Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Radical feminist?

In diff, this article was placed into the categories "English feminists" and "Radical feminists". My understanding (and the policy WP:BLPCAT) is that such categories need to be supported "by the article text and its reliable sources" (and may also need to be definitional and not just incidental attributes, I'm not sure). There is not presently any text in the article that supports either category. If the categories are appropriate, would someone like to add some text and refs? Otherwise the categories should go... -sche (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I was unsure about that too, it seems to be an assumption based on her other views (so, WP:OR). I think I'll go ahead and remove that -- though I think English feminists should remain. — Czello 18:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't, so I'll remove that one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is one source J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' to start with, the is probably more, (sorry i am busy for next couple of hours). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, there are many more for the TERF category. Some have even been discussed previously. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a good enough citation for her to be called a radfem. The quote in question from that link is, In a tweet sharing the blog post, Rowling simply wrote "TERF wars." TERF stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a term which critics have called the author. Her tweeting "TERF wars" isn't an admission of being a radfem. (Unless there's some other part of that article I've missed?) — Czello 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I accept, I just whizzed through over a dozen news articles and her essay. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say yes on "English feminists" and below borderline (no at this time but could change if more sources support) on "Radical feminists".

I'm basing that on present text and citations the in article:

• Rowling has been referred to as a TERF on multiple occasions, though she rejects the label. She has received support from some feminists, such as Julie Bindel.

Bindel says Rowling "has always been a feminist" in the Guardian citation.

Speaking about that text. At Politics of J. K. Rowling consensus supported the term gender critical feminist for Julie Bindel. The material is similar but condensed slightly as I believe is proper on this main article. But the question is, should this wording for Bindel be duplicated here? Ward20 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Three more articles, Vanity Fair calling her a "British feminist", all three just shy of calling her a TERF.[1][2][3].Ward20 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think she can be safely called a feminist. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Bastun:I believe you were the one to remove the cat "English feminists". Can it be put back, or is there a source that states she is not an English feminist? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it can be find right next to the source that proves the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. But she would certainly qualify as a feminist if she were to qualify as a TERF. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

References

J. K. Rowling template at top of talk page

One bullet point states, "*The topics of her political values in the series have been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She has not publicly espoused any radical political views and any attempt to uncover such views in her works is very likely to violate WP:OR."

That bullet point is out of date, and inadequate about it's warning to possible future events. I think it has outlived it's usefulness and should be removed. I would do it if there is consensus, but I don't know where that template is located. Ward20 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I still wouldn't call her a radical; her views on transgender people are fairly mainstream here in the UK, unfortunately. But if you want it, the template is Template:JRowling. Serendi^podous 23:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem was this recent good-faith edit, which obscured the fact that those discussions were about people labeling her a secret communist / communist-sympathizer—the changed wording is unclear and overbroad to the point of inaccurate, as noted. I tried to revise it to reflect what the linked discussions (and intent of the sentence prior to the recent broadening) were about. -sche (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I still don't believe the warning should attempt to predict the future. Suggest, "attempts to uncover such views in her works have been rejected as WP:OR. Ward20 (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Editorialisation

I removed the following words, as they are not from the sources: 'prejudicial' and 'along with misgendering a person' in regard to the court's ruling. None of the first sources says 'prejudice' and none of the other sources mentions 'misgendering' as relates to the court's ruling.

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=967331858&oldid=967235607

@Rab V: reverted the edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=967339534&oldid=967331858

They wrote: 'both are in sources immediately linked'. I have read the sources and they don't say either of these things.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! They aren't word for word repeated in sources but the ideas are directly covered. The first source after the word prejudicial calls the comments transphobic in it's title. I'd be fine using the word transphobic instead of prejudicial before. About misgender, the Guardian source directly after that sentence includes this “Judge Tayler held that ‘the claimant’s view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others’. He observed that the claimant was not entitled to ignore the legal rights of a person who has transitioned from male to female or vice versa and the ‘enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering a person." Rab V (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

For NPOV it's normally better simply to say the comments, not attach an unsourced editor's adjective to them. So I think simply removing the adjective is clearly the best solution. The link was broken to the other one. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets

NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It was sourced, the Guardian one was broken, so I repaired it and added a sedcond source, The Telegraph ...both RSs confirm that “Judge Tayler said in his judgement that "the claimant’s view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others’. He observed that the claimant was not entitled to ignore the legal rights of a person who has transitioned" and the ‘enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering a person’. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The link was broken (as above). The prejudice adjective should be removed, however.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

By the view only direct quotes can be fair wikipedia would be nothing but quotations. Unless there is significant dispute among RS on this point, NPOV actually supports just wikipedia presenting what RS say without direct quotes. The CBS article and a court of law seem to agree though about the comments being prejudicial or transphobic. Rab V (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Judge Tayler said. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” and that her views were“incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others". That is describing Forrester's prejudice. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with changing "prejudicial" to "transphobic" to use the exact word the source does, though it is not per se a problem to paraphrase (and here, use of "prejudicial" instead of sources' "transphobic" appears if anything to water the sources down somewhat in MF's favour). -sche (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Would anyone like to explain how this is permissible per WP:LABEL? Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Of the 3 sources for this sentence, no term is even used in the Independent source. In any case, WP:In-text attribution would be needed. Why not just remove the label, and let the next sentence describe the comments? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. We shouldn't be labelling anyone in this way, only saying "X was described as Y by Z". — Czello 08:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with NEDOCHAN's views above. There seem to be some editors in this thread who want to make an interpretation that Forrester is prejudiced by effectively saying "well, the source basically says this". Let's just report on what has been directly said rather than editorialising. — Czello 08:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The current sentence is an accurate summary of the events. We could replace "prejudiced" with "transphobic" because there are multiple reliable sources that describe Forstarter's tweets thus. And you can read exactly what the Judge's verdict on her remarks was. That's how wikipedia works. There seem to be some editors on this page who want to make an interpretation that everything and every one connected to Rowling is entirely innocent of everything. But multiple reliable sources disagree. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If the sources say "transphobic" then that's fine -- that's my point. Also I don't think anyone here is trying to say "everything and every one connected to Rowling is entirely innocent" -- some of us are just concerned with WP:NPOV violations sneaking into the article by otherwise well-meaning editors. — Czello 09:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources on Forstater's transphobic prejudice, many of the sources paint Rowling with the same transphobic prejudice.

J.K. Rowling’s latest tweet seems like transphobic BS. Her fans are heartbroken.

The U.K. Has a Transphobia Problem and J.K. Rowling Is the Latest Offender

This is why JK Rowling is being accused of transphobia

J.K. Rowling's Maya Forstater tweets support hostile work environments, not free speech

[J.K. Rowling facing backlash after supporting researcher who lost her job over transphobic tweets

Is not the very clear and unequivocal trans exclusionary and absolutist belief in the non existence of transgenderism at the fundamental core of radical 'Gender Critical' feminism transphobic? Gender Critical = Transphobia. If so, add -

J.K. Rowling Criticized After Tweeting Support for Anti-Transgender Researcher

Test case rules against Maya Forstater, tax expert sacked over transgender tweet ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I am happy with either prejudicial or the more specific and sourced transphobic as they are somewhat interchangeable. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, WP:LABEL: in which case use in-text attribution. We can't say "prejudicial" or "transphobic" in WP:WIKIVOICE, period. For good reason too - it's obviously telling the reader what to think. And let's avoid cherry picking, please - many other sources about Rowling do not use these labels, so they don't even qualify as "widely used" as WP:LABEL requires; e.g. [4][5][6][7][8] And about Forstater specifically: [9][10][11] Let me know if you need more. As for There seem to be some editors on this page who want to..., since two sides can play that game, let's focus on content, okay? Maybe Guy Macon would kindly help us to do that here like he has at Politics of J. K. Rowling.

Since it was ignored above: Why not just remove the label, and let the next sentence describe the comments? Crossroads ^-talk- 14:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be in favour of removing the label and letting the next sentence do the job, as Crossroads says. — Czello 15:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The article could easily state instead that several reliable independent sources referred to her actions as transphobic, backed up with the supporting citations. I was trying to concentrate on Forstater, but the are plenty of reliable sources that do refer Rowling herself with more clarity in the same way, the cherry tree is burgeoning with ripe fruit ~ [[ https://www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-president-alphonso-david-responds-to-j.k.-rowlings-latest-transphobic-b HRC President Alphonso David Responds to J.K. Rowling’s Latest Transphobic Blog Post]], [[ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/12/j-k-rowlings-handprints-vandalised-accusations-transphobia/ J K Rowling's handprints vandalised after accusations of 'transphobia' ]], [[ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/jk-rowling-tweet-women-menstruate-people-transphobia-twitter-a9552866.html JK Rowling criticised over ‘transphobic’ tweet about menstruation]], [[ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557 JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism]] to start with. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

These prove my case. The first one is a blog by an advocacy group and could be matched by a blog by a 'gender critical' advocacy group. None of the other three call anyone a transphobe in their own editorial voice. We're left with 'some called her transphobic', but then that leaves us open for a "who?" tag; also, some people didn't call her that, and many sources don't even give any weight to the label. It's also unwieldy, and the nuances are already well explained without reference to transphobia, so yet again:

Why not just remove the label, and let the next sentence describe the comments? Crossroads ^-talk- 15:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

True The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the largest LGBTQ advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the United States. I am not sure whether they can be equally matched by a blog by a 'gender critical' advocacy group saying she was not. Another source [[ https://www.indiewire.com/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobic-trans-hollywood-reacts-1202236865/ Trans Hollywood Reacts to J.K. Rowling’s Latest Anti-Trans Rant: ‘It Is Plain Old Bigotry’]]. Regarding Forstater we could quote the judge that her actions violated "their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” and that her views were “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others" ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Transgender people vs transgender issues

There appears to be a slow moving edit war both here and on Rowling's politics page about whether the heading under #views should be "Transgender people" or "transgender issues". The claim has been made that there is a consensus about this, though I can't find one. Let's discuss it further here and establish a consensus for both pages. — Czello 21:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's just come to my attention that this edit war is thanks to Paris Lees' very unhelpful canvassing. Semiprotect status has been requested. — Czello 21:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would support the correction to Transgender people. Rowling's is concerned and has written about her issue with real people's rights, both trans men and trans women. I do not think we can separate these 'issues' with trans people - from trans people themselves. When discussing a person's views on peoples rights is is it OK to say gay issues, lesbian issues, black issue, disability issues, etc if we are talking about a section of society. Lets us be respectful, neutral and call them people and simply not 'issues'. To call someone a Issues, does not sound neutral and suggests that the is a problem with them. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• I support issues, with matters or topics as equally acceptable alternatives. Her comments are not about any individual people, nor about the group of people as a whole. Rather, they are about certain related issues/matters/topics. There is disagreement among transgender people on these matters as well, for example: [12][13] And reliable sources show that it is not about people but about political questions: [14][15] I had stated that "issues" was the consensus version per what is said at WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, and because the heading had not been changed despite all the other controversy that had been going on over the last few weeks. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• I think changing it is both justifiable and not a big enough deal to warrant yet another talk page discussion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• The phrase "Transgender issues" has negative connotations, implying that the group in question may have issues, or are an issue. Compare it with the phrase "Jewish problem". This can thus be best avoided by the phrase "Transgender people". "Transgender matters" is better, but still less than ideal. AlbertW (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Crossroads and his reasoning for issues. I do not agree that there's any kind of implication that this heading implies trans people have issues: I think it's clear that it's about issues relating to transgender people. — Czello 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Czello Maybe you just came up with a good new title for the section with the line you just used! Maybe the title should be Issues Relating To Transgender People. Keep everyone happy! Good compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyboyExeter (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Czello and others posting above: The title "Anti-transgender Activism" is used on Graham Linehan's page here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Graham_Linehan#Anti-transgender_activism. That might also work as a title for the section. But I like "Issues Relating To Transgender People" the best as a good compromise for both parties! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyboyExeter (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this is far too loaded a term -- it's not for us to say that Rowling is anti-transgender, as that doesn't seem to be the crux of her political views. She's coming at this through the lens of women's rights. I think changing the heading to "Anti-transgender activism" would violate WP:NPOV. However, I would be happy with "Issues relating to transgender people" as that seems to be a fair compromise, as you say. — Czello 06:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)\
    • I would find this an acceptable compromise as well, though I do think it's still a bit too white-washy and vague --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• I find 'issues' a bit euphemistic/vague. I agree with Bod that labeling a section gay issues or gay matters would raise an eyebrow from me if it was about a person's negative views towards gay people. I understand the desire for neutrality but being vague in this case feels less than neutral. I find Crossroads arguments that this isn't about individuals or a group of people strange as well. These are clearly her opinions about transgender people as a group and RS talk about it that way. For example, Forbes refers to this as her "opinions on transgender people and rights" and Washington Post refers to this as her opinions on the transgender community here and here. Rab V (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • A Forbes "contributor" piece, which you have linked to, carries no more weight than a blog post, per WP:RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, I missed that since the contributor tag is so tiny on the 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. Rab V (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Transgender Issues: The Transgender People heading is dishonest, and it flies in the face of article neutrality. Rowling's issue isn't with the existence of transgender people. She's arguing against the current handling of issues concerning transgender people. The belief that the Transgender Issues heading is insulting is 100% obtuse. The heading is clearly referring to issues surrounding the transgender debate. Wikipedia is not intended for users who are easily insulted by the most innocuous of phrasing. (BTW, a better heading would be Gender, since Rowling's views on this matter aren't limited to transgender issues.) MetaTracker (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• I would go with transgender people, for much the same reasons as Rab V. (I have seen at least one article use the wording "transgender topics", which is vaguer but would at least avoid the—well—issues people have raised with the connotations of "issues".) -sche (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Transgender people is the correct term. Transgender issues is a nebulous "whitewash" heading. Rowling has a problem with transgender women in particular. At a minimum, she doesn't want them in the bathroom with her, and she doesn't want them to be able to self identify.[16] She wants to control the lives of Transgender people and deal with them on her terms. Rowling supported Maya Forstater in a case where the judge ruled that similar views on transgender people to Rowling's "violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment".[17] Ward20 (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Just rename the subsection to Cissexism. gobonobo ^{+ c} 09:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think this would be appropriate -- as far as I'm aware, there aren't any reliable sources accusing her beliefs as "cissexist" -- or at least, not in any such number that it'd be appropriate to label her as one here. — Czello 09:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course it can't be named "cissexist" and neither should such a term be used to describe her or her views, it's needless to say that would violate numerous policies.2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It also violates WP:JARGON. We here debating this know what it means, but very many readers will not. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Transgender issues (or transgender matters or a similar formulation) but not "transgender people". Transgender people is POV and a provocative title, because it implies that Rowling has a problem with the trans people themselves, rather than with politics surrounding some forms of trans activism. 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• @ Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8 From what source are you getting that Rowling had a problem with trans politics or trans activism, rather than with the trans people themselves. The use of the word 'activists' or even 'politics' are POV in themselves, a way to divorce the discussion away from the fact that we discussing a person's opinions on the civil liberties or human rights of a section of people in society. The first rule in attacking the rights of a section of society is to deny we are talking about human beings, but to say it is only an issue or problem with their leaders, or them crazy radical activists, or vaguer the politics. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with this point; I think it encapsulates why I'd prefer it to be "issues". — Czello 12:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, does she not? She seems to have quite the problem with them, given that she's written an entire longread criticizing their very right to exist in ~women's spaces~. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favour of "people", as I pointed out directly above this, her words are directly directed at and affect trans people, who in her opinion should barely be allowed to exist in women's spaces if they're passing, let alone if not.--Licks-rocks (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's your interpretation though (that she has a problem with trans people themselves) and so would be go against WP:NPOV. Personally I don't think she has an issue with the people, she's raising an issue about the safety of women's spaces. That said, I don't to turn this into a WP:FORUM thing, which is why I agree with the IP above that this seems that "issues" is the most neutral way of presenting the subject. However, earlier you have expressed that "Issues relating to transgender people" could be a good compromise, even though you feel it's white-washing the subject. While I have my own qualms with that heading, I also do think it's the heading that would please the maximum number of people. It seems an accurate heading to me -- while her comments are mostly about women's issues, they are by proxy "Issues relating to transgender people". It also includes the word "people" which I'm hoping will please you and others in this thread. What do you think? — Czello 14:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

While I don't think my suggestion is against NPOV, like I said, I am more than willing to more than willing to make a compromise on this one. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I can accept this as a compromise if it comes to that. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like we're developing a consensus for "Issues relating to transgender people". There seems to be a fairly even split between "people" and "issues" (with good arguments on both sides) -- so is there anyone who disagrees with "Issues relating to transgender people"? — Czello 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Issue (noun) = a subject or problem that people are thinking and talking about ~ the Cambridge Dictionary, so "Issues relating to transgender people" = "Problems relating to transgender people" nice, great improvement. If an article subject has negative issues with the rights of a section of society or minority group we should not side with the article subject and reduce the rights of those other people to mere issues or problems. 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. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you boldened the wrong word there. The word that should have been in bold was "or". It can relate to a problem, but most people will read it as "subject" -- rather than willfully reading it in a way to take offense. No one is saying that transgender people are an issue, we're saying it's a topic relating to them. However, the suggestion was made above that "matters" or "topics" could serve just as well. — Czello 15:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Naaa "Or(s?) relating to transgender people" would not make sense (joke). People read things in different ways, one extremely common way to read 'issues' is to see that word as an alternative to 'problems'. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, but I don't think we should be avoiding the word "issues" on the off-chance someone reads it in the wrong way -- when I think it's fairly clear what to real meaning is. That said, we do have alternatives in "matters" or "topics" as above (I'd pick "matters" above "topics", personally). — Czello 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

if we make it "matters relating to transgender people" I'm fine with that too --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It certainly comes across better, but a Wikipedia title heading 'Topics relating to X' or 'Matters relating to X' is not the Topics or Matters relating part of the heading a bit superfluous. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

it's a compromise. If it works for them, it works for me.--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(out)The "issues" are about "transgender rights" or "transgender law reform" or "gender identity"[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Any of those three could be a reasonable compromise. "Issues relating to transgender people" is not a good compromise because it too has the original objection that the interpretation can be "transgender people have issues". That is not WP:NPOV. Many of the cited sources use the terms "anti-trans” and “transphobic” by her critics so there is a strong arguement "Transgender people" is appropriate. There were only 2 citations given to support "issues". Only one uses "transgender issues", which is in a quote from what the article admits is a radical feminist. That same reference uses the term "transgender rights". Ward20 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I made a WP:BRD edit and used the term "gender identity" to get to a neutral term. It is already used in the subsection. Ward20 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, literally no one would read it the way you just did.--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I would word it not "transgender people have issues" but rather other people have issues/problems with "transgender rights" or "transgender law reform" or "gender identity of trans people. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It's already discussed in the subsection, "facts about gender identity" and "do not respect a person's self-identity". Please expand on why "Gender identity" is not a good compromise. Ward20 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Gender identity." I was just pointing out that trans people do not have issues with it (well not when it comes to them having rights and protection under the law) its other people like Rowling s and Bindel who have the problem. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Her name (that is, the name of the subject of the article) isn't 'Rowlings'. And transgender people already have 'rights and protections under the law' in the UK -- not so much in the USA -- and Rowling hasn't said that she has any problem with that at all. And that whole section of the article, including the heading 'Transgender people', with the deliberate and false implication that Rowling has a problem with transgender people when what she's actually talking about is women's rights (the thing that TRAs, who are mostly blokes with beards, wish to eradicate, quelle surprise), reads as if it were written by people with... quite serious unresolved issues. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sure you did not mean to be offensive about transwomen, this article is after all a biographic article. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page. If Rowling was not talking about transgender people why then is most of her essay about her concerns regarding transgender people, both how trans rights some how affect women's spaces and the very existence of transgenderism ~ many times she miss-genders trans people, regarding the growth in the number of young transmen, Rowling said in her essay she believed misogyny and sexism, fuelled by social media, were reasons behind the 4,400% increase (in the UK) in the number of transmen transitioning in the past decade, not transgenderism itself. To deny that her essay and tweets is about trans people is to whitewash and deny the clear reality that her words are clearly about how transgender people who are seen by Rowling and radical feminists as a threat to biological sex. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I, however, am sure that you did mean to be offensive. IF you're not here to improve the article but just to make provocative statements, please find somewhere else to do it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bodney for making that more clear to me. Ward20 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Licks-rocks:I don't understand your objection to "Gender identity". As I stated, it's already discussed in the subsection, "facts about gender identity" and "do not respect a person's self-identity". Please be more specific about why it isn't a good compromise. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(out)Reading Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people vs transgender issues 2, I think there was some progress made on a consensus for using a term like Transgender identity, Transgender rights, Gender identity, Comments on gender identity, Women's rights vs transgender rights or something similar that would relieve the objection she was not tolerating "people", and the objection of how "issues" could be misconstrued. Discussions? Ward20 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You've read this discussion, and are genuinely proposing "Women's rights vs transgender rights"?! Transgender women are women. The two are not mutually exclusive and the vindication of one set of rights does not come at the expense of anyone else's rights. That's the whole bloody point of this controversy! After taking a breath... no, Ward20. That would not be a WP:NPOV heading. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to your own views (namely that "Transgender women are women. The two are not mutually exclusive and the vindication of one set of rights does not come at the expense of anyone else's rights"), but the article must abide by WP:NPOV, which means that Rowling's views (including the view that, in certain situations, there is a conflict between certain demands made by trans activists and women's rights) must be presented in a neutral way, without taking 'sides'. The responses to Rowling's views must also be presented with due regard to all wiki policies (which includes attribution, and not writing in Wikipedia's voice). 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54C6 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't ascribe to Rowling's way of framing it, but my opinions don't matter a bit. That is her argument as far as I understand from the sources, and the article is about Rowling's political views. I have seen several media articles write about both sides. Most articles don't make a value judgement one way or the other, but interview the advocates for the sides. The advocates and option "against" Rowling's viewpoint seem to have much more coverage in the reliable sources I've read.

It is up to the editors to neutrally give the proper weight to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

I was a mechanical engineer before I retired. When brainstorming concepts it is usual to throw things into consideration, without making value judgements, in hopes of stimulating a idea. Sorry I offended, it was not my intent to adhere to a particular point of view except WP:POLICY. Ward20 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood, and accepted. My reaction was prompted by use of a term that could be said to come straight out of the TERF playbook and could be seen to be/was seen by me as partisan rather than neutral, but I accept you were brainstorming in good faith. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: request for help

Re: "Maybe Guy Macon would kindly help us to do that here like he has at Politics of J. K. Rowling". let me ask the editors here; do you want help from an experienced editor who really has no opinion on anything related to J. K. Rowling? You can see the kind of help I am able to give at talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling. It's perfectly OK to say no to this offer. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I was broadly happy with your help on the other page, and would welcome it here (if you're willing). The fact that you have "no opinion on anything related to J. K. Rowling" is exactly why you're in the best position to help out here. — Czello 15:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As the person who pinged you, yes please very much. The editing environment became way better after you showed up there. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess I am more interested with human and civil rights and prejudice than I am with general opinions on Rowling herself, and my view is every editor has opinions on such matters. That said I do value your experience as a Wikipedian (as i have respect towards other editors here) and welcome your involvement here. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I also approve --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Unwarranted and criminal Vandalism of Jk Rowling handprints and Critique of Fansites

Apparently Rowling's handprints in Scotland were vandalised by either an LGBT person or allie . Shouldn't this be added . One could interpret it has a threat to Rowling or her family or that Rowling has blood on her hands ( which is absurd as people who kill anyone do not need the perspectives of critically acclaimed bestselling authors to do so ) .

Also fansites are profiting of the Jk Rowling brands and have faced critique from creators of those fansites like the mugglenets original creator. Shouldn't something be added regarding the hypocrisy of the situation. Also the support of Emmerson the creator of mugglenet fansite should be included . Hpdh4 13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Please provide sources and refrain from wild speculation--Licks-rocks (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You're familiar with our policies on WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:RS? I mean, if I can't write that some survivors of cancer, those who've had a hysterectomy and post-menopausal women were outraged at Rowling's "people who menstruate are women" remarks, then no, you can't include the above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not speculation if the media reported the vandalism or the support of the creator of the fansite which outweighs what the current idiots running mugglenet think Obviously neutrality of some editors are in question. Hpdh4 12:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

"speculation" refers to your third sentence, for example. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It is speculation if you are saying that vandalism of a sculpture "could be interpreted as a threat." If there are reliable sources saying this, please list them. It's nothing to do with neutrality. Seriously. Come on - you've been around long enough to know how Wikipedia works. We report on what the sources say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Should 'Views' be changed to 'Controversies'?

In other biographies on Wikipedia (to use a recent example, Steven Pinker) a lot of what is found under 'Views' is usually under a 'Controversies' header. Why is 'Views' used here? Vic Zimmer (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia; I see this is your very first edit. The reason is because it's about her views, much of which is not controversy. Having a prominent heading of "Controversies" is not allowed per WP:LABEL, since it is unattributed and not widely used in sources. It states there: Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy. Also, the sensationalism of it certainly goes against WP:BLP. Regarding Steven Pinker, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Controversies" sections are "usually"/"generally" avoided; see WP:CSECTION. As Crossroads says/quotes, it's usually preferable to present controversies in context. The 'Views' section is not all about controversies, anyway (though it's impressive how much of it is). -sche (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

I want to change J.K Rowling’s age. She’s 55. 220.253.120.43 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done The software will automatically update the age after the birthday. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 18:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@WikiMacaroons: Weirdly, when I look at a revision of the page from before today her age is showing as 55, but today it's 54. Doesn't look like there was a change to her DOB either. Know why this is? — Czello 18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Czello: Oh, that’s weird... can’t think why that could be... I’ll observe it tomorrow, thanks for your vigilance :) WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 18:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably something related to page caching... it showed as "54" when I looked at the page just now, but after I null-edited it, it updated to "55" (for me - you may have to null-edit it to purge your own cache). -sche (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Already done: It says 55 now. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Should her views on transgender people be mentioned in the lede?

A few months ago, I considered adding a single sentence to the end of the lede section acknowledging the ongoing controversy about Rowling's views on transgender people, but I felt it might be premature. I think that now it may be time to do so. These hateful views of hers have been the defining characteristic of her public life for several months now, and there's no reason to think this will stop being the case anytime soon. What do others think? --Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 04:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I remember the coverage reached its highest level up till then last month, with those tweets and then the essay. Since that is recent, I think we do need to beware of WP:Recentism. I think it would be better to wait a little more to see if it really stays so defining that it is worth mentioning in the lead. But if it is mentioned, one sentence is all we should have per WP:Due. And the source to be used for it should be something top-tier at WP:RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Rowling herself considers this subject important, as evident by the fact she refuses to let it go. Rowling recently released a new book, yet almost all news and online talks regarding her are about her transphobia. Imagine if Stephen King were to release a new book, and all everyone talked about were his tweets. I would imagine there's significance to those tweets. YuvalNehemia (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

My initial inclination was to suggest waiting, as this "feels" recent (and I suspect the case for inclusion will grow with time). However, not only have her "likes" of things in this vein been getting coverage in RS going back years, but looking at the dates I am reminded that her statements "standing with" Maya etc and significant RS coverage of those goes back to last year: this has been given significant coverage for months. It also accordingly constitutes a not-insubstantial portion of the article, about 1 of 30 "screens", or about 5% of the body by word count when I paste it into a word processor (in both case excluding the text of the references). (She also appears to consider it significant herself, as YuvalNehemia notes.) So, I think a sentence about it would be WP:DUE. But what should the sentence say? -sche (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think including her views in the lede would be a case of WP:RECENTISM. It's been big news for the past few months, but I think it'd be undue weight to add it to the lede at this time. We have a fairly prominent section on her views further down in the article, though, which I think works. — Czello 08:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

We agree that this has been going on for longer than six months and has certainly been covered extensively by a very large number of international reliable news media sources, plus neither are Transgender people going to disappear nor sadly is Rowling's outspoken gender critical view of them is likely to change. The case for WP:RECENTISM is more than a little bit crumbling away. Her views on transgenderism are covered by a fairly prominent established section in this article, and as the lede is supposed to reflect the article, so a mention is increasingly WP:Due. Lede statements do not need to sourced as citations are usually found in the main body, but I guess if we do not add a good source or three somebody will come along and delete the segment. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Some top level sources :-

Guardian Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate?

NBC J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto'

Independent Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people

Independent JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments

Independent J K Rowling, predatory men and the nuance we're all missing out

Telegraph Trust me, JK Rowling is spouting dangerous nonsense about trans people ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This is something that has been very prominent now for several months, and various sources have pointed to issues going back much further than December 2019. WP:RECENTISM can hardly apply any longer. As the lede should summarise the body, brief mention is warranted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

While I'm aware the issue of her views does go back longer than 6 months, I don't think the significance and controversy of her views has been as major as it has been recently. If she remained as controversial a figure in, say, six months' time I think it would warrant inclusion. Including it now I feel is WP:UNDUE weight. — Czello 15:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel that her views on this issue are a sufficiently-defining characteristic to (as yet) warrant a place in the lede. Esowteric+Talk 16:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel the same about her recent career as a screenwriter and producer, but reliable sources disagree... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree with Esowteric here: It hasn't reached that level of significance in the public consciousness, not even close. it might one day, but it hasn't yet, and as such, I don't think it warrants a place in the lede. (To be clear, it might take just a day for this to change, if she talks about it on a very large large public event or something like that.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Her other views on other issues/points of contention haven't been included in the lede but transgenderism warrants inclusion ? And people wonder why neutrality is questioned on this site Wikipedia shouldn't be a site for piling personal beliefs, agendas or online activism. Hpdh4 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

RfC was closed; section Views (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 section Views (subsection Transgender people) must be now modified.2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:425C (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Whose Child? NPOV?

Article says, "Rowling was left in despair after her estranged husband arrived in Scotland, seeking both her and her daughter". For NPOV I suggest this be changed to read "and HIS daughter." (PeacePeace (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC))

"their daughter" would be NPOV. Esowteric+Talk 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Revised. Serendi^podous 14:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Robbie Coltrane , Brian Cox

Other actors who have decried Rowling's views for incomprehensible moral reasons have been included. Support for Rowlings views should be included as well, particularly Robbie Coltrane who acted in films based on Jks books as Hagrid Brian Cox is also someone who understands Jks words.

I think inclusion of the above is important to reduce the pile on that is going on the Jk Rowling page and to improve balance and neutrality Hpdh4 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you find impossible to comprehend? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Are the remarks made a violation of BLP tho on the talk page? Are those remarks themselves hateful?

Above somebody (who has no access to the heart of Rowling) judged and declared:

"These hateful views of hers have been the defining characteristic of her public life for several months now, and there's no reason to think this will stop being the case anytime soon. What do others think?"

Should that statement above be deleted from the talk page as judgmental, unproven, improbable, hateful, & a violation of BLP? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC))

No. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Well it is fair to see them as inappropriate, but that doesn't necessarily amount to violation of WP:BIO. Also it should be kept mind that Wikipedia needs to allow a frank exchange between edeitors on a topic. Those remarks will evetually be archived anyhow and hence not remain as visible insult to the author.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If the remarks were not critical of Rowling and instead supportive, it would be deleted Since the remarks are anti Rowling and claim to predict her intentions, its allowed Such neutrality is heartening (sarcasm)

Those comments should be deleted. When comments that are neutral and or supportive of Rowling would be easily deleted, why shouldn't negativity and hatefulness of this comment be deleted. Hpdh4 12:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

What is your logic for assuming that positive comments would be deleted? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

At the height of the controversy, The so called media enforced and twitter enforced anti Rowling rhetoric prevented the inclusion of Positive support for Rowling on wikipedia , such comments has been deleted many a time.

Literally people were side taking over the issue of Dana international (this qualified as positive support) not too mention neutrality went out the window.

Under the impression this was a site for information not debating gender politics, guessing peoples intentions or venting out opinions. Hpdh4 22:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

This entire discussion should be archived. It's completely pointless and isn't about the article in any way. Serendi^podous 08:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Even though BLP guidelines extend to talk pages, there's simply no blp violation here. Reliable sources acknowledged that her comments were considered hateful\transphobic by many, so why should Editors be forbidden to say that? Sounds like censorship to me. This pointless discussions should be archived 2. - Daveout(talk) 11:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" - same reliable resources reported a trans character in troubled blood when the character in question isn't a trans person but a man who crossdresses. "Its censorship"= removal of Dana International support of Jk Rowling is censorship but allowing PR actors opinions is fine. Hpdh4 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

1. "Change 'Her home life was complicated by her mother's diagnosis with multiple sclerosis[38] and a strained relationship with her father, with whom she is not on speaking terms.' to 'Her mother's diagnosis complicated her home life with multiple sclerosis[38] and a strained relationship with her father, with whom she is not on speaking terms.'." 2. Change 'then boyfriend' to 'then-boyfriend'." 3. Change ' Book were sold in its first day in the UK' to ' Book were sold on its first day in the UK'." 4. Change 'It sold 11 million copies in the first day of release in the United Kingdom and United States' to 'It sold 11 million copies on the first day of release in the United Kingdom and the United States'." 5. Change 'on a street with 24-hour security.' to 'on the street with 24-hour security.'." 6. Change 'Rowling was the first to visit her in hospital.' to 'Rowling was the first to visit her in the hospital.' Shefalisri (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

#2  Done, but the rest  Not done as just plain ungrammatical, except for #6, which is merely a UK vs US difference. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

change "is a British writer and philanthropist." to "is a British writer and anti-trans activist." New Dawn2 (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That change seems somewhat nonsensical anyway. Afaik all Rowling did was making a few "controversial" remarks, which aren't even anti-trans strictly speaking, but nevertheless sparked a highly aggressive media hype over supposedly being "anti-trans". That hardly qualifies her as an activist on transgender issues, neither pro nor anti. Moreover it is certainly no justification to drop "philanthropist" from the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I would have been tempted to remove it as being deliberately provocative, and not a serious request anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel that this is not what she is primarily known for.Cupnoodle2021 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

Change "transgender-related issues" in lede to "transphobic remarks". The former is vague, while the latter is much clearer and in-line with how the reliable sources in the trans section of the body describe her views. Nmi628 (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:LABEL, and, yes, per WP:NPOV, and especially per the consensus reached above. Sources actually vary quite a bit in how they describe the matter and few say "transphobic" in their own voice. Editors can't describe any topic in ways other than the WP:Due weight of sources. Also, the lead says "transgender-related views", not "issues". Keep in mind that an overly stridently written article turns off the people one may want to convince; this is partly why NPOV is important. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

2A01:CB08:13D:8700:430:445:D5F3:A721 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear what request is being made. — Czello 08:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Transgender views controversy in lead redux

There was a discussion several months ago about whether or not to mention the controversy around Rowling's views of transgender people in the lead. Seeing the media coverage of the possible TV series, e.g. [25][26][27], I think at this point it's very safe to say that this is a lasting part of her reputation and that it would be inappropriate to continue omitting it from the lead (especially given that we currently mention things like a list of the charities she supports, which has gotten far less coverage). Can we have some suggestions about possible wording, so that we can then find consensus on text to add? Courtesy pinging prior participants @Reschultzed, Crossroads, YuvalNehemia, -sche, Czello, Bodney, Bastun, Esowteric, Licks-rocks, and HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4:. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

How about : In 2020, Rowling expressed alleged transphobic sentiments that were critiqued by many organizations and supported by many feminists and actors such a brian Cox.

Please note neutrality is important

No putting baiting language and words like Jk Rowling is a transphobe or terf shit that SJW would be too happy over such additions. Hpdh4 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that it is correct to include a neutral reference in the lead. Just replying at this stage, to the suggestion provided by Hpdh4 with respect I am not sure we have solid evidence of 'many' feminists and actors supporting her, but 'a few or maybe some' clearly do. Also why specifically mention Brian Fox who has zero relevance and not name any of the leading LGBT organisations that do not. That is not neutral ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

How about: "In 2020, Rowling expressed views often described as transphobic, receiving criticism from many individuals and organisations, including intersectional feminists, and receiving support from others, including gender critical feminists." Obviously, that's way too long, but you get the idea. We won't be mentioning individuals in the lead, pro- or anti-Rowling. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the content. Please note neutrality is absolutely key. One might question the good faith of someone proposing an obviously biased sentence for the lead. No using baiting language in the article or this talk page - terms such as "SJW", should be avoided. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The term gender critical feminists isn't used in the article, so I don't see how it could feature in the lede as part of a summary of the article. It also isn't an NPOV term, so probably some other term should be used. I agree with the LEADFOLLOWSBODY approach and that the controversy seems DUE for inclusion. Indeed, it seems likely to reflect the only thing many Gen Z people will remember about JKR. Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

How about a quick & ugly tiny reword "In 2020, Rowling expressed views often described as transphobic, receiving criticism from many individuals and organisations, including intersectional feminists, and receiving support from others, including feminists who are critical of transgenderism." ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not keen on introducing labels in the lede that don't emerge from the body. I would prefer "...and receiving support from others, including some feminists" - this follows the body, and has the additional merit of being 100% accurate. Newimpartial (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Labels mmm I was going to suggest we possibly add 'LGBT' organisations to 'receiving criticism from many individuals and organisations' to show relevance to the matter. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As long as the text doesn't then imply that most of the individuals doing the criticism were LGBT, because that would be misleading. I suppose most of the orgs probably were. 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep i meant it to before the 'organisations', sorry i was not clear. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 02:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I also think we need to avoid implying that feminists who commented were all supportive of Rowling, which is absolutely not the case. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Still not warranted. Those Vox, IGN, and Insider sources are clickbaity/controversy-mongering coverage largely of random people on Twitter and are clearly opinion pieces, not top-shelf news sources like the Guardian, The Times, NYT, etc. And I see that already the proposed text is full of POV WP:WEASEL wording like "many" and "often". Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Well, if you want top shelf, here's top shelf by your own definition: [28][29][30]. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Those are all old. They aren't a grounds to revisit it again. I don't think "some people on Twitter got mad that HP might get a live action TV series" should play any role in our calculus at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Explain what you mean by "those are all old", please? Rowling made most of her comments in 2020, that's when people responded, so that's when the media reported on the controversy. In any case, MOS:CITELEAD - we don't need to include citations in the lead for material discussed and referenced later in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  However, Rowling's alleged transphobia is also discussed in B Colliver's book, Imagining Hate Crime (2020), A Tudor's article "TERFism is a white distraction" in engenderings, S Popovich's "The Antinomies of Academic Freedom" in The Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianshop and Horbury & Yao, "Empire and Eugenics: Trans Studies in the United Kingsom" in TSQ (all published in 2020). I think it is about time we stopped pretending this controversy is not part of Rowling's lasting cultural impact. Newimpartial (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  The article already has a section on the topic, so the question whether we should cover the subject or not is moot, as we cover it already. The question which scope and detail is appropriate for the coverage. We certainly should avoid bloating the the section to include the latest shitstorm or media campaign.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  That is as may be, but the question asked in this section is whether by now it is DUE for this controversy to be reflected in the lede, following the discussion in the body. I believe the answer is, "yes". Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  I concur that this is DUE for mentioning in the lede, but the mention has to be short. "Alleged transphobia" shouldn't be used (there's no debate about her stance), maybe "perceived transphobia" ? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't use "alleged transphobia" either, partly out of my generally post-humanist editorial preferences. Bastun has suggested views often described as transphobic, which seems fine to me. Newimpartial (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Include in lead. It's a noticeable part of the article body, so worth a sentence or two in the lead. Pick your words carefully! --GRuban (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Include a sentence or two: the weight this continues to be given in reliable sources, and the amount of space it accordingly receives in both this article (which the lead is supposed to summarize) and its spinoff article about her views, shows it's not just WP:DUE but overdue. -sche (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• include She's been pretty clear about her views and it has been a consistent recurring feature of her more recent activism and writing. Seems appropriate to mention in the lead. And I agree with -sche, One or two sentences should do. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Include - per -sche, this is now overdue. No more than one or two sentences needed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Include, but it might take some rewriting I would say that the statements being covered in the popular media, even making it onto Saturday Night Live, means that it should be mentioned. However, it should be fairly brief, considering that Orson Scott Card's anti-gay views only get a sentence in the lead of his article. An argument against including it would be that her other political views aren't mentioned in the lead at all. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  That may well be true, but Google Scholar shows more academic discussion of transphobia in relation to Rowling in 2020 than there has been academic discussion of Card and homophobia since the beginning of time (well, of Google Scholar). I know this has as much to do with the changing relationship between scholarship and popular culture/genre literature as it does with the underlying issues, but WP is supposed to offer a BALANCEd and DUE representation of the best sources, and that would tend to give these Rowling issues more prominence than the Card issues IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  Google Scholar includes many non-RS like theses, predatory journals, student papers, and the like. And "social commentary/critical theory" doesn't require experiments, so it tends to get churned out in these forms pretty readily. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  Fortunately I parse those sourcing issues when I use Google Scholar, rather than using raw hit counts - my comments here have been based on actual RS, excluding the chaff. And there is no need to take your hierarchy of sources out on me, at least not in such a public forum. Your views on what forms of scholarship are easier or harder to produce don't affect how we interpret the balance of scholarship within a domain. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  That would make sense to me, since Card isn't that well-known outside of sci-fi circles, meaning that he doesn't have that much effect on the discourse around gay rights, while Rowling is probably the most famous author in the world as well as one of the most famous people to espouse views associated with anti-transgender activism, especially so-called trans-exclusionary feminism. Under that argument her views might deserve more mention, especially if her publicity has suffered because of it. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Include I am convinced that this controversy has risen to the level of due weight. However, I would focus on what Rowling has stated rather than characterizations of it. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Include in lede as per GRuban, Bastun, -sche, Licks-rocks and others all point out this both WP:DUE and long overdue. A lede should reflect the detail in the body, this highly reported biographic aspect is not going away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This talk page reads like a page were people come to give their verdict on whether JKR's words qualifies as transphobia on the basis of information provided by trans activist and various media personnel that perpetuate hate culture for clickbait headlines. Also you're verdict means nothing as many people and fans still support Rowling.

Remember who actually recieved death and assault threats and remember the world doesn't cater to wokery. People are allowed to live and present as they want too just not at the expense of FACT and LAW. Hpdh4 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You DO realise that her article "TERF wars" provides the most damning evidence, in fact it is a textbook example of TERF?

And about the "belief"-lawsuit of her protegé that started the row, a UK court of law decided that "to believe to not accept trans-women are women" does not qualify as a protected belief because it goes against the rules and customs of a peaceful democratic state?

So, if "FACT and LAW" are observed, an official UK court of law found by due process that the exact "beliefs" Rowling so vehemently and repeatedly defends are considered hate-speech?

If that makes an ordinary UK court of law "woke" in your opinion, you may want to join forces with one of Rowling's most vehement defenders, a gentleman named Carl Benjamin. --82.113.106.249 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That comment does not provide any policy-based rationale for the inclusion or exclusion of material in the lede. Also, WP is not a fan wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not in the lead. This twitterstorm stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject's notability. This is not CancelCulturePedia. (Put it this way: If the lead at Donald Trump covered every "controversy" about something Trump said in social media that pissed off some subset of people, the lead of that article would be 10 × longer than the entire article on every other president.) Regardless, what Buidhe said here also applies to the material in the body of the article: "focus on what Rowling has stated rather than characterizations of it".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  PS: If we're going to include something in the lead about this, then the wording I see right now, "Since 2020, her transgender-related views have received criticism from some LGBT organizations and support from some feminists.", seems neutral, correct, and entirely adequate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Your view that the statements of the article's subject on this matter are more DUE for inclusion than analysis of them in peer-reviewed academic publications is interesting, to say the least. Care to expand on that? Newimpartial (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Given that I didn't say anything like that, I'm not in a position to "expand on that".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Given that you dismiss the issue as "twitterstorm stuff", in the wake of essays, rebuttals, extensive coverage in mainstream media and in academia, it was a fair question. As pointed out above, the "some feminists" wording is problematic, as it implies she has not received criticism from other feminists - and she has. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, my argument in response to Crossroads - that the coverage in academic sources made Rowling's statements DUE for the lede - was part of the discussion within which you were !voting when you said focus on what Rowling has stated. So no straw was used in the juxtaposition I made; it reflected the actual intervention you chose to make. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• As pointed out above, it is absolutely not the case that feminists exclusively support JKR. Some do. Some stand with transgender people in opposition to her views. It is completely disingenuous to state otherwise in WP's voice. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The formulation in the lede "Since 2020, her transgender-related views have received criticism from some LGBT organisations and feminists, and support from some other feminists" is not a good one. It is biased, in that the criticism (including from feminists) is presented much more prominently than the support; and it also implies that the only people/organizations expressing views on what Rowling has said are either LGBT organizations or feminists, which is certainly not true. If that paragraph remains in the lede, a more simplified form, such as "Since 2020, her transgender-related views have received both criticism and support" might be more appropriate. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6975 (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, agreed, my contribution was clunky as hell, and made in a hurry when I noticed what had been added without mention here, despite a specific request that that wording not be used, as it is absolutely a breach of NPOV. I'll be bold and replace it with your sentence now; and if people want to revert and discuss further, that's fine too. (Mea culpa for not noticing the change when it happened). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There is ample of time to come up with an appropriate formulation on the talk page before editing the article. Imho a single sentence along the line "Her views of LGBTQ transgender issues have been croticized by some" or "Her views of the LGBTQ transgender community are subject to controvery" should suffice. Details on who criticizes or supports what of her views need to go in the main text or in the special WP article of that subject.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"Her views on the LGBTQ community" is not appropriate because she was referring only to transgender issues; also she was not referring to the "community" as such, but rather to some types of activism. But I do agree that "Details on who criticizes or supports what of her views need to go in the main text or in the special WP article of that subject". 2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6412 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Rowling has been referred to as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) on multiple occasions, though she rejects the label. Because of the controversy, she became widely quoted by far-right influencers. Her book "Troubled Blood" has been criticised for transphobia because the antagonist is described as a gender non conforming crossdresser, in line with the stereotype of the trans-woman she consistently attacks for intruding into female safe spaces.

The first part is right from the article, only moved to the lead. The second part references her newest hate-speech book to sensibilese for its problematic transphobic undertones. --82.113.99.11 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't engage in WP:OR like this based on unreliable primary sources like YouTube videos. And this is pretty blatantly one-sided and POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you joking? In her "Troubled Blood"-article, there are half a dozen magazine articles describing the problems. Those are belittled by "some transgender activists say...", right after that two articles calling those criticisms "libelous". "YouTube videos" are not "unreliable sources" or "reliable sources", but depend on the credentials of the authors (like, eg, newspapers, journals and books do, too).

The linked video is from Carl Benjamin, a well-known right-wing activist. WP:RS obviously doesn't see his YouTube career, which is the reason why he is known, has been interviewed by the BBC, and has been able to try to enter politics in UKIP in the first place.

If the linked article in your opinion is also WP:RS, then WP:Be Bold and just pick one more of the articles that discuss the issue in the "Troubled Blood"-article.

After in her "Terf wars" essay, Rowling sugar-coated a TERF as "brave" and only claiming to "believe in sex" which, in fact, called trans-women "Blackface Actors" who need to "Fuck you", called a trans-woman a "good feminist ally and seriously explained that she wasn't a TERF because her feminism also included trans-men(!), there is no wiggle-room left whatsoever to see Rowling as anything other than a TERF.

Weasel-Words like "some LGBTQ+-activists" against "some feminists" don't cut it, especially since the term "TERF" was coined by a self-described radical feminist (and not, as Rowling wrongly states, "trans-activists") just to be able to distance herself from self-proclaimed "radical feminists" who excluded trans-women. She later said that the actions of TERFs in fact disqualified them as "feminist" and said a better term would be "TES" (Trans-Exclusionary Separatists).

So, from all her own words and actions, Rowling is a textbook example of the ideology that is commonly understood as "TERF" and, outside of the UK, derided by the vast majority of self-identifying feminists.

Could we please stick to the facts, not to Rowling's PR? You know, WP:NPOV? If it walks like a TERF, quacks like a TERF, tweets like a TERF, and writes a lengthy essay about "TERF wars" checking every box of TERFdom, it's a TERF. Regardless of what she herself calls herself.

--82.113.106.249 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think it made more sense to say who, broadly, is on each 'side', since it's pretty obvious that there are others on each side besides the most prominent groups. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That isn't what you did, though. Your formulation pitted "some LGBT groups" against "some feminists" - which was clearly not the case, as many feminists oppose JKR's views on transgender issues. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • That wasn't my formulation; "LGBT organizations and others" was. Hippo43 then changed it. I don't doubt one bit that some feminists side with the LGBT organizations, but the article doesn't specify that, so I couldn't add it to the lead. And the fact is that "some feminists" is clear that other feminists feel differently, which is why "some" is there. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
      • "Some feminists" and "some LGBT-activists" are both WP:Weasel words. Fact is, and you can consult the TERF-article to check it, that the vast majority of self-described feminists are not TERFs and are most certainly not on the "side" of Rowling. One of them, BTW, is Emma Watson ("Hermione" in the Harry Potter films). Even in the article about Troubled Blood, about a dozen references criticise her and source why it is a work of transphobia, and only two references defend Rowling (by deriding all the others as "libelous" or "slanderous"), albeit in the article, they are quoted disproportionately detailed.

Rowling called a feminist trans-woman "an ally" and claims "feminism" was not "trans-exclusionary" because it included trans-men - which in practice does exactly what she claims trans-women hurt "female safe-spaces" with: letting quasi-indistinguishable men who have no business there in, and there are ample example of cis-women rejected in women's shelters because they looked more masculine than the "female norm".

One of the women she vehemently defended and still defends had her appeal to her lay-off rejected because "not believing trans-women are women" goes against the norms and customs of a pluralist democracy and is hate-speech.

Another she describes as "brave" and "just believing in the reality of sex" (which, BTW, trans-people of course do also) tweeted that trans-women were "black-face actors" and should "fuck" themselves.

Rowling is an author, and knows how to mince words. The very second you take a broader view, however, you see enough unambiguous reasons in her own articles that make her a TERF.

Someone else brought up Orson Scott Card. Good example. He is considered trans-phobic, which is in his article, unmarred by weasel-words. Card hasn't given nearly as much reason to consider him trans-phobic as Rowling has proven her TERF-ideology again and again and again, even in an article she wrote to defend against being called a TERF. The facts simply leave no other conclusion.

--82.113.106.249 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's obvious that we cannot use the term "TERF" in wikipedia's voice. Rowling's views on trans issues are explained in the relevant section, and it must stay neutral. On the employment case of Maya Forstater, I think it's important to add to the article that her employment case is ongoing, as she has appealed the decision, so the final outcome of this case is not yet decided (also her tweets and views were not deemed hate speech by the judge). I want to point out that claims made about Maya Forstater, including on talk pages, also fall under WP:BLP. 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5741 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Well my updates are being reverted, so while this conversation seems to have died down, might as well bring it up in here.

"Since late 2019, Rowling's transgender-related views have received both criticism and support." is wishy-washy two-sidesing worm words. Like the big orange man said, there were people who "criticized" a woman getting run over at Charlotesville, and others who supported those doing the running over, but that's not how you'd phrase an article when the primary response is critique. "Rowling's outspoken views on transgender rights have received criticism/have become a point of discussion" should be fine, or in the very least you need to actually source who is doing the critiquing and who is doing the supporting, because I'd argue that's petty critical. Buh6173 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

While i personally do prefer your wording, we do not need to provide sources in the lead or names as they are given in the body of the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Criticism and support is neutral, a focus on critique is not. And who is supporting or criticising is not specific either. Lastly, comparing this to Charlottesville displays an agenda driven view. Gabriella MNT (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean...what, would you rather me compare it to Planned Parenthood? Would that make you feel any better? You want to avoid sounding vague or wishy-washy. "Trans-rights groups are mad at her, TERFs and right-wing media are happy with her." Want to phrase that in a less biased way then by all means, but "some like her, some don't" doesn't help anybody. It'd honestly be better just to say "Since 2019 Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender issues" and leave it at that. Buh6173 (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021 (2)

Put

at the top of the article.

Neutrality is very obviously disputed. User:Crossroads very obviously isn't impartial, yet answers edit requests. Joanne K Rowling after "TERF wars" isn't just a TERF, she is the most famous TERF at the moment, weighing in on every TERF debate in defence of blatant TERF hate-speech.

This has been pointed out by multiple people in the talk above, yet still User:Crossroads talks about a "consensus". If there is one, it's that Rowling's latest works and publications are textbook TERF and, like eg Troubled Blood, outright transphobic

For as long as no neutral Admin watches over this site, Neutrality isn't given, and not having a NPOV Template above a clearly unbalanced article, taking a position against the obvious majority of the references cited inside, hurts the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.

If you look at article of other right-wing publicists (eg Carl Benjamin or Milo Yiannopoulos - or even the author Orson Scott Card), labels like "white supremacist", "alt-right" or "homophobia" are not by a long shot as well-documented as Rowling's Trans-exclusionary radical feminism opinions and transphobia - even in her own words!

Should a biased admin/mod reject this request, I ask other people to weigh in and give an opinion poll who is in favour of this minimal common denominator and who is opposed. (BTW, normally, if WP:NPOV is reasoned, there normally is no discussion whether a biased article is tagged, but when it is reworked when the tag may be deleted.)

--2003:C8:471C:7800:F0D5:F10D:92A6:CB05 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 2003:C8:471C:7800:F0D5:F10D:92A6:CB05 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. If you think there are neutrality issues, then the better option (instead of tagging the article) is to attempt to fix them by collaborating with other editors, not accusing fellow editors of bias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads is not an admin or "moderator" and admins do not have authority over content; their only privileges as admins are to enforce existing community consensus or make uncontroversial actions like blocking trolls. These edit requests are answered by any volunteer who wants to. This request has rightly been declined. Your personal opinion is of no use to us without presenting us with high-quality secondary sources. — Bilorv (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It's probably also worth pointing out that due to the above request the OP has shown that they're not neutral in this discussion either, with a very obvious bias against Rowling for this particular topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully I do not think we need to come down like a ton of bricks on the IP just because their request might indicate an opinion, if we are honest most editors have a biases and opinions on things. All we should ask for is clear evidence and neutrality in the article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Aditionally, the IP has a point. J.K. Rowling's behaviour and stance on policy at this point are functionally indistinguishable from trans exclusionary feminism. After all, she is indeed a feminist, and she also seeks to take away certain rights from trans people. (e.g. the right to go to the appropriate bathroom, the right to appropriate treatment.) In other words, she seeks equality for women as long as they don't happen to be trans. In other words, her feminism is indeed trans exclusionary, as opposed to normal feminism, which is pro trans rights and seeks for trans women to have easier and more varied access to gender affirming treatment options, something J.K. Rowling has openly stated she opposes. It is not strange for an IP to point this out. That being said, I am opposed to adding the template, as it seems more productive to make constructive edits to the article and to make clear arguments for why those changes should be made. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment on this, but since the discussion has received a bit of traction, I will note the following:

* I don't think the template itself is helpful, and prefer not to see it inserted;

* There was an RfC in 2019 that found that the abbreviation "TERF" should not generally be used in article space without strict attribution;

* My own observation is that using the abbreviation "TERF" outside of article space generates more heat than light in pretty much all instances;

* There is no general agreement on WP whether the term "trans-exclusionary", or related terms (like "anti-transgender"), strictly require in-text attribution.

On this last point, when I say "there is no general agreement" what I mean is "various editors insist there is policy-based consensus one way or the other, but cannot agree what this supposed consensus is" - it is not a case where editors have found it possible to agree that there is no general agreement, for whatever reason.

As far as the broader question, of whether J K Rowling's position on trans issues - generally understood to be -exclusionary, is due for emphasis in the lede, I have previously stated my position that it is due for inclusion, and my preference that it be referred to with precise rather than vague language. Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Jk doesn't want to take anything away rather shes encouraging caution regarding matters of gender and activism. The kiera bell case proves much of Jk Rowling's concerns as valid . And Instead of just reporting on the controversy Many Wikipedia editors seek to make sure dislike for Rowling is driven in . I'm not going to mention names. They know who they are.

Can't wait for someone to go all monkey when its revealed another actor supports Jk rowling : that actor being Ralph Fiennes. Hpdh4 (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

In your opinion. And while that is your opinion, HPDH4, which you're entitled to hold, you're not entitled to include opinion in the article without citations. As for your last sentence - maybe read WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary editorializing text

The text "Most hostility in women's bathrooms is directed at trans women and lesbians; 200 municipalities that allowed trans people to use women's shelters saw no rise in any violence as a result.[262]" from the section "Transgender people" should be removed. It is editorializing, instead of presenting Rowling's views in a neutral way (neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with them). Furthermore, the 200 municipalities mentioned in the source are in the United States, not in the UK/Scotland where Rowling lives.2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However the consensus at Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling‎ is currently in favour of the current wording. — Czello 19:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, Politics of J. K. Rowling is a different and more detailed article, whereas the section "Transgender people" here is supposed to be a short summary of Rowling's views on trans issues, so it should contain less detail than the other article. I think consensus must be discussed for this main article too, on this talk page, and it may be different than that at the other article. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Also the paragraph in question, regardless of the article where it is added, must be attributed.2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I Strongly disagree The passage is sourced. It is directly about Rowling's claim and factual reality. It is both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a fan page, if any subject claims something erroneous, especially concerning a minority I think we have a duty to balance it with the facts. By presenting her views without also providing the reader with actual directly relevant information from reliable sources on bathroom violence Wikipedia is contributing to 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 factually unsubstantiated. They are not widely held beliefs, a wikipedia should put them in context. 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." ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The contested text follows this paragraph "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.[261]" This quote is not any "exceptional claim" or "fringe theory", and the source given to "rebut" it is a Reuters article, not some scientific meta-analysis, and it also refers to the situation in the US, and it's WP:OR to claim it can be applied to any other country/society. The mere fact that a person is cited in an article as expressing an opinion (which may or may not be factually unsubstantiated) does not mean that a rebuttal for such attributed opinion is necessary. The section already explains that Rowling's essay is controversial and has received criticism. And the quote does not present anything "erroneous, especially concerning a minority" as you say, quite on the contrary the quote states "while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection." Nowhere does the quote imply that trans people themselves are violent (rather it implies risks with allowing "any man" inside). Inserting this new text here is simply uncalled for and out of place. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This section is about her views on transgender people, the factual, directly relevant, and reliably sourced balancing rebuttal specifically refer 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 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 dangerous 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 dangerous 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.

A single nice sentence while publishing baseless false claims regarding Trans people or any other minority is not balance. Regards it being a 'Reuters article, not some scientific meta-analysis' in Wikipedia we seldom use primary sources, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources that report like Reuters the findings of the primary source.

Further to my Context argument above and regards Rowling being in Scotland ... both Rowling and Wikipedia are read internationally, no where does she say that she was just referring to Scotland only. Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC) edited

It is very sad that this page has become a battleground. ThisIsGeraint (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's inaccurate editorializing too, Reauters never said any such thing, it was a claim by an unnamed women's rights group. Should be removed. 90.255.179.206 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)