and make their own conclusions. — Czello 19:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not fine for Bindels inclusion without it being included neutrally. Supportive and exactly why she is supportive. For example, to give another similar instance.... I think that if a well known racist supports something another article subject says, we would identify that supportive person as a racist. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not neutral, though: you're trying to infer her motive for support. The most neutral way to present it is how we already did: She has received support from some feminists, such as the radical feminist Julie Bindel, who stated Rowling has always been a feminist and has inspired people "to look into issues of sex-based discrimination". This is the most straight-forward, clear, and dispassionate way to present the facts. To add further commentary is to push a bias onto the article. — Czello 20:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what "issues of sex-based discrimination"? is it the discriminatory laws that protect trans people? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Bindel's full quote is, “Her political position is nothing to do with transgender issues. She has always been a feminist and she has inspired generations of young women and men to look into issues of sex-based discrimination,”. So it looks like Bindel is more concerned with sex being considered a protected characteristic -- however, I think it's kind of irrelevant what my interpretation of this is, as our job isn't to interpret quotes for people, as that'd be WP:OR. Instead we should just present them as-is. — Czello 20:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that Bindel says “Her political position is nothing to do with transgender issues. when Rowling specifically just wrote a whole 3600 word essay relating to her concerns/issues about trans people. I think we have different positions about what neutrally is. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we do, so I'm hoping others will contribute to this discussion. — Czello 21:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

^{Nooooooo its been our private chat lol Joke :) ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)}

Oh, lol. Either way I think we will need to reach a consensus on how to word this, but I've said everything I want to for now. It's been too long a day of editing this one page, and my fingers are tired... — Czello 21:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

^{My poor single brain cell is utterly exhausted, panting in the corner of my empty skull.} ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here's the scenario. Rowling takes a stance on a controversial matter. She was criticised by many and supported by some. Is it WP:NPOV to exclude all the support comments, and to present it as though she received only condemnation? Obviously not. And this material which we are discussing has four editors in support (per the revert history and above discussion) and no opposition, except from one new account who is currently blocked for a 48-hour period (and thus gets no say). As for this addition by Bodney, Czello has above well-explained the problems with it. It's also WP:Synthesis, emphasis added: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The obvious implied conclusion is that Bindel and Rowling are to be discredited.

Guy Macon, think we can re-add the bit about Bindel's comments on Rowling? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Crossroads — Czello 22:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No to re-adding the is clear opposition. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Despite a mistake in the next section, we should not rush things. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No need to rush, yeah, but I'm not clear what opposition you mean. Is there any policy-based argument against inclusion? I counted four in favor because my and Czello's support is clear from above, Bastun supported it in an edit summary, [34] and above you stated, Just because I feel we should identify Bindel's stance, does not mean I want to remove her. I have not tried to expunge her. Please include her... Also, we should keep in mind that per WP:Consensus, Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I very clearly said I was not in favour of inclusion unless we correctly identifyer her as a transphobic, which is very relevant to the discussion. If we have got space to quote her her support for Rowling missing out the ridiculous assertion that Rowling is not referring to trans people, we can add very simply why Bindel supports Rowling. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

But saying why she supports Rowling is an interpretation on our part, though. Adding asterisks like "Bindel is a transphobe" has an implied "so ignore her comments" attached to it. It's not our place as editors to attach this kind of commentary to articles. We just need to present things as dispassionately as possible, not push a moralistic view. — Czello 10:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I support inclusion of Bindel's support for Rowling, as (per previous comments on other inclusions!) the whole topic of Rowling's views on transgender people and issues and the reaction to the expression of those views is indeed newsworthy and notable enough for inclusion in a BLP. But - just as we "introduce" who her opponents are - Bindel should also be introduced. She is far less known than most of the other people and organisations mentioned in this section. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, but she's introduced in the segment as a "radical feminist". — Czello 13:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We can do more that that, we can introduce her as a Gender critical feminist, it informs the reader what kind of feminist she is and exactly why she is relevant to the topic in question. Gender critical feminists like Bindel, Maya Forstater (and by her words it could be concluded Rowling too) disagree with the existing majority view about transgenderism, the view that gender identity is separate from one's biological birth sex. They fear that sex protection is being argued away and that this erodes rights hard-won by women. This goes to the heart of Rowling's concern relating to that allowing trans women (or what they view as 'biological men') to go into women only spaces as Gender critical feminis believe that this is somehow a threat to or undermines the rights of cisgender women and girls. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can totally agree with her being listed as a gender critical feminist. I was actually going to suggest this previously, as it seemed more precise than "radical feminist", but I wasn't sure if it was supported. But yes, we could revert to the old wording and just change "radical feminist" to "gender critical feminist" with the link you provided -- that way we maintain neutrality but we also have a label more precise for this topic. Is everyone happy with that? — Czello 14:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright let's go with it. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OK Fair compromise, (the is a worry that folks will not know what a gender critical feminist is lol, but ok) ...maybe a link to [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Transgender women in women's spaces and organizations|Gender critical feminist]] or just [[Feminist views on transgender topics|Gender critical feminist]] to help the reader. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the latter link. That article as a whole is relevant and contextualizes these matters much better. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should go with the latter, as that's what the "gender critical" redirect points towards. I think a more precise link is a subject of debate for the gender critical talk page or the gender critical feminist talk page. As we now have a consensus I'll add the Bindel quote back to the article. — Czello 15:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The former takes you to one of the areas Rowling is discussing, so its directly relevant to this section, and Bindel's quote. The latter is more open and includes all feminists views on transgender people, positive and negative. The former is better but I will go with a simple majority. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It should state "radical feminist Julie Bindel", with possibly a link so [[radical feminist]]. Specifically labelling her like this [[Feminist views on transgender topics|gender critical feminist]] is not neutral. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A brief search on Bindel clearly states her to be a radical feminist. This is clearly bias. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if we have a agreement here among 4 or 3 editors, maybe we should generally wait a reasonable time (up to 24 hours) to see if any other interested editor contributes on these changes. The Muggle Net reinstatement and then partial removal is a case in point. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lede

The part of the lede which reads "On the topic of transgender people, Rowling has opposed terms such as "people who menstruate" and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces is a danger to cisgender women" should be rephrased. We should wait for the RfC to be resolved, and not bring to the lede phrasing like "allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces is a danger to cisgender women". Also, we should not assume that readers are familiar with the topic, quite on the contrary, we should assume that they are completely unfamiliar. And for someone who is completely unfamiliar, to read, without any context and any further explanation, that "Rowling has opposed terms such as "people who menstruate"" can be very confusing (ie. who uses such terms? why do they use such terms? why does Rowling oppose such terms?). 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54FF (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue additions to the "Transgender people" section

The following text does not belong to the "Transgender people" section:

• On 19 June 2020, the Equality Act was blocked in the US Senate after Republican senator James Lankford opposed it, citing Rowling's essay as part of his reasoning.[50]

This continues to be here, despite not being any consensus for its inclusion (more on this is discussed here on talk at the section "Essays impact on Equality act" above).

• Also in June 2020, four authors, including Owl Fisher, resigned in protest from the Blair Partnership, Rowling's literary agency, after the company refused to issue a public statement of support for transgender rights, saying that "freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed."[51]

This is really WP:UNDUE, these four authors are not notable enough to have their reactions included here.

• Following the threat of legal action, British children's news website The Day publicly apologised to Rowling after publishing an article that suggested her comments caused harm to and attacked trans people, made comparisons between Rowling's views and those of Wagner on race and Picasso on women, and called for her work to be boycotted. The publication also agreed to pay an unsubstantiated sum to a charity of Rowling's choice.[52]

This does not belong in this section, which is supposed to be about Rowling's views on transgender issues. This is only indirectly related to trans topics, and if this incident really has to be in the article, then it should be in a different new section on Rowling's views on the media/press and associated issues of what she considers to be defamation/invasion of privacy (there is such a subsection called "Press" in the main article (it's a subsection of "Views") which details Rowling's (difficult) relation with the media, including her many legal actions and complaints against the press). 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54FF (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) Not been following past discussions but I think this is relevant. (2) It's not four authors "reactions" – it's them literally resigning. But what's important is the sourcing and the sourcing shows due weight relative to the rest of the article's standards at present. (3) This is a double standard as you are not fighting for removal of all the donations to the Labour party and opposition to Scottish independence campaign. The article is "Politics of J. K. Rowling", not "List of things J. K. Rowling has said" and it would make no sense to separate views from activism – each feeds into the other. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

To address your three points:

• 1) I'm not going into details on this, because this is discussed above at the section "Essays impact on Equality act". The arguments against inclusion are explained there, and there is no consensus for inclusion.
• 2) Resignation is a "reaction". I don't consider that the sources suggest due weight, it's rather a case of WP:NOTNEWS.
• 3) I don't see how that can be seen as a double standard. I am "not fighting for removal of all the donations to the Labour party and opposition to Scottish independence campaign" as you put it, because 1. I don't see these as equivalent (Rowling threatening to sue that site is neither a political view nor is it activism; at best it could fit into a section about Media/Press as I explained above, similar to the subsection from the main article) and 2. I am specifically focusing on this one section "Transgender people" here; just because other sections might need improvement, doesn't mean we can't work on this section now. (btw, in the section "UK politics" there has to be a subsection on Brexit, ie. her support for the 'Remain' side (written in a neutral way, and not used as a soapbox re Brexit, like some editors are trying to use the article as a soapbox re transgender issues)). 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54FF (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Freedom of speech

Perhaps a paragraph on Rowling's support of freedom of speech should be added? She addressees this in her essay, and she has also signed (along with other writers, academics and activists) an open letter in support of free speech/criticizing restriction on debate.[35] [36] 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54C6 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is likely a significant event. I don't think this warrants a whole section and certainly not one titled "freedom of speech" when the letter is about topics like a perceived cancel culture, Donald Trump and academic freedom; but, it does warrant mention. However, the page needs a lot of editing to reflect due weight better (much of the content that has a whole section shouldn't), so maybe a section "Open letter" would suffice for now. — Bilorv (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Would this paragraph include analysis of, one the one hand, signing a letter claiming to support free speech, and on the other hand, suing a children's website that published opinions critical of her? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Depends, is this analysis covered in any reliable sources? If not us doing that would be WP:SYNTH. — Czello 12:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of the policy. But you raise a good point. Would the signing of an open letter, where apparently the signatory did not actually stand over the content, be a case of WP:UNDUE? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not covering the open letter -- assuming that it otherwise would be included -- because you don't like her behavior in ther areas would be a violation of WP:NPOV. It would also be WP:OR; you appear to be using your own personal definition of free speech -- saying that it applies to a website -- instead of the generally recognized definition, which is that it applies to government suppression of speech. This XKCD may help you to understand the difference: [ https://xkcd.com/1357/ ].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

At least I know when I'm being an asshole. Let me rephrase. Would the signing of an open letter be a case of WP:UNDUE? (Though, of course, the letter, significantly, is not talking exclusively about "government suppression" - far from it. (I do like Randall's alt-text for that particular XKCD, though!)) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I added it. [37] While I'd normally agree that something like this does not need its own section, this article is already set up with several other short sections of this nature, and I couldn't think of any good way to consolidate these. So for now, I made it its own section. As for claims that it is WP:Undue, it really isn't. There are many more sources about this open letter, and most of them mention Rowling prominently. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Per WP:UNDUE. It really is. And considering the other material you've previously removed on the same grounds, I'm assuming you're well familiar with the policy. Notnews, 10-year-rule, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Famous folks co-sign things all the time, this one received moderate coverage, it certainly seem rather WP:UNDUE to give it its own sub section. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It could possibly be included in the US Politics section as that seems to be its most logical home, if it is deemed worthy of inclusion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Rowling's support of freedom of speech should be in the article, not only due to her signing the open letter, but also because she has supported free speech in the past too: here is what she wrote in 2010: "It [Britishness] means a welfare state of which we should be fiercely proud and a tradition of tolerance and free speech we should defend to our last collective breath."[38] And she also addresses freedom of speech and academic freedom in her essay. I don't think that "it could possibly be included in the US Politics section" as stated above; rather it could be linked to the section "Age branding of children's books" which is in effect about some form of censorship/restriction of access to publications (obviously the section must be renamed). 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54FF (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Bastun's removal seems awfully WP:POINTy. Haven't you noticed I've stopped removing things, and acquiesced to removals being reverted when consensus went against me? And Bodney, I specifically said being in its own section was optional. I only did that since it seemed to make the most sense at this point in time. The culture Rowling is talking about is not just the US though. If there isn't another section it fits in then it can have its own section; it's no more undue as its own section than "Age branding of children's books", "European migrant crisis", or "Abortion". As for supposedly being undue generally, it just isn't: [39][40][41][42][43][44][45] etc.

Relevant policies are WP:NOTSOAPBOX - Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground - and WP:NPOV: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I bring up soapboxing because having a double standard for inclusion of content - if it's about criticism of Rowling, it goes in, but if it is about people taking her side, then I have to fight it any which way - that is using Wikipedia as a soapbox and is not allowed.

Who else supports what I added? [46] Bilorv, Czello, Guy Macon? Autumnking2012, you thanked me for the addition, do you support it? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am endeavoring to avoid the toxicity of this talk page as much as possible, but you are right I did thank you for the inclusion of the free speech section, and I agree that, with the article in the form it currently is, it should be included. This article has many issues, and I would even go so far as to question whether or not it should even exist. Rowling's signing of the letter is more pertinent to the purpose of this article than several of the entries already present, and should be include. AutumnKing (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

True, this article has numerous problems, and it's starting to look like a WP:POVFORK, and at this point it's perfectly reasonable to question whether it should exist at all. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54FF (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not the biggest fans of forks but its here atm, everyone has political views and Rowling has set herself up as socio-political commentator, so if she says anything notable and worthy of inclusion, we should add it and equally we should add the notable reactions to her words. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop questioning the unknown motives of other editors. A part from being one of 150ish public figures who signed this vague, message against internet shaming, but were the signers had no clue who else was signing...what actual noteworthy contribution did Rowling make to this event? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Oddly, my experience of the Rowling articles for the last couple of months is diametrically the opposite of yours, Crossroads - if it's about criticism of Rowling, it gets removed, and editors have to fight it any which way to get it included, but if it is about people taking her side, then it's added, no matter how minor or unrelated to Rowling they are - that is using Wikipedia as a soapbox and is not allowed. Still no mention, for example, of the cisgender women pissed off at Rowling for clumsily denying their womanhood because they don't menstruate.

Now, if we're talking about Rowling, and free speech, and decide that signing an open letter is, after all, WP:DUE (probably a foregone conclusion given your canvassing), then fine. But it certainly doesn't deserve a full section, and what we do include will also adhere to WP:NPOV. So we'll include mention of the resulting criticism and retractions, too. "I could see in 90 seconds that it was fatuous, self-important drivel that would only troll the people it allegedly was trying to reach — and I said as much." Indeed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't mention "cisgender women pissed off at Rowling for clumsily denying their womanhood because they don't menstruate" because that's not what Rowling said. This has been explained on the talk page of the main article, where the arguments for not including this are underlined. Just because some people came to illogical conclusions about what Rowling meant, does not mean we have to validate their complaints. As for including the critics of the open letter (and generally speaking criticism of Rowling's views), we should not forget that this article is called "Politics of J. K. Rowling", not "Criticism of the politics of J. K. Rowling". Criticism that is genuinely due should be included, but with care, because we don't want to end up in a situation where someone adds criticism of the open letter, and someone else then adds criticism of the people who criticized the open letter, and you end up with an article which is mostly about critics and the critics of the critics, rather than Rowling's political views. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54FF (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh - for an example of what I mean about "if it's about criticism of Rowling, it gets removed" - see talk page two sections down. Being one of 150 signatories to an open letter is due, but suing a children't website or four writers quitting her literary agency are undue? Yeah, that's NPOV... /eyeroll.gif Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That section below is by someone else. I followed WP:APPNOTE by pinging all editors who had commented on the matter but had not yet specified their view on inclusion. As for not having its own section, I see no consistent standard by which that cannot have a section but tiny stuff like abortion, migration, and age branding of children's books can. As for "cisgender women pissed off at Rowling", an article's one sentence about some non-notable people on Twitter does not meet any WP:Due standard that covers all the other material we have. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Notable people get more coverage, it's true. Ordinary people reacted to Rowling announcing her decision that they weren't women, too. It was covered in multiple reliable sources. I listed one, for a talk page section. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.

Can certain editors stop their bias support for various agendas regarding modern gender politics from clouding editorial commitments . Certain Wikipedia editors are becoming just has bad as the media. The media is guilty of sensational reporting and their proclivity for erasing facts in their puff piece editorializations that reek of lack of neutrality and certain wikipedia editors seem to support this kind of journalism at the alter of side tacking having discarded neutrality. Just like how the media is supposed to be neutral and remain unused as a political allie so should wikipedia be neutral . Of course its moot point to request neutrality The media as taken their aggressive stance on this issue Wikipedia has taken an uncertain stance Public Relation actors and fansites who have cashed in on the Jk phenomenon have shown their true colors. Some Fans have shown they are about has loyal has modern married couples which is too say DISLOYAL If its war people want then its war they will get I've always thought: Better be a warlord and do the trampling then be trampled on. Is it so hard to just report facts and not opinion pieces. If Jk Rowling takes a shit are you going to include that under transgender issues Leave it too wikipedia and the media to gloss over the support Rowling got from trans people like dana international and so on. Also regarding mermaids:they are controversial and theirs plenty of sources , if you can put transphobia next to JKR's name then why not put controversial next to mermaid, sufficient proof for the mermaid accusations While JKR = much of the proof comes from misinterpreted information in favor of clickbait headlines Definitely an agenda here . Whether it's : anti-woman, pro-trans or fake Wokeness, an agenda/motive is present. Hpdh4 23:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC) I have no idea how to parse the above, but I'd suggest we're verging into WP:NOTFORUM territory. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC) @ Hpdh4 While much of what you wrote above is simply misguided or wrong, which is OK we have different opinions on this matter. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean their motives are bad. However your last sentence is to me (I am sorry) highly insulting, in several ways. I ask you nicely if you could please retract/remove your words. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Crossroads. I support your proposed text if and only if the following two changes are made: (a) "Free speech" is renamed to "Open letter" per my earlier concerns. For instance, you make clear that you agree cancel culture is relevant to the letter. Cancel culture is not (uncontroversially and in Wikipedia's words) related to free speech (which as Guy Macon says above, typically relates only to governmental actions). As another reason against it, take The Hill, which you cite: "What is the Harper's Letter about? It depends on who you ask." (b) "150 other prominent writers" is changed to "150 other public figures, largely writers and academics" or similar ("prominent" is non-neutral while "writers" doesn't describe everyone listed e.g. Kasparov). — Bilorv (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree totally on the second point, but on the first, while I get your point, "Open letter" doesn't really say what it is about (i.e., what it is political views about). Maybe the heading could simply be the title of the letter - "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate"? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the section "Age branding of children's books" should be renamed "Censorship" (or something of this kind, perhaps somebody else can come with a better word, less strong than "censorship"). As I said above, that section would be about Rowling's views on censorship/restriction of access to publications/infringement on freedom of expression; and cancel culture can fit there. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54FF (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I do support inclusion of the free speech section in principle, but I think it'd be good if there were more examples of her support than just the open letter in order to avoid accusations of it being WP:UNDUE. — Czello 05:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, yeah, using the title of the letter as the header would be fine by me. — Bilorv (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias in section "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate"

The text:"The letter received criticism, with several retractions and clarifications issued - some signatories saying they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing it, and Huffington Post executive director Richard Kim said "I could see in 90 seconds that it was fatuous, self-important drivel"[55][56]" should certainly not be in that section. It violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, in that it paints the letter in a wholly negative light, without any balance. Opinions on the letter do not belong here (readers can get to its own linked article for details); if it really is deemed necessary to have opinons on the letter here, then they should be balanced (ie. if you have criticism of the letter, you need to have praise too). This whole article is becoming so biased that it violates many policies (including WP:BLP), and if this continues, then there should be a serious discussion on whether we should keep an article which is basically a WP:POVFORK. 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6582 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Reaction to Rowling's views is necessary for the article to not simply be a platform for her views, but an encyclopedic description of how her views have been reported and received. — Bilorv (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

These reactions to the letter are not exactly "a reaction to Rowling's views". And how is Richard Kim's opinion not WP:UNDUE? Yes, reactions to Rowling's views are necessary, but must be presented with due regard for weight. The article must not be "a platform for her views" as you put it, but neither should it be an attack on her views. And neither should there be more space given to others' reactions than to Rowling's views. Also note the discrepancy between how her views on transgender issues are presented here, compared to her other views. 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6582 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(after EC) Per NPOV, we report on what the sources say, anon-IP (the '2A02' Bucharest IP seems to contribute a lot here - why not register?). The letter was published. It was reported on. Some people went "Wait, what?" That too got reported. Only including the fact of the letters publication, because Rowling published it, would be POV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not add something in an article just because it was reported by sources. We also ensure that what we add respects other policies. "It is sourced", is not, in and of itself, a sufficient argument for inclusion. (and this isn't "Rowling's letter", she is just one of over 150 people who signed it). 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6582 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely should be in the article. Of the 4 sources in the section, 2 of them had 'Rowling's picture' at the top of the article. All mention her name prominently with several mentioning her multiple times, along with commenting about her transgender remarks. A quick count of the 'major' news outlets' articles about the letter with her picture in the lead was over 15 articles.

That said, there should be a statement of why people support the letter too. The quote from Richard Kim is kind of a petty insult on the content of the letter. I would rather see an objection based on material similar to what was in the Washington Post, "Detractors pointed out that many of those who signed the letter, as one person put it, have “bigger platforms and more resources than most other humans” and are not at risk of being silenced." [47] I read that sentiment expressed in multiple articles. Ward20 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I'll try to add something in a while, if not beaten to it. We should possibly also mention the subsequent letter by people actually denied a voice, mentioned in some of the sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I made this edit. Agreed with Ward20 and the IP about the Richard Kim quote. And this article is not going to be a WP:COATRACK about criticism of the letter, but I am open to suggested additions that are due, NPOV, and on-topic. Additions must also be verifiable and match the source. Lastly, as a reminder to all, WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, inconsistent application of policy to promote a POV, antipathy-motivated WP:BLP violations on any Wikipedia page, and/or toxicity are all actionable at ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The retraction by Boylan over Rowling's signature was explained in detail by the Daily Mail. Then Rowling trolled Boylan on twitter over it. Their summary of it was, "Trans writer Jennifer Finney Boylan distances herself from free speech letter she signed calling out cancel culture after realizing JK Rowling had also endorsed it - but is immediately called out by the Harry Potter author."I didn't realize this was a depreciated source.[48] Newsweek also implied the same thing about Boylan's withdrawl because of Rowling.[49] Ward20 (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sonia Elks, Thomson Reuters Foundation article, "“I was very proud to sign this letter in defence of a foundational principle of a liberal society: open debate and freedom of thought and speech,” Rowling wrote on Twitter."[50]

Hannah Giorgis at The Atlantic is worth a read. It's too complex for me to summarize well at this time but she specifically calls out Rowling and a few others for their privileged status while they condemn "...critics who want to hold them accountable for the real-life harm their words might cause."[51] Ward20 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

An affirmative quote for Rowling from Richard Wheatstone at The U.S. Sun (I don't know if that is a royal we, or a we indicating the Sun's position), "When these academics and writers, including JK Rowling, say bad ideas are defeated “by exposure, argument and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away”, we couldn’t agree more."[52] Ward20 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A more complete quote of Rowling'd tweet in The Guardian, "Rowling, whose beliefs on transgender rights have recently seen scores of Harry Potter fans distance themselves from her, said she was “proud to sign this letter in defence of a foundational principle of a liberal society: open debate and freedom of thought and speech”.

“Rowling compared the current climate to the McCarthy years, adding: To quote the inimitable Lillian Hellman: ‘I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions’.”[53] Ward20 (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So essentially it's ok to cherrypick parts of the letter; but not include any critical quotes? And threaten AN/I?! Yeah, but no. If you want the fact of signing an open letter included despite WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS (and having removed other content previously because of those concerns, no less, despite much greater coverage!) then the criticism and debate will be included too. It's per policy. And it's what JK would want. Irony. A metal, like goldy and silvery. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, regarding this, where exactly does the source support "Some signatories said they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing"? First off, "some" is WP:WEASEL wording. Who and how many are these "some"? And secondly, where does anyone talk about "anti-trans activists", "anti-trans", or "activists"? Thirdly, where does anyone say directly - not involving WP:OR - that they would not have signed because of these "anti-trans activists", or even a softer 'because of people with certain transgender-related views'? WP:V and WP:NOR are policy. And regarding your claims of UNDUE and NOTNEWS, you added this, which at best got no more coverage, so I'll be dismissing that argument yet again. And no parts of the letter were cherrypicked; it was summarized based on the secondary source.

Pinging previous participants of the discussions about this per WP:APPNOTE - it can't just be me and Bastun arguing over this or we'll get nowhere - Bilorv, Czello, Guy Macon, Autumnking2012, Bodney, Ward20. Please comment even if briefly. What are we going to do about the tagged sentence fragment? It seems to need removal, and if replaced somehow, only with something that is verifiable and NPOV. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I say we nuke any criticism of the letter that does not mention Rowling by name. Whatever remains may or may not be an improvement to the article, but if retained requires attribution. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Otherwise it's pretty sketchy innuendo from a WP:BLP standpoint. I could see this standard helping to avoid coatracking too. If readers want to find out more about the letter itself, they can read the article on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with what Crossroads said above. Also agree with Guy Macron's proposal. — Czello 18:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Would also agree with Crossroads and Guy Macon as above. AutumnKing (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the source should reference Rowling specifically about the topic that is discussed. I thought I had some wording for the Boylan vs Rowling material, but when I went to post I got a warning about the Daily Mail being an unreliable source, so have to find a better source. Working on it. I also think the opening sentences should be improved a bit so the reader has an easier time comprehending what the letter is about. The way it reads presently, I think you have to know a bit about it, or else it is unclear. I have some ideas on that I will run past the talk page first. Ward20 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning. "Cancel culture" indeed. JK would not be impressed. The irony is not lost on me. Restoring per several editors including myself. Not least because some of the removal is directly related to Rowling. Overall, though - NPOV. She signed an open letter. If the open letter is worthy of inclusion, then so is the subsequent controversy around the letter. What is "one retraction and two clarifications" about? Don't leave the reader puzzled. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

After reading dozens of articles about the letter and Rowling my head is pounding. I tried to condense the sources down to a few main categories. The wording below is for discussion purposes, and not constructed for use in the article. The sources are not necessarily complete but fairly representative I believe. I have only been able to concentrate mainly on the criticisms today. I think that is the more difficult side. Her supporters should be more straightforward to describe. I sincerely hope so anyway.

• Many, many, articles are leading with Rowling's likeness and her fame to get people initially interested in an article. [54][55] Suggest the articles that have minimal intellectual content not be used.

• Less comprehensive articles tend to mainly frame the topic with twitter quotes from various stakeholders in the conflict. Particularly there is wide coverage of Boylan's remorse over Rowling's signature, and then comment by Rowling back at Boylan.[56][57][upnewsinfo.com/2020/07/08/trans-writer-distances-herself-from-free-speech-letter-she-signed/][58] Suggest these types of articles not be used.

• More comprehensive articles have criticized Rowling for condemning “an intolerance of opposing views" as limiting intellectual discourse in the letter, while using her position of power and the defense of 'free speech' to respond "to criticism... for their writing and public comments about transgender people."[59][60][61] I believe these types of sources seem to be the most suitable for the article's purpose.

• Rowling's twitter quote seems important, "I was very proud to sign this letter in defence of a foundational principle of a liberal society: open debate and freedom of thought and speech."[62]

• The best supporting descriptions for Rowling concerning the letter, after finding the best sources: to come.

Request comments or suggestions for improvement on whether this might be a good framework to proceed from. Ward20 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(After ec) That approach seems reasonable and balanced. Certainly moreso than limiting reaction to "the letter received criticism and support." I agree, what the letter is actually about is currently really vague. I mean, you need to go to the sources or the main article to find this letter isn't just about "cancel culture" (which isn't even mentioned in the letter) but directly attacks Trump and "the forces of illiberalism." I think coverage of the Boylan reaction does need to be included, as well as the response letter. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The debate here raises one fundamental issue: the letter itself has its own Wikipedia article. As an occasional wikipedian I am not familiar with all the policies. Is there any policy or guideline on how much of the subject should be covered in this article if there is a separate article on this letter? It is important to say that she signed the letter, but how long should be the summary of the letter and the ensuing debate? BorisG (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@BorisG: There are no policies. It's up to editors to find a fair balance. daveout ^(talk) 19:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Below is the part of the present wording that has been disputed, either WP:NPOV or WP:V. Below that is new text where I tried to rectify the issues. I expect there will be discussions about it :) :

• The letter sparked an online debate about cancel culture.[63][64] The letter received support and criticism, with one retraction and two clarifications issued. Jennifer Finney Boylan said they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing,[65] and writer Gabrielle Bellot responded "The largest issue seemed clear to me, in part because I was accustomed to it: that the letter, at core, was at once a theoretical defense of intellectual freedom and a carefully veiled invitation to use dehumanizing rhetoric under the bastion of 'the free exchange of ideas.'"[66][67][68]

New text:

• The letter sparked much debate about cancel culture; public criticism calling for censure of prominent people over their controversial actions or options.[69][70] Rowling stated she was proud to sign the letter to defend "open debate and freedom of thought and speech...”.

Objections to the letter included accusations that Rowling and other signatories had powerful means to publish their opinions, and that it was disingenuous to attempt to silence others who might offer criticism of their views. Some thought that Rowling was trying to specifically suppress criticism about her statements concerning transgender topics.

After learning who also signed the letter, Jennifer Finney Boylan expressed regret over their support, and stated they would not have signed had they known who the other signatories were.[71] Rowling then replied, Boylan should incur public penance for their association with her. One signer stated it shouldn't matter who signed the letter because it doesn't mean they all endorse the entire gamut of viewpoints and deeds of everyone else.

Bari Weiss said she was proud to stand with Rowling and the other signatories. Several of the signers also defended their letter, saying there is a very diverse group of people supporting their stand against excessive retribution by what they called, the “forces of illiberalism”.

------------ Ward20 (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like an improvement to me, and hopefully something most of us can agree on too. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Finney Boylan apologised for and known what? (we know but the reader might not) <~ I think this is too vague for the outside reader. The Gabrielle Bellot quote is good why not include it. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So instead of just "known", is the suggestion to substitute "known who would be signing it"? If a more reliable source can be found where Boylan states it was because of Rowling, as the unreliable Daidly Mail indicated she did in a tweet to someone, the wording could be, "known Rowling would be signing it". I tried to find that wording sourced outright, and authors said they "assumed" it could be Rowling, but I didn't want to write about assumptions. Ward20 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

How about [the Los Angeles Times to replace the dodgy mail as a source]? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Please C&P the appropriate section that confirms Boylan stated it was because of Rowling. I don't have access. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I simply used google and google simply provided, strange you do not have access? Column: Cancel culture is as American as apple pie by By Erin B. Logan (Staff Writer) For writer and trans activist Jennifer Finney Boylan, the words were a “well-meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming.” Boylan, who later said she regrets signing it, seemed to be unaware her name would be alongside novelist J.K. Rowling, who has freely deployed transphobic rhetoric. In the vague words of the letter, Rowling found shelter in the notion that the existence of trans people should be an “open debate.” ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Rowling clearly knew who Boylan was referring to The Crucible: the play that warned us about ‘cancel culture’ “You’re still following me, Jennifer,” the author wrote <Rowling tweeted> on Wednesday, addressing fellow author (and one of her 14.3 million Twitter followers) Jennifer Finney Boylan, after the latter apologised for having signed an instantly controversial open letter (to be published in Harper’s Magazine) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, but it has the same issue, "seemed to be unaware her name would be alongside novelist" is the reporter's speculation. It doesn't say Boylan stated they withdrew their name because Rowling signed it. Yes, Rowling indicated in the Tweet she knew Boylan withdrew because she signed the letter. She doesn't say it straight out so I paraphrased what Rowling stated in the new text I constructed above. "Rowling then stated Boylan should incur public penance for their association with her." I let the readers know that Rowling trolled Boylan about their apology due to Rowling's signing. Ward20 (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right, it does not actually 100% confirm. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

After thinking about it, the second part could be made more clear with the supported wording, After referencing Boylan's regret for signing the letter, Rowling stated Boylan should incur public penance for their association with her." Is that better? Ward20 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I think I was originally unsure whether the needed to be a paragraph break between the second and third paragraphs of your upgraded version, as they are connected. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed the wording slightly to indicate Rowling replied to Boylan's regret over signing. Does that make it clear enough? Ward20 (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add Bellot's quote because it seemed to just criticize the letter without mentioning Rowling. After reading the preface to the quote more carefully, she did mention that transgender people have been marginalized, so one might assume she is talking about Rowling. Then I read the previous paragraph and Giorgis does talk about criticism concerning Rowling's comments about transgender people. If some neutral wording could be constructed specifically tying Rowling to the quote I would be in favor of the addition. I do not have access to the times article, maybe something in there could help. The Independent Women's Forum source doesn't mention Bellot or the quote at all unless I'm missing it, so I will be nukeing that source unless someone corrects me. Ward20 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Will implement changes discussed above later today if no objections.Ward20 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Added some tools and information for talk page header

Set new auto archive for topic sections at 8 weeks. Please discuss if that is not sufficient. Also if other changes need to be made to talk page header. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for setting it up. It needs it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC was closed, lede and section "Transgender people" must be modified

The RfC (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#RfC:_J._K._Rowling) was closed with this conclusion:

here is the text pasted from the RfC:

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

(non-admin closure) Consensus for option A for question 1. ("She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.") No consensus as to question 2. None of the alternate proposals gained consensus. - MrX 🖋 18:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The lede and the section "Transgender people" must now be modified.2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:425C (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Please point to the part of the decision on the RfC that says the lede must now be modified. The version in the lede that was present through the RfC can almost certainly be improved upon, but "...Rowling has opposed terms such as "people who menstruate" and allowing "any man who believes or feels he’s a woman" to have access to women-only spaces." is surely a method of summoning Lynne Truss. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The formulation "On the topic of transgender people, Rowling has opposed terms such as "people who menstruate" and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces is a danger to cisgender women" is not supported by sources, and, as such, should not be present in the lede, or anywhere in this article, or in any other articles dealing with Rowling and her views. The RfC decided that a formulation like this is inappropriate, because it is not supported by sources. The RfC didn't deal specifically with the lede of this article, because this text was not in the lede when the RfC was opened. This does not mean that such text can now be in the lede. This is bad faith editing, it violates WP:BLP, and if this continues it clearly has to be reported. 62.231.113.220 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. The RfC has decided, it's done, we're not arguing this anymore. We are not allowing WP:WIKILAWYERING or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to waste editor time. The RfC clearly and resoundingly rejected that exact wording. The only difference between the two options presented there was that very wording, and the RfC is not specific to where in the article it is located. Any further attempts to disregard the RfC will result in immediately seeking administrator enforcement of the closure. Attempts to waste time with rehashing RfC-rejected arguments will be ignored. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

All righty, then. Changed to the RfC wording. Grand. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what was wrong with this wording,[72] please discuss to come to consensus

@Softlavender:Trying to parse out the wording that was removed and seem to be supported by the citation:

"because the Equality Act 2010 protected the expression of her beliefs on biological sex.", is supported by, " publicising her views on social media."... "argued that her “gender critical” beliefs should be protected under the 2010 Equality Act"... "tweeting that transgender women cannot change their biological sex".[73] Ward20 (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are the two citations that were used for the wording "at the tribunal she asserted that her termination was not appropriate because the Equality Act 2010 protected the expression of her beliefs on biological sex": BBC, Guardian. The BBC article says nothing about the Equality Act 2010, so I removed that citation entirely. The Guardian article does not say anywhere that [she claims/asserts that] the Equality Act 2010 protects expression of beliefs about biological sex, so I removed that wording. All the Guardian article says is that "She has argued that her 'gender critical' beliefs should be protected under the 2010 Equality Act", which is not the same thing. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now reworded that sentence entirely, to reflect the verbiage of tweet in question and her argument at the tribunal. This wording is substantiated by the citation. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The WP wording has become a bit too close to the source wording for my taste, but that is only a nit based on my opinion. The sourcing and material issues seem to be resolved, so thank you for the discussions and editing changes. Ward20 (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

INSERT after "Rowling then sarcastically tweeted that Boylan should incur public penance for her association with her.[85]":-

Within two weeks of signing the letter, Rowling demonstrated her devotion to the cause of "open debate and freedom of speech" by instructing her lawyers to threaten a small web magazine (The Day) with a claim for libel because it had published an article contrasting Rowling's popularity as an author with her support for anti-trans activism. The claim was withdrawn only when The Day took down the article and agreed to hand over a large (but unspecified) sum of money.

References:- https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/website-for-teens-the-day-agree-payout-and-apology-over-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-story/?page=1 https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-trans-people-row-apology-transphobia-day-harry-potter-a9635346.html https://theday.co.uk/pdf/jkrowling-apology-2020-07.pdf 91.125.97.203 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lol, obviously  Not done as this isn't even pretending to be unbiased, and is written with an agenda. — Czello 16:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Transgender people section (specific t-shirt, and questionable sources)

With regard to the phrasing from the section "Transgender people", which reads: "On 22 September 2020, Rowling encouraged her Twitter followers to purchase from the Wild Womyn Workshop,[68][69][70] an online store run by a co-founder of the lesbian separatist group Get the L Out.[68] A section of the store sells anti-trans merchandise.[69][68][70][71]"' it has to be said that she was encouraging her fans to buy a specific t-shirt with the slogan "This witch doesn’t burn", not just any items from that store. And in the absence of more reliable sources, it's just WP:SYNTH in what it tries to imply about Rowling views on trans people. 81.196.254.47 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

She encouraged her followers to purchase generically from the shop, since she posted about the shop twice, posted both its url and its Twitter account, and wrote "support women run businesses". And all of the sources are reliable. Softlavender (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Her posts were in relation to that specific t-shirt, the text should read "On 22 September 2020, Rowling encouraged her Twitter followers to purchase a t-shirt with the slogan "This witch doesn’t burn" from the Wild Womyn Workshop". And reliable mainstream sources are needed, Pink News especially should be avoided. Also saying "anti-trans merchandise" in wikipedia voice without attribution is not appropriate. 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5FB0 (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedia editors disagree with you. And Pink News is RS, as confirmed by a recent WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." So it can be regarded as an acceptable source, and does not need to be avoided. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just how reliable is pink news when they lied about Rowling's new Strike novel having a transgender killer when in actual fact, that killer was a crossdresser which isn't same as transgender. Very reliable at lying . Hpdh4 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, really? Citation, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, thought not. How reliable is an author who asserts a source is lying, doesn't cite that when asked, and appears to be incorrect... Still - throw enough mud and some will stick, eh? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Vicious transphobia

The introduction must elaborate on Rowling's vicious attacks on trans women.--24.99.88.86 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The intro already mentions the controversy regarding trans people. We don't need to introduce opinionated wording into it. — Czello 20:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Rowlings view of Trans People is separate from the fact she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

Rowlings own very bad personal experience of sexual assault and domestic abuse was not by a trans person, it has in reality has absolutely nothing to do with her view on trans people. To include her terrible non Trans experience in the section on her views regarding trans people wrongly conflates the two issues and unhelpfully confuses the readers, who might think very wrongly that she was once assaulted by a trans person. Her horrible experience of domestic abuse and assault do not belong in the trans section. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It clearly is not saying that. The sources note the two aspects of her essay together, and it's a big part of the essay. We've been over this at great length at the RfC already, which decided on the sentence in this form. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Completely disagree. It doesn't wrongly conflate the issues -- on the contrary, it forms the basis of her argument: "I was sexually abused, and I want to avoid other people being sexually abused, which is why we need gender-protected spaces" (paraphrased, obviously). I don't think any reader is going to misread this as her being abused by a trans person. — Czello 09:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think they will, because why else would she address her being assaulted by a cis person in an essay about transgender issues? The implication that will be drawn by many reasonable people is that she must have been assaulted by a transgendered person. Your interpretation is generous, and a less generous person might infer that engendering (no pun intended!) such doubts might have been her intention. Nonetheless, Crossroads is correct, the RfC decided on the current wording. It could certainly be looked at again, especially if there was criticism of that particular part of her essay, to make it clear that no, she was never assaulted by a trans person. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

She'd address it for the very reason I said above. This isn't a generous interpretation on my part, it's literally what she says: When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth. It's unambiguous what she's driving at here. — Czello 09:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have included the full quote, for clarity, which I trust is in order. I wonder, has anyone ever come up with the statistics for the number of women attacked in bathrooms and changing rooms by trans women or cis men pretending to be trans women, so that we could include this in the article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick reply as I totally failed to sleep last night ... here are some statistics probably beyond this article ...the is very little evidence of assaults by trans people on other folks in wash rooms in the real world etc but assaults inflicted upon trans people using washrooms relating to their gender are far more common and documented , , . ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the full quote (although it does technically go against the RfC, but I'm not too fussy about it). However, I'm against including the statistics you reference -- it's not our job to argue against Rowling or to prove her wrong. However, if there's been a notable rebuttal to her views which cite those statistics, that'd be fine. — Czello 12:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, agreed, Czello - it can't be our WP:OR rebuttal, it needs to be something independent, and addressing Rowling, specifically her essay, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Thanks for providing those refs, Bodney. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Eddie lzzard

Actor Eddie lzzard stated Rowling isn't transphobic This should be added as it's important coming from someone has high profile as him and with him being part of the LGBTQ

In fact dana international and brian cox should be added as well for their support of Jk. Hpdh4 (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Izzard seemed to agree, somewhat. “Women have been through such hell over history,” the comic told the Telegraph. “Trans people have been invisible, too. I hate the idea we are fighting between ourselves." [74]

Rowling regards Izzard as a man. Apparently, Izzard can't get this through her thick skull.--24.99.88.86 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(to HPDH4) "Her." "Her being part of the LGBTQ". Whatever that means. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Denial of gender of trans people

Does Rowling not claim that trans women are men?--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:8412:C5EC:5E1:4EC8 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Does the Rowling quote need to be contextualised?

I think we should include a refutation of rowling's point here in the form of a sentence after her quote pointing out that assaults in bathrooms are usually directed at trans people, in stead of the other way around. let's say, something like "however, there is no evidence of such assaults ocurring. Most violence in women's bathrooms is directed at trans women [sources]". Because while it's not our job to argue against her per sé, we do have a duty to be truthful, and by letting her point stand unopposed, we are leaving the implication that it is a reasonable or truthful point to make, which it clearly isn't. I've been involved in the climatology pages, and if a similarly untruthful quote were included there it will be followed up with the truthful statistics per WP:DUE, and I strongly recommend we do the same here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support that. That section of the article hasn't sat well at all with me since it was inserted, but what you're proposing is neutral and balanced, and supports WP:DUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hard disagree. It's not our job to oppose her, nor to go out of our way to dispute her beliefs. It's a direct violation of WP:NPOV. However, if there there is a source that talks about Rowling's views and says something akin to "however, her beliefs have been challenged by x, y, or z" and then we include a source that is actually about Rowling, we could include it. But simply producing statistics to disprove her is not our remit. — Czello 16:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to acknowledge the argument I actually made: It's not our job to argue with her, it's our job to fairly and even-handedly present the truth. If we quote someone when they say something that is proven to be untrue, as is the case here, we should acknowledge as much in the text. I refer specifically to WP:DUE. You can disagree with me if you want, but please make sure you're disagreeing with what I actually said, rather than what you heard me say. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I heard you fine -- but the two are entwined. By "presenting the truth" you are arguing with her. I don't agree that it is WP:DUE for us to take it upon ourselves to dispute her views. Again, we can say "her comments have been contested by advocacy groups who say that attacks by trans people in bathrooms don't happen" or whatever, but we cannot say "however, trans attacks in bathrooms don't happen". — Czello 19:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As the text of WP:DUE states: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources". And with all due respect to JK rowling's undoubtedly impressive body of literary work, she does not count as a reliable source on the statistics of sexual assault in bathrooms. The sources bodney gives above are. I might be inclined to find the original sources rather than the press reports, and I might be inclined to source some academic papers on the subject, but my point stands. Unless the text points out that she is clearly in the wrong in that quote, we are in violation of WP:DUE.--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

We should not be bringing in any sources not about Rowling's politics, and this is per WP:SYNTH. This matter was discussed at the RfC which nevertheless settled on and requires this wording to describe her views on this matter. And a big reason for that is that quoting her directly avoids the very issue of misinterpretation that is cropping up again here. A major part of her issue/claim is that certain ideas around pure self-ID allow anyone, including male predators who do not truly have a gender identity as women, to get away with entering these places. This is the purpose of the clause "then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside" - "any and all". This was all gone over at the RfC and why a quote was done. This also means bathroom assault data would be a non sequitur.

At least for the lead, though, we could simply shorten its coverage to remove mention of this particular point and to be more general, which would be more general. So I propose to rewrite the final paragraph of the lead as: Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been praised by some feminists and criticised by organisations including GLAAD and Mermaids. That first sentence is taken from the main article. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not original research to cite reputable sources that say the opposite of what Rowling says. That's just taking your basic responsibility to satisfy the requirements of WP:DUE. I feel that you are running afoul of WP:SYNTHNOT here. I am not "synthesizing two sources to support a new thesis" as you are apparently claiming I am. I am, again merely stating the obvious. pointing out that RS say something different than the author of a quote is not SYNTH, because both positions were already present in the original material. and I quote: "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You further seem to think that my point is moot, because she's (also) thinking of "male predators who do not truly have a gender identity as women". This is not the case. No one in this discussion is claiming that she specifically targets actual trans people with this argument. Statistics simply show that the number of men that pretend to be women in order to commit assaults in women's bathroom is so small as to be basically non-existent. And that goes for every way we can spin that quote. I'm not saying we should append my suggested sentence because she targets trans women, I'm saying we should append that sentence because what she's saying is not, in fact, supported by fact. It's a fringe belief. And fringe beliefs should not be given overdue weight even when the person endorsing them has a multimillion dollar franchise to her name. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not being given overdue weight at all. We're simply mentioning that this is her belief, and that it's caused controversy. — Czello 11:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE is exactly why you can't say "I'm just saying what they say and that people are arguing about it" and leave it there, so I suggest you read it again. Her position is a fringe one, and we should make that clear in the text. Quoting from WP:FRINGE: "While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized." So. Since we, per the RFC, decided that the quote is there to stay, and since it is clearly misleading, per the sources bodney provided, we must properly contextualise it. Which you don't do just by saying it's "sparked controversy", because that just means people are arguing about it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, the RfC considered this issue and rejected modification of the presentation of the essay. I have trimmed it out from the lead though, as I suggested above. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think trimming the lead is a separate issue from contextualisation.

I am not against trimming but I would word it differently either adding feminists to both sides or shorter like the main article ....Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, either would be fine with me. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The RfC covered how we reported Rowling's views as expressed in the the essay, it does not cover the whole subsection, otherwise we would not have 10 paragraphs with all the supporters and critics listed, as well as other related matters, in does not stop reasonable WP:DUE contextualisation of her views. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly this. And as was repeated throughout the RfC, it did not bind to us one single wording. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Use Daveout's source then, since that source actually is about the article topic, so synth is thus avoided. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with LicksRocks, WP:DUE mandates that views about a subject should be represented proportionately. I haven't looked deep into this but I'm quite sure Rowling's insinuations do not reflect what the majority of sources say about violence in bathrooms. By presenting her viws without actual and reliable data on bathroom violence we are contributing to dangerous misinformation. Take a look at what this Reuters article (related to Rowling's controversy) says, for instance:

SO WHO IS AT RISK IN WOMEN’S TOILETS? Some trans people say hostility towards them is so intense that they experience “trans bladder” where they have go a whole day without using a toilet, Ruth Pearce, a sociology researcher at the University of Leeds, said. [...] Lesbians also said they had been abused in public toilets because they were mistaken for men.

- Daveout(talk) 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• This revert makes no sense. People here are arguing against that, so why not make it less prominent? It's too long in the lead as it is, and the WP:ONUS on getting a consensus for that up there is on those who want it. It makes way more sense to summarize. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I was going to say something really angry but I see what you mean now. Please disregard--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)