Talk:Political views of J. K. Rowling/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The lead; and further discussion on lower material

Crossroads is right that the lead sounds incredibly clunky right now. What do you guys think about something like "these views have sparked extreme controversy"? It avoids the constant fighting over who are and aren't notable enough to be in the lead while also avoiding vague weaselwords like "have been criticized by some" I have BRD'd it in but I have no expectation of it sticking for longer than five minutes without some discussion. So here we go again. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick, but I wouldn't use the word "extreme" as that sounds far harsher than it needs to be. I'd just eschew that word and say "these views have sparked controversy", which is a bit more balanced. — Czello 09:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

As if I never nitpick ^^. no that's fine by me. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and "extreme" is vague anyway. Also, please don't accuse other editors of "shenannigans" [1] and please don't just revert a whole edit such that something that's fine has to be re-added by someone else. [2] Re-edit part if you feel you must, but in this case, since I gave reasons for each bit, please explain on the talk page why you disagree with something. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you anymore crossroads. My patience for you is through. I will seek to avoid you going forward as I am no longer capable of treating you as a good faith actor regarding this issue. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You are engaging in disruptive WP:STONEWALLing, especially in claiming you won't argue but then reverting me. Czello, what are your thoughts on this revert? I already explained the reason for each change but Licks-rocks keeps reverting and refusing to discuss (see page history). Crossroads ^-talk- 19:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not Czello. But it seems to be a good revert. There seems to be consensus in the section above for including clarification and context for the quote of Rowling's essay. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay then. (1) Why can't I combine identical references? (2) Why shouldn't we remove a source that is not about Rowling at all and hence is WP:SYNTH, and is completely superfluous? (3) Where does either source verify that trans women and lesbians face violence, specifically, in women's bathrooms? (4) How does saying "However, these claims are unsubstantiated" not cast doubt upon all of the preceding sentence, including Rowling's past abuse and trans peoples' victimization? (5) How is that sentence not WP:Editorializing? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(1) I have no problem, I am sad we failed to use this source fully before.

Regards (2) Can we not use Source that relates Directly to the Fringe Claims in Question like another relevant Reuters article U.S. transgender people harassed in public restrooms: landmark survey

Regards (3). Just using the Reuters 2020 Article Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? "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" and “Transgender people already experience unconscionably high rates of sexual assault - and forcing them out of facilities consistent with the gender they live every day makes them vulnerable to assault,”::::::::(4.) Yes it does cast doubt on claims regarding trans people, is that not the point. Rowling was the person who choose to connect her own personal trauma to this issue. See Judith Butler Feminist writer Judith Butler has given her theory on why JK Rowling has deemed it necessary to speak out on trans lives .

(5.) The claims that Rowling's makes in the first place are factually unsubstantiated. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:EXTRAORDINARY / or Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight' Wikipedia:Fringe theories ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 3, those quotes don't mention lesbians. The first speaks of "hostility", which is the term I favored using. The second quote doesn't mention violence in women's bathrooms. Regarding 4 and 5, we don't want to cast doubt on the fact that Rowling was assaulted. Nor on what she said about "most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection". The only thing to address is the "risks in bathrooms" matter which the following sentence covers anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Regards 3 "hostility" and "Violence" are extremely close bed fellows i personally have no big issue between them. The Reuters source certainly does include lesbian experience but I unsure if they need to be included. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If someone purposefully (as an internationally acclaimed writer no less) mixes up her own traumatic experience with baseless claims about a minority causing a threat to others, I think we should cast doubt on such claims. We are not casting doubt on the fact Rowling was assaulted, but that trans people had anything to do with it, AND more importantly that Trans people are a threat to other people in wash-rooms or any other single sex place. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:GREATWRONGS. What you'd like to do to Rowling, and what your personal dim view of her is, are of no interest to anyone on this talk page, other than you wearing that heart on your sleeve makes it clear that your position with regard to this article's content has to be taken with more than a grain of salt. This is an encyclopedia, not a social media site.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant baseless accusations made against me as an editor, can we discuss the subject and not attempt to discredit fellow editors, please. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Violence" is more severe than "hostility" and we cannot be going beyond what the sources say. And we definitely cannot cast doubt upon a woman's statement that she has been beaten and assaulted. Neither she nor the article text says anything about trans people for what Rowling suffered. All that sentence is doing is casting doubt on the whole preceding sentence for no reason, including Rowling's victimization. Truly a low point for Wikipedia. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This section is about her views on transgender people, the rebuttals specifically refer to her claims regarding wash-rooms and women only places. No one is casting doubt on the fact she was assaulted by her former husband. Erroneously combining the two separate issues in one sentence causes the reader to very likely to assume that her traumatic assault involved a transgender person. Her assault should not have been included here by her or us. However we can step back, i will take your arguments and attempt to reword the passage. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that you moved it away from that wording. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Crossroads here. I certainly don't think his edits are bad faith as Licks-rocks says in his edit summary. I've made my views clear above, and I do believe there is WP:SYNTH going on as he says and as I said previously. To be honest I'd cut out more than currently exists: but Crossroads's version seems like an agreeable middle-ground. — Czello 20:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Crossroads, Czello, et al. There's clearly OR (especially SYNTH) going on here, to "explainize" and defend the counter-Rowling viewpoint, to side with it in Wikipedia's own voice (I just removed two more instances of this). This is absolutely not WP's job. We're here to write a summary of what independent, secondary, reliable sources tell us that Rowling has said, in ways that have risen to public notice enough to be encyclopedia-worthy (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE); and to include reactions to this, also covered significantly enough in independent RS to be encyclopedic (WP:DUE). We cannot pick one and elaborate on it and try to prove it true, and attempt to demonstrate the other to be false or dubious, using sources that have nothing to do with Rowling. It is already sufficient and proper to link to articles with provide the sourcing and background of the issues. Since this entire dispute is obviously centered only on Rowling's comments about transgender issues, those articles are Transgender rights movement and People who menstruate – at least as to the two SYNTH passages I removed. WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOT#FACEBOOK, WP:NPOV, WP:GREATWRONGS, and WP:ADVOCACY are also of obvious relevance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say I agree with SMcCandlish. Given that there are editors on this article who have admitted they have a personal dislike of Rowling, I think we need to be cautious in avoiding turning this into an attack page. — Czello 07:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the content removed by SMcCandlish. The issue and content is being actively discussed here. I would accept some of the points made if editors were introducing content completely unrelated to Rowling, but the sourced content that was removed is from articles respectively titled "Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore?", "Here's What Was Wrong With J.K. Rowling's Transphobic Tweets", and "J.K. Rowling Faces Backlash After Transphobic Tweets". Nothing was written in isolation; it is all referenced content, referenced specifically to article discussing Rowling. There is no OR, SYNTH, or 'soapboxing'. There is an obligation, as explained by Bodney and others above and in previous sections, to provide context, WP:BALANCE, per WP:DUE. What's there isn't perfect, and can certainly be improved, but there really does seem to be consensus, even if grudging, to include some context here. Czello, I am glad you removed your comment; yes, there may well be idealogues active on this page, but if so, we they're active on both sides of the transgender rights debate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted how consensus can be utterly ignored, just take the bold unilateral attempt to change the heading of the sub section which has been thoroughly discussed before, and throws consensus out of the window.

The passages are reliably sourced and directly relate to Rowling's statements, and include the very reliable news sources WP:RSPSOURCES that are used as the sources for the citations as evidence for Rowling's own statements. The relevant passages are both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for pushing personal opinions I personally very much love her Harry Potter universe and agree with her on many many political issues. Wikipedia is not a fan page, if any subject claims something erroneous, especially concerning a minority then we have a duty to balance it (if they are found in Reliable Sources) with the facts. Regarding the wash-room passages ~ by presenting her views without also providing the reader with actual directly relevant information (about Rowling statements on transgender people) from reliable sources on bathroom violence Wikipedia is contributing to spreading false and dangerous misinformation. To quote Licks-rocks

it's not our job to argue against her per sé, we <Wikipedia> 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.""

The claims that Rowling's makes in the first place are completely factually unsubstantiated. They are not widely held beliefs, Wikipedia places such radical views in context, same would be true for anti-Semitic, racist or any other similar view. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:EXTRAORDINARY / or Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable source ... a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight Wikipedia:Fringe theories. WP:FRINGE: 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. The factual relevant, and reliably sourced balancing passage specifically relates directly to her claims regarding wash-rooms and women only places. Rowling the expert writer and Wikipedia .... Erroneously combining the two separate issues in one sentence causes the Wikipedia reader to very likely to assume that her traumatic assault involved a transgender person. "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" This quote in a section specifically about her views on trans people undeniably directly ties together her own personal terrible non Trans experience with her baseless assertions regarding trans people, it wrongly conflates the two issues and unhelpfully confuses the readers, who might easily think very wrongly that she was once assaulted by a trans person. A falsehood that can easily be drawn by many reasonable people reading Wikipedia that she must have been assaulted by a transgendered person. Regards criticising Rowlings untrue claims WP:BLPFRINGE ...WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise ... see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:BLP#Balance. The is zero evidence of 'men' pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces, Rowling's claim that allowing trans people to use female wash rooms etc is a threat to women and girls, is exactly a "exceptional claim" or "fringe theory" which is simply not supported by any evidence. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The bit "However, Rowling's claims regarding trans people are unsubstantiated" is still WP:Editorializing and WP:OR. The rest of the sentence has all the substance; Rowling never claimed her assault was by someone trans and so there is no reason to keep this as though it contradicts something we don't say. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandish has reverted, quoting BRD (and templated the regulars, ho hum), and to be honest I'm confused where we are on BRD with this one. The content had been included for several days, had been amended, and was being further discussed, was it not? There seemed to me to be consensus for inclusion: Licks-rocks, Bodney, Daveout, me, arguing for inclusion and Crossroads, Czello (and now SMcCandish) opposed. Even at that, Crossroads is objecting to only one part of the addition - "However, Rowling's claims regarding trans people are unsubstantiated" (please correct me if I'm wrong). I disagree that this is WP:OR - we link to secondary sources that back up the sentence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

What is SYNTH

A series of unfounded random shouty accusations were made above by one editor, however the charges of WP:SYNTH is more worthy of countering. The removed passages ripped out of the article were simply not WP:SYNTHESIS. Neither of them were attempting to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources nor combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. No Wikipedia editor's opinion was expressed but reliable sources were used that specifically comment on Rowling's words. SYNTH was a false accusation.

Regarding A: trans women in single-sex spaces

This passage ripped out of the article was directly taken from "Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore?" published by the the exact same single reliable news service (Reuters WP:RSPSOURCES) that is used as the reference evidence for Rowling's quote, how is that WP:OR. To cite that reputable source which directly discusses Rowling's quote, and which points out that evidence demonstrates that reality is different from what the subject claims is WP:NOTSYNTH, "A NPOV article gives appropriate weight to all positions" (including reality hopefully). In fact WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise ... see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:BLP#Balance. And WP:FRINGE recommends that Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized.

Regarding B: People who menstruate

It's not WP:ORIGINAL research nor WP:SYNTH Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#it is not providing a definition of a new term " Providing a brief, neutral, in-text definition of a new term on first mention in an article is not SYNTH". Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not a rigid rule Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article.

Again it was not WP:ORIGINAL research nor WP:SYNTH to cite reputable Secondary Sources WP:RSPSOURCES that are directly discussing Rowling's words. The sourced content from that was removed is from articles that the community decided were reputable are listed here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "Here's What Was Wrong With J.K. Rowling's Transphobic Tweets" Huff Post A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics....HuffPost's reliability has increased since 2012WP:RSPSOURCES. "J.K. Rowling Faces Backlash After Transphobic Tweets" Vanity Fair (magazine) is considered generally reliable, including for popular culture topics WP:RSPSOURCES. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The B part, explaining a rationale for the 'people who menstruate' phrase, is not only a tangent which we don't need but non-neutral by bordering on advocacy for the term. The term has a wikilink now, which is all that's needed. Regarding the A part, I still say that the phrase "However, Rowling's claims regarding trans people are unsubstantiated" is both WP:Editorializing and redundant. The ABC News source does not talk about Rowling and hence citing it is WP:SYNTH. If the material cited to Reuters is brought back, fine, but for flow I'd precede that text with "In response, Reuters stated that..." to show how it connects. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Part B: While I disagree that an explanation of the relevance of the term is biased or tangent, the wiki-link is an acceptable idea (but it is a bit fragile, I have a fear that the single line in the Gender neutrality in English article might be deleted at any moment). I do prefer how you Crossroads trimmed down the explanation on the 30th March [here]. Which do you prefer?

Part A: We can remove "However, Rowling's claims regarding trans people are unsubstantiated" (though i think the phrase is correct) as we did before, and also the the ABC 2016 source. I would like to propose replacing the ABC source with a couple of newer directly relevant citations from highly reliable news sources discussing Rowling's words. Suggested new wording:

"In response, columnists criticised the logic of this position, they and Reuters point out that in women's bathrooms trans women are far more likely to suffer hostility, and 200 municipalities that allowed trans people to use women's shelters saw no rise in any violence as a result."

Ref 1 Reuters Explainer: Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore?

Ref 2 The Independent: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? K Rowling, predatory men and the nuance we're all missing out

Ref 3 Los Angeles Times: Column: J.K. Rowling and the curse of bathroom politics

What do you think? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

With Part B, I don't think there is any chance that the destination of the link will lose that description, based on who watches that article and the fact that it's there from an official merge. With Part A, I don't see what those other sources add that's worthwhile. "Columnists" is not anywhere near as authoritative as "Reuters". Both of those two additional sources are essentially op-eds, which are less favored per WP:RSOPINION, while Reuters is more of a 'fact check' type article. The LA Times one in particular I found to be rather sensational and unlikely to convince someone. So I'd still just stick with the Reuters article. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, Crossroads, that the content at "women who menstruate" will remain. I'm unclear as to why you think the UK Independent and LA Times pieces aren't worthwhile. Yes, they're opinion pieces. But then so was Rowling's essay. The opinion pieces provide very useful and pertinent context. I'd support the addition of Bodney's wording. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

OK I agree we can close Part B.

Regards Part A, I have reworded it taking into account of investigative nature of the Reuters article, softened the tone and dropped one of the sources. I still think the Independent article adds useful insight.

"Following up into who is at risk in women's toilets, Reuters stated that it was trans women who were vulnerable, and that 200 municipalities which allowed trans people to use women's shelters reported no rise in any violence as a result."

~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll compromise on the Independent article then. Regarding "trans women who were vulnerable", that should just be tweaked to "trans women who were more vulnerable", because the source wasn't categorically saying anything; it was just that sort of "more likely" language we had before. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree to your modification and thank you for finding a hopefully acceptable middle ground. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic

Personalization of debate, and venting about user talk pages
Crossroads, do not vandalise my talk page with pointless warnings again. I have already said I no longer intend to interact with you or this page in any form whatsoever. I kindly request you honour that. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant information and weasel words

I've tried to improve the following sentences twice and met with resistance of other editors:

On 22 September 2020, Rowling encouraged her Twitter followers to purchase from the Wild Womyn Workshop, an online store run by a co-founder of the lesbian separatist group Get the L Out. A section of the store sells merchandise that is regarded as transphobic.

I believe there are several problems with this section. Firstly, I do not understand why "Get the L Out" is specifically mentioned. It is irrelevant which lesbian separatist group the owner of the store co-founded. Additionally, you could argue it is irrelevant that the owner of the store is a member of any lesbian movement. It is not the relevant to the topic at hand, which is Rowling's views on trans rights.

Secondly, the phrase "is regarded" is a weasel phrase. In this instance it is possible to state that the phrases on the merchandise are unequivocally transphobic, and also quote those phrases so the reader can assess their severity for themselves. A good comparison would be Michael Richard's racist outburst on stage: That article does not state, "Richards launched into a rant that was regarded as racist" but instead reads, "Richards launched into a racist rant". It then also gives a direct quote to allow the reader to assess the severity for themselves. In this case, stating "the store sells merchandise that is regarded as transphobic" reads disingenuously.

With the above in mind, I suggest the above sentences are streamlined into the following more accurate description:

On 22 September 2020, Rowling encouraged her Twitter followers to purchase from the Wild Womyn Workshop, an online store featuring merchandise with transphobic slogans such as, "fuck your pronouns" and "transwomen are men".

@Firefangledfeathers and Bodney: For your attention. Thanks WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for Bodney (WikiMane11, there are some really finnicky issues with pings that you can read up on at this template page). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@ThunderPeel2001: Hi firstly i personally totally agree that the online stores merchandise is unequivocally openly bigoted & transphobic, but i was trying avoid using the wiki voice and plus I have been in many heated editor disagreements on this page, so maybe I neutralise things more that I should to avoid edit wars. The have occasions when other editors have been against us using transphobic in this mini paragraph at all. The existing reliable sources all say the hateful extremist stuff they sell is transphobic. Whether we name the of the owner's lesbian separatist group I now agree that it is not necessary. I do not think that your first example may not be clearly anti-trans to the uninformed reader, yes it def could be anti trans/anti non binary etc, but it could be an attack on all pronouns. So I wish we had a nastier clearer transphobic example to demonstrate their loathsome rubbish. I agree that the most important thing here is to point out Rowling personally recommended it ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. It seems upon reflection that agree with the changes, so I'm going to make the edit again. Thanks. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't getting a clear agreement from Bodney's comment. In any case, our style guidelines at WP:LABEL don't allow terms to be used like that. Quoting the merchandise is frankly sensational and WP:GRATUITOUS and will in my experience lead to editors in the future trying to remove the offensive quotes - and I see why they would since it is not needed to understand this topic. If people want specifics they can click on the sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, WP:LABEL does not apply when the term is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", which is true in this case. Secondly since you are suggesting that the label "transphobic" is contentious for the content (as per you invocation of WP:LABEL), it does not make sense to also invoke WP:GRATUITOUS. Either the words are transphobic, and so could be should be treated carefully (per WP:GRATUITOUS) or they're not worthy of the label "transphobic" (per WP:LABEL). You cannot argue for both. In this instance, the phrases and terminology are relevant and add needed context. This is why those phrases were placed prominently in many headlines reporting the story, including several of the sources used in the article. I also refer you to MOS:WEASEL and my example of Michael Richard's outburst above. I will amend and take into account Bodney's changes. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I boldly replaced the text with what I believe is (tightened up) compromise wording (e.g. a section of the store is unnecessary), it is not that relevant to Rowling's article that one of the co-founders separately set up a particular of the lesbian separatist group. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge or Delete

Non-admin closure. Premature discussion while RfC on main article is ongoing. Also, malformed - can be an AfD, or a Merge discussion (when article page(s) properly templated), but not both.

Should this article be merged into J. K. Rowling or should this article be nominated for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC) I haven't been reading the ongoing discourse on a merger, and I'm too lazy to start now. Can you tl;dr the argument for a merge? — Czello 21:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Just directing the discussion about this topic, from Rowling's BLP article, over to here. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Nonetheless, a summary of why it should be merged would be helpful for those who haven't been following the other discussion, if you want the debate to take place here. — Czello 22:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Too Early ...I think it would be helpful if we let the current RFC on the main article finish first. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Agree with Bodders, given how impactful the ongoing RfC will be I think we should let that resolve before we open merge discussions. — Czello 22:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC) And why would you do that in the middle of an RfC, and without following proper process? (Hint: that would involve either templating both articles with a merge template, or taking this one to AfD, and not just proposing "merge or delete"!) I know you love the dwama, but seriously? Anyone got any objections if I hat this? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Hat it. There's already a shorter discussion on the merits of this occurring at Talk:J. K. Rowling#Merging Politics of J. K. Rowling back into this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Given no objections, including from starter - done. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC) There's no big hurry about it. Merely planting a post here, for after the aforementioned RFC concludes. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Editing Wikipedia isn't like waiting in line for concert tickets or the latest release book/video game. You don't need to plant a post, this talk page will be here when that RfC ends. If you need a self reminder, perhaps a page in your userspace or a calendar might be in order? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "This talk page will be here when the RfC ends". I never claimed it wouldn't be. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Comment - just for the record, as I understand it, a Merge discussion on this page can have two outcomes, merge or don't merge. An AfD discussion has many possible outcomes, including deletion, merger, or retention as a separate article. So the option of deletion can't really be argued for in a useful way in a merger discussion here - by default a redirect would remain, but whether it does or not wouldn't likely be a key point of decision. On the other hand, no AfD closure would actually provide a valid reason why the sources used in this article, and even some of its text, could not be added to the J. K. Rowling article so long as BALANCE and DUE were achieved. So in spite of some editors' apparent desires, the fate of the sources and text of this article are unlikely to be decided once and for all by either a merger discussion or an AfD. On the other hand, the separate existence of an article under the present title could be decided through either mechanism. Just sayin'. Newimpartial (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Neither. The topic meets WP:GNG and the material would make WP:UNDUE weight at the main article. And trimming it would be an interminable debate. Crossroads -talk- 07:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC) I support this article existing so long as the politics section is taken from the J.K.Rowling page and is strictly allowed on here only. 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declanhx (talk • contribs)

Requested move 15 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Politics of J. K. Rowling → Political views of J. K. Rowling – There exist a lot of articles covering this general topics, all titled "Political views of X". It seems odd that Rowling's article would be oddly named compared similar articles of the poltiical views of politicians, celebrities and historical figures Elishop (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: per MOS:INITIALS J. K. not J.K. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment — I'm not the nominator, but I've fixed the typo from "J.K." to "J. K." in the request (as if this move were to go through, it would have to be consistent with the main page's title.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with move -- A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support move — Czello 22:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tracking down copyvio and copying within

This article was created by a prolific sockmaster in 2018 via unattributed copying within from this August 31 2018 version of Politics of Harry Potter to this October 6 2018 version of this article. Once I figure out where the original cut-and-paste from this source originated, I will deal with the unattributed copying within, but am concerned there may be additional copyvio. This will take me some time to sort as I am iPad editing from the car. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Is this a split-able task? Happy to take on a portion, but I'd prefer not to duplicate efforts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much EOD :) This is not how I planned to spend my time in the car while iPAd editing when I hoped to advance on proseline here. Here is the original copyvio insertion at Politics of Harry Potter in 2007.[3] That editor is no longer editing, but we need to do several things before I ping in Moneytrees (a copyvio admin) for a consult. First, check the rest of that editor's Harry Potter edits to make sure there is no other copyvio. Second, check some of their other edits to see if a broad WP:CCI is needed. If you know how that sort of work is done, we could split it up. I'm going to start now on their other edits to Politics of Harry Potter; should you be able to do some general checking of some of their other edits, that would be spectacular. Depending on what we find, I'll consult with Moneytrees. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

On it. I'll post anything further on your user talk page, as the bits I'll be working on are unrelated to this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check the Politics of Harry Potter; I see you might look at the Employee Free Choice Act, where Libertycookies had considerable edits. Hopefully this is a one-off; if we find more, we'll have to alert Moneytrees. I have a spotty connection, so this will be slow going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to be able to do this work from the car, as it requires checking archive.org on almost every edit ... I have so far found a lot of poor editing that could have affected this article. For now, I will deal only with the WP:CWW, but more work to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Copying within templated and attributed; that's all I will be able to do for today. [4] [5] [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Some views of JK impact trans conversion therapy. Can someone add it to the article? I don't know where exactly, that's why I'm requesting. Also, I'm not sure if we can draw the connection between the ban on conversion therapies on UK.

1. https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gay-conversion-therapy-tweets-1234698741/
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60947028
3. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/07/opinions/jk-rowling-conversion-therapy-transphobia-conley/index.html Tazuco (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Tazuco if you paste a link between single square brackets it makes it so that they don't take so much space, like this: [https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gay-conversion-therapy-tweets-1234698741/] resulting in [7]. You can also add text after a space following the link for custom link text, like so: [https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gay-conversion-therapy-tweets-1234698741/ link to variety] resulting in link to variety. No comment from me regarding inclusion as I'm taking a bit of a break from GENSEX topic area. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought that could work since I saw many edit requests using links like this. Tazuco (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Native American issues

I've aligned her lack of response with the source. I forgot that the bit about the one response from Rowling isn't in that source. I can find it; it was either in another piece by Keene, or one by another writer but I need to see if it's published in a usable format. I think it was a question about wands and Rowling's response was something about how Euro magic was "more advanced" than Native American medicine or somesuch because of the use of wands. Maybe Jonnie Jae wrote about it? IIRC, Jae is also the one who received death threats from Rowling fans. Rowling was silent about the threats, as well. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Unattributed opinion and adherence to source

After edit conflict: CorbieVreccan in this edit, you are (again) failing to discuss your edits on talk before reinstating them. First, you are directly quoting Keene, who has an article, without attributing the opinion to her, but second, nowhere in the source is it indicated that Rowling "refused" to discuss; that is your original research, and is not even the conclusion drawn by Keene, who only says "she has not addressed it at all. Once your edits have been challenged, pls discuss them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the text you added, which was not in the source. Sandy, your edit indicated you hadn't read the source, and you didn't discuss this before changing it. I've found several more sources, including ones with some of the content mentioned above. Will add. Again, read the sources. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Post and Guardian now back up what Keene has on her official blog. I haven't cut the blog, as there is additional context there, and it has been deemed RS on the topic. Also per the concerns raised about Salon on the main Rowling talk, all that content is also backed up now by these additional sources. More can be added if needed. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting your edit; it is now better attributed, and no longer mistakenly states that Rowling "refused". Please keep in mind, back at the main featured article, J. K. Rowling, that discussing your edits first, to be sure they conform to WP:WIAFA would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

Change Amal to Amol (Rajan) 82.18.73.126 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RealAspects (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Time to split transgender section into separate article?

The section is getting quite large, but all of the material in the section is well sourced, so there doesn't seem like a balanced way to remove anything. Instead, making a separate article (which itself can split the content into sub-sections, perhaps chronologically?) seems like a good option right now. The tag on the section even states as much. Silverseren^C 18:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Right now, the section has a lot of undue and off-topic and poorly summarized content; before deciding to split, trimming might be in order. WP:NOTNEWS does not only apply to Featured articles; it applies to all articles, and this section suffers from newsy WP:PROSELINE. And, at 3,500 words of readable prose, a split rather than doing the needed cleanup seems premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What parts would you remove? Everything in that section is an event that received a significant amount of news coverage, often internationally so. Even if those sources aren't currently represented in their entirety in the section. Silverseren^C 18:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessarily removing; there is overquoting and unnecessary verbosity throughout. The article reads like what it was-- created via a lot of drive-by additions with no concern for prose or context or integration. I could go on about every single paragraph, but taking just the second paragraph as an example: Her spokesperson later told PinkNews, "I'm afraid JK Rowling had a clumsy and middle-aged moment. This is not the first time she has favourited by holding her phone incorrectly." There is no need to quote all of that to say she blamed it on a clumsy texting moment. Similar is found throughout. Splitting poorly written proseline will only encourage ... more poorly written proseline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. I still think that even after trimming though, it's going to end up being the longest section in the article by far. Silverseren^C 19:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, partly because of poorly integrated content, added by inexperienced proseline newsy edits. As an example, there was no attempt to integrate today's (POV) addition contextually. Every time JKR makes news, someone adds a poorly written paragraph, proseline style, rather than going through and integrating the commentary appropriately with decent prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

As another sample, this entire para could probably be trimmed to one sentence, or even one clause, and merged contextually with similar content: In May 2022, Rowling criticised an incident where a student was hounded out of her school after questioning a speaker about what defines women. The writer called the treatment of the schoolgirl "utterly shameful", adding, "The girl's crime? Saying 'sex exists'." In October the previous year a member of the House of Lords visited a private school to talk about transphobia in parliament. One of the students questioned whether critical theory should take precedence over biology in defining women. The speaker replied that it was an issue about basic human rights not semantics. The two spoke again after the talk and parted amicably. Afterwards, however, the student was sworn and spit at by other girls and faced accusations of transphobia. She eventually left her school without completing her A-levels. Then education secretary Nadhim Zahawicalled the incident "hugely concerning" and "unacceptable". Very little of that content is even about JKR. Examples abound; the article, by the way, because of writing like this (and today's addition), is probably POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, a split is not warranted and the existing content has issues, including excessive detail and play-by-play accreted over time. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023

In the fourth paragraph of the section Transgender rights (beginning "In June 2020, the Equality Act..."), "Eddie Izzard stated that he..." should be replaced with "Eddie Izzard stated that she..." to reflect Izzard's preferred pronouns. See her entry here on Wikipedia, which cites this article from PinkNews. Zachldl (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done . Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Condensing / Cleaning of "Transgender rights" section

As noted in the previous discussion, the section needs an update. I already started to clean up parts that do not specifically belong in this section and / or just bloat it in an unnecessary way. Feel free to join a discussion or let me know if you disagree with my edits. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The main work that is needed is reducing the unnecessary over-quoting, and re-organizing the entire thing to provide contextual paragraphs while avoiding WP:PROSELINE. What is stated here could be done in half the words, if re-organized and re-written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It is just looking like a timeline for now and is difficult to read. What you stated would be a much needed next step after the content itself is reduced without losing anything valuable. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think more weight needs to be added to the criticisms of Rowling's statements as well. Currently, the article gives excessive detail on what Rowling has said, and what her supporters have said in reply, but then essentially presents opposing views as "Some people didn't like that." without going into as much detail about why they disagree and the basis for that disagreement. It feels like for every critic view, three supportive ones are emphasised. Various individuals Rowling associates with, like Caroline Farrow, who have openly anti-LGBT views and associations with charities that have some pretty serious allegations against them are not mentioned either. Given what Rowling claims she wishes to achieve, it seems pretty relevant. 2A00:23C7:3D82:E901:B4B4:348C:4955:EA91 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I would echo these remarks concerning balance and in light of further remarks made recently by Rowling on social media, particularly Twitter, in support of more controversial individuals such as Kellie-Jay Keen, I feel the article currently downplays the criticism that Rowling now receives from many people. The article at present over amplifies support from various actors, but barely mentions criticism Rowling has received from journalists, academics and prominent people in the LBGT community 82.41.119.42 (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not she liked a tweet is certainly not a matter of enduring interest. Sennalen (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to look into this section again. I already started some edits but got interrupted. I gladly invite others to discuss what should be kept and what can get cut off the section to improve its overall quality. The comment of @SandyGeorgia still stands and I also agree that no undue weight should appear in the section. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

While some trimming is probably overdue, please exercise care to not overprune. The material on Maya Forstarter is fairly key to the emergence of Rowling's transphobic views, and in my opinion should not be removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I already restored the part, and will take a closer look at it to get a better understanding. An additional explanatory sentence might help. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Plumper" HP characters?

The article states that "Rowling responded that Harry Potter characters who are "on the plumper side" include "several of my most important, admirable and lovable characters"." Has she ever clarified which characters she was referring to? The books have lots of nasty characters that are described as overweight - apart from Dudley, who is constantly abused for his weight by the narrator, there's also Vernon and Marge Dursley, Peter Pettigrew (at least in the movies) and Umbridge. Slughorn is an important and ultimately good character who's overweight, but I wouldn't consider him to be "admirable and lovable" either. Rowling has described Neville as "plump" in an interview, but he's clearly normal-weight in the movies. -- Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the Potter realm, but the films deviated from the source novels in several character portrayals. Neville Longbottom's development from a comic relief character to a seasoned veteran with leadership aspirations is a key development in the novels, but I am not certain if that was adapted into the films. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Is a separate article for her political views really necessary?

Couldn't her political views simply be listed in her main J.K. Rowling article? There's so many celebrities that have disclosed their political views, including very controversial ones, but having a separate article for their views isn't something I can find very often for celebrities - other than politicians. DocZach (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The main article is already nearly 9k words, which per WP:TOOBIG advises dividing into smaller articles. Adding this article back in (3.4k) would push it much higher. Some other celebrities have similar standalone political views articles, such as H. G. Wells. — Czello ^(music) 17:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. DocZach (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Lede wording

The paragraph currently reading:

"Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists."

could use expansion and clarification. With instances such as [8] the comments towards trans newsreader India Willoughby reported yesterday, it's clear that what is criticised is now significantly beyond "her opinions" and very much into "language used about and towards trans people, including specific people in the public eye". For comparison Lee Anderson's comments about Sadiq Khan [9] aren't descried as "comments about Muslim people", and the fact that she's very clearly and specifically critiqued for transphobic statements and insults, for use of language deliberately designed to attack and belittle trans people, is probably worth mentioning.

Specifically, it's inaccurate to say it is just about her views. The points about trans people go to specifically critiquing her language towards and alleged prejudice displayed to trans people.

At present the page explicitly instructs not to change without consensus.

I would also question the "some" before "LGBT rights", and suggest changing that working to "by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists". (The organisations which have been at all non-critical of her explicitly do not call themselves LGBT rights groups.)

How is something like the following?

"Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights, and used language towards trans people (individually and separately) frequently referred to as "transphobic". These views and have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists."

Understand if that is too strong, but do think the point that increasingly not only what she is saying that is criticised, but also how she is saying it. (There has been also very limited support for her language.)

WorthPoke2 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"frequently referred to as "transphobic"" seems redundant to me. I also think it would be worthwhile to cite some examples of criticism and support of her views & language.

What about something like the following:

"Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. Both her views and the language she uses towards transgender people has been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists [citations], but have received support from other feminists [citations]."

Heatedfrost (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd phrasing

The section on free speech is phrased unusually.

"Rowling—long known to be litigious—has a long record of taking or threatening legal action against those who say things about her she dislikes"

The "who say things about her she dislikes" doesn't seem very encyclopedic; it sticks out like a sore thumb and reads like it was written by someone with a bias. It's reductionist and makes assertions about her motivations and internal emotional state. The citations listed on that sentence make reference to contentions about whether claims about her were defamatory. 146.200.114.136 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:34C1:EDFF:FEF2:1DA0 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Cass Report

Grounds of removal is malignant. The sources cites JKRowling. The section is also encyclopedic as it documents an important piece of JK Rowling's political view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8428:1067:9301:a5ea:ddb7:22f1:7455 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

She has so, so many opinions. Why is this example any more or less "important" than anything else she's tweeted about? Our goal isn't to just regugitate her various tweets (if we did that, the article would be even more bloated than it already is). Our goal is to provide context via reliable, independent sources. It's not enough to repeat her opinions, we need to explain why they are encyclopedically significant.

Any source about the Cass Review which doesn't mention Rowling is not usable for this. A pseudo-intellectual political gossip site like The Spectator is also poor for this. Opinion content, such as the Yorkshire Post one, would need to be attributed as an opinion, but this, also requires a specific reason.

Further, this is both a medical issue and a WP:FRINGE issue. Rowling is not qualified to speak on medicine at all. Since she is not a reliable source for medicine, we cannot use flimsy sources as an excuse to repeat her dubious medical claims as though they had any legitimacy or weight. Grayfell (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The Free Speech Section is misinformative

The statement that UK has less freedom of expression than the US not sourced or sourced with unrelated material. It is also contradicted by multiple major international sources: https://www.indexoncensorship.org/campaigns/indexindex/ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index Multiple reverts have been made to my edit which neutrally state facts with sources attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8428:1067:9301:34C1:EDFF:FEF2:1DA0 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit definitely did more than "neutrally state facts", and it is up to you to gain consensus when your edits are reverted. See WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:SYNTH, for starters. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok about the wording, but the sources I cite are relevant, authoritative and major. How do you suggest I should include them? 2A02:8428:1067:9301:34C1:EDFF:FEF2:1DA0 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, per WP:CIRC. Based on that linked page, which says "The Index Index is a pilot project that uses innovative machine learning techniques to map the free expression landscape across..." I don't think that is the Index on Censorship's "Index Index" is a reliable source either. More importantly, neither source mentions Rowling at all. So, based on your proposed additions, I would suggest that you don't include them. Figure out what reliable sources say about the political views of J. K. Rowling and propose a way to summarize those sources neutrally and without editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The section in question was a trashfire. Calling this "misinformative" excessive, to put it mildly, but regardless, this needs to summarize sources about Rowling. A possible exception would be to address WP:FRINGE issues, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Grayfell (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed this section in my first edit but keep getting reverted. Now I'll go around and remove all the wikipedia links in this article. You are welcome to watch. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:A5EA:DDB7:22F1:7455 (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears you removed information which was sourced and which was relevant and also tried to add even more sources which do not mention Rowling at all. That isn't helpful.

Removing "all the Wikipedia links" would be disruptive behavior, and also completely misses the point. Wikilinks are not the same as citations. Do not cite Wikipedia as a source. Information needs to be verifiable, and also relevant to the topic. Grayfell (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about all the bad links. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:A5EA:DDB7:22F1:7455 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW, good to see that UNESCO is a source. 2A02:8428:1067:9301:A5EA:DDB7:22F1:7455 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about adding this version of the removed text to the section, with some added context as to why UK libel laws are relevant to Rowling?

Freedom of speech rights in the UK are significantly more limited than in the USA. Libel laws in the UK have been criticised for allowing the very rich to silence criticism. Rowling has threatened to sue those who have called her transphobic several times. 13tez (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my concerns, how many of those sources specifically mention Rowling? Why, exactly, is the UK being compared to the USA? Why not compare it to, I dunno, France, or New Zealand, or Japan? If sources make this comparison specifically as it regards Rowling's political views, we can summarize those sources and provide that context, otherwise this seems like WP:OR or at least a subtle bit of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd support Grayfell's points here. It doesn't seem appropriate for an article about JKR's views. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, removing the UK vs USA comparison seems reasonable. I suppose it's there because a significant number of people reading English Wikipedia who aren't from the UK need that context to know that she can (as she reportedly threatens to) sue people for defamation for calling her transphobic more easily than would be possible in the USA. If we removed the first sentence (so only including "Libel laws in the UK..." onwards) or even removed the first and second sentences (so only including "Rowling has threatened..." onwards), would you feel that what's left would be relevant enough to warrant inclusion? 13tez (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If the page subject is Rowling's political views is it even on topic, in an encyclopaedic summary of those views, to mention recourse to libel laws? We should be following secondary sources about her views, per WP:BLPSTYLE, and not recounting primary news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Her use of lawsuits does reflect something relevant about her views. Specifically, it reflects how she presents her political views to others, which is obviously relevant to this topic. However, figuring out how to summarizes these examples neutrally is difficult, to put it mildly. Instead of citing them and then presenting them as examples in ref tags, we should summarize sources which explain this habit for us, to prevent WP:SYNTH issues. If sources don't do the work for us, this should not be included in this article.

So I would sincerely like to see sources which contextualize Rowling's use of SLAPP, but we do need sources to do this, not editors. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent news addition affecting both "free speech" and "transgender rights" sections

The Forward is now reporting that Rivkah Brown (whose recent apology is mentioned in this wiki article) was forced to apologize under legal threat:

"Brown said in an email that Rowling’s legal team demanded not only that she delete the tweet, but apologize. Brown said that she lacks “the financial resources to engage in a legal battle with Rowling,” so she issued the apology."

https://forward.com/culture/603271/jk-rowling-holocaust-streisand-effect/

The same article also goes into more detail about SLAPP suits. I'm not sure how much a single source can be used in an article so I'm leaving this here for the folks who recently worked on both the free speech and transgender rights sections. @Grayfell @13tez Umdlye (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty much what I was asking for.

As far as I know, The Forward is a well-established and reputable news outlet which broadly meets WP:RS, and this content is reporting, not opinion. Mira Fox's other writing for The Forward has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia, as well.

The easiest approach would be to attribute this explanation to The Forward by name. "According to a 2024 report in The Forward..." While I did mention SLAPP above, I think the source mentions it as more of an aside here, which makes sense in context, so I don't think this point needs to be emphasized. A link to Streisand effect seems like a more efficient way to get the point across anyway.

Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Time to restructure the lead?

The lead currently starts with her previous commentary on politics (the Labour Party and Brexit, amongst other issues) before moving onto trans issues in the second paragraph. This would have been written chronologically as she made her views known.

I would say that her views on trans issues are far more prominent and well known now than the subjects in the first paragraph. Consequently I suggest we rearrange the lead while keeping the content unchanged. I suggest the following:

Lead restructure suggestion

British author J. K. Rowling, writer of Harry Potter and other Wizarding World works, has garnered attention for her some of her political views. Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. Rowling has used language and expressed her views towards transgender people in a manner which has frequently been referred to as transphobic by LGBT rights organizations and some feminists, even as she has received support from other feminists. She has also expressed her support of the Labour Party under Gordon Brown and her criticism of the party under Jeremy Corbyn, as well as her opposition to the Republican Party under Donald Trump. She opposed Scottish independence in a 2014 referendum and Brexit during the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union.

Again, this doesn't change the much-debated and carefully agreed-upon wording, it just switches the paragraphs around. Thoughts? — Czello ^(music) 19:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess I would support this.

I get that this is much-debated, and I get that "even as she has received support from other feminists" has consensus. It appears to me that most of the support is attributed to other performers and public personalities who are not constantly defined as feminists. It also ignores the significant support she has accrued among anti-feminists, some of whom are even mentioned. Much of that support seems pretty tepid. To imply that this support from "other feminists" is proportionate seems like a false balance issue, especially considering how scant discussion of this support is in the body of the article. Moving this to the very first paragraph exacerbates this problem.

But anyway...

Her transphobia now dominates how reliable sources discuss her political views, so the lead should reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the lead is already structurally unsound, and that restructuring would lend credence to this being an article about her trans views with everything else bolted on. The whole page is just a list of views, and doesn't discuss, for instance, the development of her ideas, or the influences that led her into various causes. There is a distinct air of editor curation about the content on this page. In what way are we being led by the secondary sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment There is a fundamental problem with describing her views on the trans issue as political views. While opinions on sex and gender can have an impact in the political realm (e.g. her view on the recent Scottish law), by themselves they are not political views, unless you are of the opinion that everything is political in nature. It does look like this article takes the "everything is political" approach (comment on underweight people is a political view?) but I don't think that is how most people understand it. As it is, there is already an excessive concentration on her trans views in the lead, the proposed wording will make it worse. Either change the title of the article or split off her opinions on trans and other social issues. Hzh (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether intentionally or not, Rowling herself has made her views on trans people into a political issues. For one thing, trans rights are human rights, and human rights are obviously a political issues. For another, she has been outspoken in her support of anti-trans organizations (such as For Women Scotland etc.) and discrimination-related legal issues, such as Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe. She certainly did not have to publicly call Nazi book burning, as it relates to trans health issues, a "fever dream", but here we are, and it's hard to imagine a more political issue than Nazi book burning. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds to me it's more about your own political view, not JK Rowling's. Hzh (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur with @Grayfell- her views very much can be described as political, as she is politically active against transgender people. For instance, she publicly advocated against Nicola Sturgeon on the basis of their policies relating to trans people. Rowling has also criticised legal rulings in South Australia, and supported a schism in the Victorian Liberal Party by supporting Moira Deeming. She’s very explicitly a political figure with political views. GraziePrego (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

How ironic, but your personal opinion remains irrelevant. Sources do not bother to "apolitically" discuss her opinions on the validity of other people's identity, nor is it self evident that this would even be possible. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with Grayfell above that it is fundamentally political as she often talks about it in a politican context. Regardless, even if it wasn't, there would then be a case to be made that this article could simply be called "Views of J. K. Rowling", though I don't think we're at that stage yet. I also don't agree that there's an "excessive" concentration on her views of transgenderism in the lead – it's become the most significant issue she talks about, by far. Switching round the two paragraphs (again, without changing the wording) reflects that. — Czello ^(music) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just repeat again that views on sex and gender are not inherently political. You can have views on anything (say, smoking, AI, gardening, whatever) and criticise a government approach to those issues, but the issue themselves are not political in nature Here it's the government that decided to wade into the issue, and she responded because she thinks the issue is important. (Let's say if a government decided to ban geranium from gardens, and you love geranium, so you criticise the government over it, but your liking for geranium is still not by itself a political view.) Since a government can legislate on anything, therefore some will argue that "everything is political", it is still not how most people understand political views. Hzh (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, though, if she is commenting on it through a political lens (which she often is), then it's political. She doesn't just talk about it in isolation – she actively comments on legislation. So yes, in your geranium example I'd expect that to go under a "political views" section if I'm speaking about the legislation. Regardless, as I say, even if were in isolation there'd be a case to be made to rename this article to "Views of J. K. Rowling"; I don't see a split as productive. However I do think this line of discussion is a bit of a distraction; the article is what it is right now, and unless a separate discussion is created around the article's purpose, then the topic at hand is the order things are mentioned in the lead. — Czello ^(music) 08:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments on transgender People in Nazi Germany

I just summarised the information on Rowling's comments about transgender people in Nazi Germany, made on 13 March 2024. There were issues with the references used beforehand.

The Daily Beast had been used, as was a Yahoo News copy of the Daily Beast article (used as a separate reference), as well as sites like insidethemagic.net. The Daily Beast, per WP:DAILYBEAST, should probably be avoided. You can't use a news aggregator copy of the same source twice. The website insidethemagic.net is not rated in terms of reliability at WP:RSPSS, and Ground News/Media Bias/Fact Check rates its factuality as mixed.

I retained The Forward as a source because Ground News rates it as having high factuality and a discussion in the RSN concurred. I retained The Mary Sue as a source because it is listed at WP:RSPSS, where it is described as being "generally reliable".

I am aware that Rowling did also amplify a thread by Malcolm Clark of the LGB Alliance. I know that his statements in that thread and her approval of it are relevant to the subject of her prior comments. However, this hasn't yet been discussed in any reliable sources. Therefore, at present, this fact cannot be included, per WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.

To this point, there has been some back-and-forth editing on this topic in the article. I think, therefore, that further edits on this topic should be discussed here before being made to avoid an edit war. If a new article is written by a reliable source that supports further details, then it should be reasonable to add those further details (within reason and the bounds of WP:WEIGHT).

Please let me know if you have any thoughts. 13tez (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Vox's timeline of Rowling's comments on transphobia now includes her comments on trans people in Nazi Germany. Per WP:RSPVOX, Vox is a reliable source. Would anyone be opposed to me adding it as a reference like this? 13tez (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the following edit should add this additional reliable source and remove the MOS:WEASEL issue. Please let me know what your thoughts are. If nobody has any objections, I'll apply the change later.

On 13 March 2024, Rowling dismissed the fact that the Nazis burned books on transgender healthcare during their raids on the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft as "a fever dream". Her comments received harsh criticism, including from Alejandra Caraballo. Rowling went on to quote a tweet that claimed trans people weren't targeted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Some, including The Mary Sue, accused Rowling of Holocaust denial. 13tez (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@13tez I agree in general that Twitter isn't the most trustworthy source, but I think an archived copy of the tweet in question is warranted. With the rather mercurial nature of Twitter and its leadership, I think it's useful to avoid future claims of her words being taken out of context or something. Snowman304|talk 13:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for talking it out @Snowman304.

I agree in general that Twitter isn't the most trustworthy source

I'm glad we agree on that point. In general, the sources covering her comments on trans people in Nazi Germany aren't great, but the ones currently in use are the best I could find. They're reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES so good enough.

I think an archived copy of the tweet in question is warranted.

Both the articles in use as references contain copies of the text of the tweet. The tweet itself is archived here and here. There are several permanent records of it now. 13tez (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TalyaNe, hope you're doing well.

I saw you added text saying the forward was among those who accused Rowling of holocaust denial. Please could you tell me why you thought it was important to do so? We only really needed one example to adhere to MOS:WEASEL.

Thanks! 13tez (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The Forward is more notable than the Mary Sue (of the two it is the only one that has a Wikipedia page, as well as being significantly more established), and as a Jewish organization, perhaps has more authority to talk about matters concerning the Holocaust than a website "highlighting women in the geek world, and providing a prominent place for the voices of geek women".

Personally, I'd remove the Mary Sue from that sentence altogether and just keep it in the refs. As a matter of fact, that's what I did when I added the incident to Rowling's HeWiki page. I just didn't want to step on the toes of whomever added Mary Sue. //Talya - My contributions - Let's talk// 12:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. For the reasons I outlined before, we only really need one example. Since the Forward is more notable and established, as you said, I agree it should be the single example we use, which is what you put forward too. I'll make that change now. Thanks again! 13tez (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a list of the books about transgender healthcare in Hirschfeld's library that were burned by the Nazis? --MatthiasGutfeldt (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You might find this article helpful if you are trying to find or create such a list. I think it's out of scope for this article, however, and may be better placed in Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. 13tez (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Adding balance to the lede

Here's what I proposed as an addition to the second paragraph:

However, some of these other feminists are of the view that Rowling is using the language necessary to describe the issue, such as referring to male individuals who seek to access women-only spaces with male pronouns.

This is User:DanielRigal's counter-proposal:

Others say that Rowling is using "language necessary to describe the issue"[citation needed], by misgendering transgender women who use women-only spaces with male pronouns.

I have a couple of criticisms of this, first, this isn't a direct quote but paraphrasing what feminists like Julie Bindel (cited later in the article) have said about JKR's choice of language. Secondly, it's more accurate to use "male individuals" because we can't make any assumptions about how they identify. For example, JKR (and other feminists) have spoken about the problem of male prisoners in the female prison estate and there is a common view even amongst trans activists that these include opportunistic men.

Let's work towards the best wording possible that doesn't just slate JKR for her views but tries to explain them in the appropriate context. 2A00:23EE:2418:718:B81C:E698:CC3A:8BF7 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really a fan of the first proposal.

• "However, some" is a bit weasel-wordy- it's good to avoid using "however" on Wikipedia as it's a bit essay-like or persuasive writing.
• "Some" is also very vague- how many are we talking?
• "The issue" is also contentious- it's Rowling et al's opinion that there is an issue, it's not universally agreed that there is an issue.
• Rowling doesn't just use male pronouns for trans women accessing women-only spaces, she uses male pronouns for any trans women, regardless of whether they are seeking to access spaces.
• "Male individuals" is also contentious; saying "transgender women" is more specific and less contentious about who Rowling is describing. She's not talking about cisgender men, so she's not talking about all male individuals.

GraziePrego (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I see your point on "however" and I agree that was inappropriate. For "some" and "the issue", I was trying to match the style of the previous sentences which refer to "related issues" and "some feminists":

Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender activism and related issues. Rowling has used language and expressed her views towards transgender people in a manner which has frequently been referred to as transphobic by LGBT rights organizations and some feminists, even as she has received support from other feminists.

I understand that "male individuals" is contentious here but it is consistent with how JKR expresses her views on this topic, which I believe this article should be trying to accurately describe. For example in this recent tweet https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1786425947274527215, the framing is around male violence, not trans:

That you watch that video and see the large male using physical violence as vulnerable, and the tiny girl using words as the oppressor, you're somebody I wouldn't trust on a jury or anywhere near a child.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this. 2A00:23EE:2418:718:B81C:E698:CC3A:8BF7 (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Since I also had one revert in the recent edit history, lemme add my two cents.

I think it's relevant to note that this is a page under WP:CTOP, and that it seems to have taken reams and reams of previous discussion to arrive at the current wording. So it's not just between those two proposals, if Talk page history is any indication.

Given how controversial the topic is, and in case we can't agree on which proposal, by default I would lean towards reverting to established talk page consensus until there's a new agreement.

However I'll also argue that this is BLP, and I'm a strong proponent of avoiding weasel wording like "has frequently been referred to as" or "many people say", especially for contentious topics, even more so in BLP. Either we have some direct quotes supporting this language that we can add as inline citations, or it's unsupported weasel wording, and I could not object to anyone challenging it.

I think if we disagree about how to characterize Rowling's language, the best thing might be to but just fall back on what reliable sources report, as directly as possible. We don't need to establish whether she's "using the language necessary" or "misgendering". Let's just find good sources and report what they say as directly as possible, with regard to due weight, relevance, etc etc.

Mlkj (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If we're talking about this block of edits, it reads as editorializing based on WP:OR from primary sources. No dice.

A deeper issue here is that it's a form of editorializing to assume that there are only two equivalent sides and that the most neutral approach lies somewhere between those two sides.

Reliable sources plainly describe Rowling's comments as bigoted towards trans people. Perhaps a few years ago there was some ambiguity, but no longer. Euphemistic language is not neutral, nor does BLP obligate us to use evasive language or filler from weaker sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the revised version due the massive POV problems with the first version and to break out of the tedious edit war of reversions. I'm perfectly happy to see it fully reverted to the status-quo version, with neither version included. I feel that this is over-detailed for coverage in the lede and does not require any "balancing" here anyway. The fundamental problems, which can not be addressed by rewriting, are WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY. I can't even see the unreferenced "necessary" language claim being made anywhere in the body. Let's leave it as it is now, without either version. If anybody can source the "necessary" language claim then maybe it can go in the body somewhere but I'm thinking that this is probably not the best article for covering it as (I presume) that this is not a claim or term specific to Rowling. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)