Talk:J. K. Rowling

Anti-transgender activist in the first sentence

If you do a news search for Rowling, 100% of the results will be about her anti-trans activism. Currently, the top results include J.K. Rowling Misgenders Female Olympian as Boxing Controversy Unfolds in Paris, J.K. Rowling Misgenders Female Boxer Amid Olympics Controversy, J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk Criticize Olympics After Algeria’s Imane Khelif Wins Women’s Boxing Match Amid Gender Controversy: ‘A Misogynist Sporting Establishment’, Olympic boxer Imane Khelif is a woman and has always been a woman (no matter what JK Rowling says).

This has been the situation for over half a decade. She is never in the news for anything other than her anti-trans views. Given this, it's absurd that the first sentence doesn't mention what she is known for today – if we go by reliable sources. Instead, it includes the spurious claim that she is a philanthropist (as far as donations go, she is best known for giving money to anti-trans hate groups).

We should remove "philanthropist" and add anti-transgender activist. Not only has it been her main activity for years; she is literally the world's best known anti-transgender activist. The fact that she was famous before is immaterial; so was Graham Linehan, who we also describe as an anti-transgender activist. There is hardly any difference between them today, both spend their lives on Twitter spouting their anti-trans views all day. Perhaps the only difference is that she also gives money to anti-trans groups, so she is even more of an anti-trans activist than Linehan, if there is any difference between them.

Also, considering that this topic has its own paragraph in the lead – making up about a fourth of the lead excluding the opening paragraph – and is covered in depth in the body of the article as well as a separate article on her political views, it would be normal at this point to summarize it in the opening sentence too. The first sentence is supposed to be a concise summary of what she is known for, and this, today, includes anti-transgender activism much more than it includes any "philanthropy". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Partial agree, many foreign language article pages include lengthy descriptors concerning her 'gender critical' activism, and it has made front-page news multiple times in the UK. Considering this effort seems to be what she has been devoting most of her public capital towards over the past six years, I see no reason to not include it at least within the first paragraph. I support keeping the "philanthropist" label though; she famously lost billionaire status for donating to charities (not limited to Doctors Without Borders and Comic Relief), including setting up her own charity that promotes the welfare of children.[1][2][3]

As per WP:MOS I don't think there is any dispute that it is a key reason she is notable (especially in the Anglophonic world), nor that it is a noteworthy activity upon which she's undertaken. This also fulfils the reliably sourced material criterion and shouldn't be shied away from just because it's controversial. I also support this change to the opening sentence considering the equal due weight given to her status as a philanthropist and her role as a 'gender critical' activist in the rest of the lead. I refrain from using "anti-transgender" since the article also doesn't use that term.

Propose possible change of "J. K. Rowling, is a British author and philanthropist." -> "J. K. Rowling, is a British author, philanthropist, and trans-exclusionary activist."? Not married to this, obviously. Plifal (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely agree with this. I would second the emphasize she is the literal most well known and influential face of transphobia. The representation in the current lede is absolutely insufficient. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The proposal does not establish a reason for this inclusion. Re the first line in the proposal, please see WP:NOTNEWS and notice that searching for recent news sources renders a faulty analysis; consider looking instead at scholar.google.com. Current leading news stories aren't a long-term reflection of the body of sources. Do you have high-quality sources that describe her as an "anti-transgender activist", much less the sources supplied that are of the quality of Huffington Post? Re the second paragraph of the proposal, I can't decipher what "a fourth of the lead" refers to. And finally, the wording in the lead hasn't even been settled, so trying to add something to the first para is premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

RE. scholarly articles, would these suffice? [4][5][6]

Wikipedia is not news, but news is a marker of notability. Nor do we determine these things by Google search results, but again it is a marker of notability. (Cursory results including "JK Rowling trans" and "JK Rowling transgender" yield between double and four times the number of results than "JK Rowling charity", "JK Rowling philanthropy", and "JK Rowling donation"; and this is providing for the most conservative estimation of "transgender" as opposed to the most lenient of "philanthropy"). The news articles quoted are all recent, but you know better than I that to provide a full backlog would be impossible, it's not "just" news now. Besides, if I found myself reducing all those cited by association with the Huffington Post, I would be the first to call myself disingenuous. Based on that objection I would like to ask which part in specific of the WP:NOTNEWS guidelines you take issue with. "Anti-transgender activist" may be unsupported, but a change ought to be made.

Considering the contentiousness of the person and their political views I doubt any full compromise on the lead will ever be reached, I don't consider that a good excuse to discount the proposal. "A fourth of the lead" as I understood it, refers to the final paragraph of the lead which describes Rowling's 'gender critical' activism. The reason for the inclusion of this material is because Rowling is now widely known for her opposition to many of the sought rights of transgender people (most especially women). If @Amanda A. Brant disagrees with any of this interpretation, she is of course free to say so. Given your own length of tenure as an editor here though, I defer to you on matters of policy. Plifal (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

With tens of thousands of scholarly sources about Rowling, no, three aren't convincing.

If "a fourth of the lead" refers to one out of five paragraphs, I'm still confused. On word count, the amount dedicated to transgender rights in the article and in the lead is proportionate to scholarly sources. I'm not seeing the "fourth of the lead" or the article.

Her claim to notability on charity is that there is only one person in the UK who donates more than her -- Elton John -- and her bios give entire chapters to that aspect. Also, whether that should be removed would be more effective as a separate discussion.

In general, the proposal raised here might have more traction if a broad overview of Rowling's entire work described her that way. In that sense, I suggest checking Pugh and Whited (2024); it's been a while since I looked at them so I can't recall with surety, but I don't think they do.

Re your comment below on "political activist", that is likely more workable; her two bios (Smith and Kirk) do go in to that territory (that she used her wealth and fame from Potter to further her views and her philanthropy). Both of those bios were once available at archive.org, but no longer, so I can't help confirm wording, but they definitely went in to how she used her good fortune to further her political views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Those three articles were just a cursory glance at Google Scholar on your recommendation, I advise anyone interested in pursuing the label "anti-trans activist" in the first sentence to continue that work. I would concur with @Vanamonde93 below that the reason she's known for her philanthropy and views on trans rights is because of her work as an author, however my only reservation with the label "political activist" would be that she seems to have a large influence over trans rights discourse in particular. In agreement that more reliable sourcing needs to be found. Plifal (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to revising the wording in principle, but at the moment the proposals above are not a summary of the sources. A lot of the news sources say that Rowling has attracted criticism and controversy; a lot say she has been called a TERF, or equivalent; very few RS actually go beyond reporting soundbytes from the twitterati and actually analyzing Rowling's stances. We're also forgetting that her authorship of HP is the only reason any of the rest is in the news; HP gave her the money that she donates, and HP is why anyone pays attention to her views on twitter. We need better sources to go so far as to call her an anti-trans activist in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given this, perhaps a more general tone of "political activist" would suffice, given that she has made statements on every UK general election and referendum, and given that we already have a page dedicated to her political views. Her engagement in discourse and donations to political causes (with transgender issues being a part--albeit a currently large part of that) is undeniable. Plifal (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I know Smith covered her political activism; I can't recall if Pugh did. If someone can produce wording on her political activism from those bios and broader sources, I could probably be convinced that plain "political activist" might be justifiable, as my recollection of both Kirk and Smith is entire chapters on that. But we need to look at these broader sources and bios first; the reasoning in the proposal above isn't how leads or FAs are written, and we are spending on the talk page of one of history's most successful and prolific authors too much time going over and over one issue in a very broad bio, most often without a thorough analysis of the preponderance of sources and always without first developing the sub-article on her political views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Plifal: I don't see where RS call her an activist, though. That's what I don't understand about a lot of the suggestions calling for rewording. Regardless of what your opinion of Rowling's views is, what has she done about those views besides express them on twitter and making donations? And how do those things make someone an activist? Every twitter user expresses their opinion on the platform; that's what it's for. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Right. I'm not saying this is occurring from Plifal, but we are forced to spend much too much time on this talk page on discussions of opinions that are presented without the level of sourcing required. Discussions here should be source-based ... else they are just WP:ADVOCACY breaching WP:NOTAFORUM, and the extent to which that is occurring is becoming disruptive (again, not saying that general comment applies to Plifal's input). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Plifal, having now re-read the biographical portions of Tison Pugh's book, I can't find anything there that justifies labeling her a "political activist". In contrast to Pugh's more-than-a-page on her "philanthropic endeavors", his paragraph about her political views is basically just a summary that "her political views run strongly to the left", but not positioning her as an activist.

  While re-reading Pugh, I did note that a lot of the recent rapid-fire, non-consensual deletions include well-sourced text, such as her stance on Israel and her use of social media ... a good bit of the content removed from here over the last few months, based on discussions that did not engage sources, needs to be revisited.

  For "political activist", we would need sources, and we might instead add back to the article wording about her active use of social media to promote her political views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sandy, have spent some time yesterday looking through old articles and documentaries, also couldn't find any corroborating evidence to suggest the same. This discussion seems premature, support the re-introduction of material explaining that Rowling uses social media to expound her political views. Many thanks for your dilligency. Plifal (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Plifal, Do you happen to have access to Pugh ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Here's what the article had as the intro to her Views before relatively recent rapid-fire editing; I think we can do better now, based on this conversation, but those are the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sandy, I do not. Plifal (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Pugh has: "Rowling frequently expresses her political views on her Twitter account, with sharp, sardonic, and sometimes snarky responses to political leaders and their pronouncements", but I don't have the other two scholarly sources (that content was developed among four of us). I know the Smith bio covers this territory well, but since archive.org was sued, that book is no longer freely available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, as I concur with @Vanamonde93 that most WP:RS cover her statements in the context of her previous fame as an author, and do not analyse her opinions or describe her as an "activist". The wording of a lead description of her as "anti-trans" or an "activist" or something of the sort is also a serious WP:BLP issue. Her controversial statements are already covered in the article and forked articles.

I suppose a central issue is at what point does voicing your opinions publicly translate into being an activist for something, but in any case we would need sources to label her as such in Wiki-voice.

I am also vehemently against removing the "philantropist" label as there is abundant sourcing for it being true, and we must remember Wikipedia isn't the place for advocacy, or in this case, what I would consider to be sacrificing the factuality of the article to avoid cognitive dissonance

However, as per @Plifal, editors interested in adding the "anti-trans activist" label are welcome to put in the research necessary to do so, with the caveat that, as this is a WP:BLP situation, the bar is set very high for such a contentious label to be added to the very first lines of the article. CVDX (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• "If you do a news search for Foo, 100% of the results will be about ...." is an absolutely terrible' way to decide the first sentence of almost all articles. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, i'm struggling to find any reasonably unbiased sources that explicitly report that she's anti-trans (or an activist on the subject for that matter). They all seem to suggest she "has been accused of being transphobic" (or words to that effect) but the sources cited for that typically seem to be random twitter posts. There are one or two op-eds in high quality publications that call her anti-trans or transphobic, but for the most part they seem to be so biased that they are likely encyclopedically useless.

If there is sufficient (and reliable) mention in the literature of her being an anti-trans activist that I missed, i'm not fully opposed to some sort of wording change to the lead, but innuendo about google results is a terrible basis for changing an article.

Also disagree re: removing philanthropist. You say "as far as donations go, she is best known for giving money to anti-trans hate groups", but do you have the relevant sources or this? There is extensive literature coverage of her charitable donations spanning decades (esp. Lumos, Volant, etc), so this change would require an extremely strong source-derived basis, which doesn't seem to exist at present. TBicks (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• At the very least we ought to remove "philanthropist" per the argument I made on WP:PHILANTHROPIST. It's not one of her primary, or even secondary, or even really one of her tertiary claims to fame; nor is it a defining part of her biography. In fact, glancing down to the related section, I think it probably needs to be retitled and the text edited to use more neutral words like "donations" instead - even most of the sources there, in the section notionally devoted to it, do not actually directly call her a philanthropist as required for a value-laden label; and since the term is non-neutral it needs to be used in the overwhelming majority of sources before we can use it in the article voice, let alone in a section header. A few sources using the term aren't enough; nor is stringing together a bunch of sources on donations and then describing a person using the glowingly positive term "philanthropist" appropriate. Not all donations are philanthropy; using the term implies a particular motivation that has to be overwhelmingly reflected in the sources before we can put it in the article voice ourselves, and applying the term to a person requires overwhelming sourcing that similarly applies it to them as a person. A lot of the other wording in the section is likewise non-neutral in ways that don't actually reflect the sourcing (eg. second-most generous cited to a source that has a much more dry numerical wording.) But at the very least, its presence in the first sentence of the lead is wildly WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The section is not "stringing together a bunch of sources"; please read the scholarly sources which devote considerable length to describing her philanthropy, and which explicitly list all of the individual ventures Rowling started and supports. The other sources/citations have been provided as a benefit to the reader, as Pugh, Smith, Kirk and other scholarly sources aren't always freely accessible. See discussion in a separate section below, as it's a separate matter from her views on transgender rights. The "hate"-based and inaccurate framing of the initial proposal here is outlandish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  On the balance I'm inclined to agree that "philanthropist" shouldn't be in the first sentence. As I get tired of repeating, JKR's notability remains entirely a consequence of her writing; that is the defining feature of her career. Her philanthropy may have gotten some attention in biographical sources, but certainly it's gotten less than her twitter statements, and as I oppose describing her as an activist for that (or any other term that seeks to introduce that material in the first sentence) I must also support trimming "philanthropist". Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Amanda A. Brant. Rowling's in the news seemingly weekly for transphobic hate speech. She isn't in the news for writing novels anywhere near as often. ZoeB (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree per (BBC), (The Guardian) and Post on (X) QalasQalas (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Philanthropy

User:Amanda A. Brant wrote at 20:46, 5 August 2024

"Instead, it includes the spurious claim that she is a philanthropist (as far as donations go, she is best known for giving money to anti-trans hate groups)."

This is an outlandish statement. It reflects not only that the writer has not studied the sources, but an extreme bias in the poster's range of familiarity with the topic and its sources. Please be familiar with the sources before proposing changes which sap community time; we have to repeatedly address biased comments here related to one topic, often in discussions that are based on faulty opinion, advocacy, and are not based on informed use of sources.

1. The most recent, most scholarly, and most comprehensive view of her works that includes a full chapter introduction/bio of Rowling is Tison Pugh's book. Pugh says,

   "While pursuing her extraordinarily successful writing career, Rowling has energetically contributed to a range of philanthropic endeavors, primarily those dedicated to alleviating poverty and deprivation."

   And it continues on the philanthropy description for more than a full page of a 19-page introduction to the book, including that some of her awards are because of her philanthropy rather than her writing.

   "In recognition both of her Harry Potter novels and of her charitable endeavors, Rowling has been honored with prestigious awards and commendations."

   Followed by a paragraph about those awards. At the same time Pugh gives more than a page to her philanthropy, they give one paragraph to her views on transgender rights.
2. Smith's biography of Rowling has an entire chapter on her philanthropy. I can't quote from it because archive.org no longer carries the full text, but you can go to Amazon and use "Look Inside".
3. I can't recall if the Kirk biography has a chapter, but it also discusses philanthropy.
4. Further, she was named to the Order of the Companions of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy.

Besides those main sources, anyone can go to scholar.google or books.google and find numerous scholarly references to Rowling as a philanthropist as well as an author. There are literally scores of them (although you have to sort out the Master's theses per WP:THESIS). Nonetheless, we have Pugh which is the most comprehensive and thorough. (Aside: while re-reading it, I found also that a lot of the spate of rapid-fire recent deletions included content that was well justified by Pugh and so needs to be revisited). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to talk pages; I am wondering how Amanda's "she is best known for giving money to anti-trans hate groups" is not a BLP vio. It sounds defamatory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I wrote WP:PHILANTHROPIST in part so I didn't have to repeat this argument every single time it comes up (because it comes up on the biography of almost anyone wealthy, especially if they are also high-profile and have heavy coverage for almost everything they do.) The issue is that philanthropist is a value-laden label; sources saying that someone has "contributed to philanthropic endeavors" is not the same as labeling them as a philanthropist in the first sentence of the lead, in the same way that coverage saying that someone has made racist remarks would not be sufficient to describe them as a racist as a characterization in the article voice. Even if someone is convicted of a felony, we wouldn't usually describe them as and convicted felon in the lead unless that's how they're generally described in sources discussing them after that. The fact that philanthropist is a positive descriptor doesn't change this - that sort of value-laden characterization, especially in the first sentence of the lead, requires that it be one of the primary ways they're described and introduced in sources, or at the very least in ones that you'd expect to touch on the aspect in question. And the fact remains that the philanthropy section is still largely full of sources that don't use the word philanthorpist, or even philanthropy; if you want to argue for using those comparatively non-neutral words over a more neutral "donations" or the like, you need to argue not just that sources using the word philanthropist to describe the subject as an individual exist, but that that is how their donations are characterized in most sources covering them. I simply don't think that that's the case here. We can pile up sources if you really want, but with the recognition that every significant source that doesn't use philanthropist would count against us using the term, do you actually think it would come in as the majority, or even anywhere close to a majority? More generally, as I wrote in WP:PHILANTHROPIST - if their philanthropy only has coverage because of who they are otherwise, then it likely isn't part of their defining notability and doesn't belong in the first sentence. That's clearly the case here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your point was already made. (And rebutted.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

She was, at one time, notable as a philanthropist. I suspect that has long gone out of date; is she even really still one outside of angiograms activism? There's going to be sources for it, but probably nothing significant recently, because she apparently had more of a philanthopic period. Prove me wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 11:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Her charitable trust is still active and there are multiple sources within the last few years referring to her as a philanthropist. E.g. The Standard and The Scotsman. TBicks (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Eh, the Beira's Place is also kind of part of her anti-trans activism, and the article doesn't use the word philanthropist. Anything that's not about Beira's place from after the Standard article, or is that the most recent? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC "anti-transgender activist" in the lead

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.

There is enough opposition to the addition of the specific label “anti-transgender activist”—especially the word ‘activist’, and especially in the first sentence—that further discussion on this question will not prove productive.
Consensus towards rewording or restructuring the lead to put greater or earlier emphasis on Rowling’s anti-trans demeanour is much less obvious at this point, but that will not be decided under this banner. There is already a new section with that goal below, and I wish editors luck continuing there. Remember: these controversial questions on phrasing and structure are difficult to resolve. Wikipedia has a reputation for spending thousands of words on talk pages to decide on a handful of words in the article; this is not a bad thing. Your ongoing good faith and patience will be both productive and appreciated. — HTGS (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Should "anti-transgender activist" be added to the lead or the first sentence of the lead ? 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as discussed above,[7] there are not sources to support adding this content to the lead nor is there a preponderance of sources or high-quality sources to support adding it to the lead of a Featured article. Those indicating support above have not engaged sources, and support for this controversial and BLP-breaching addition seems to be based on opinion rather than policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  With no prejudice to adding it should sources surface, but I'm fairly certain they won't for now, as we would have become aware of them already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - see above discussion. Innuendo about google results and personal opinions are not sufficient basis for any edit, let alone a lead change on a Featured Article. The lead itself already acknowledges that opinion is divided as to if her statements are transphobic or not. There should be significant source material to apply such a label, and the references provided in the discussion so far haven't come close to reaching the threshold imo. TBicks (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a little premature, Sandy, as we haven't really had substantive evidence introduced supporting this, and an RfC won't stop the drive-by demands...but since we're here, I guess I oppose because I do not see enough support for this in reliable sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 I went ahead because the sourceless opinions continued after multiple requests to use source-based discussions (sample); in general, the trend on this talk page of complaints not backed by sources is disruptive simply on sheer volume. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd say calling her an activist at all is a misnomer, and certainly not of primary importance.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, Rowling isn't known or notable for being an activist. I'm not sure "philanthropist" belongs in the lead sentence either. Nemov (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Abstain, I consider the RfC to be premature, both for the talk page discussion that spawned it and the article/subject issue it's about. There are several WP:RSP green sources that explicitly refer to the subject as anti-transgender, and several more that use phrasing others would consider euphemisms ("gender-critical activist"). Why do we have to wait until a scholarly source to say the exact same thing, especially when most scholarly sources are related to fiction and literature? The anti-transgender/gender-critical activism of the subject is largely online and self-published in nature, of course it's going to mainly be covered by news media. I fear any consensus reached in this RfC is going to be used as a stick to beat editors with. Umdlye (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  We don't have to wait until scholarly sources cover something to include it in the article. But we need heavyweight sourcing if we're to call JKR an anti-trans activist in the first sentence. If you have RS which have directly referred to JKR as an anti-trans activist, please provide them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Would Variety or Entertainment Weekly count? Or CNN? John (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Neither of those publications say anything about her being an activist. Suffice to say those sources alone are, in all likelihood, insufficient for adding a contentious label to a first sentence. TBicks (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Those are more useful than the average source linked here, so thank you, John. I think these are not talking about "activism" at all - and so aren't enough for that label - but they do go so far as to say "anti-trans" in their own voice, which most media sources do not. Whether these are sufficient to change our usage in the body, I will need to mull over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  About to head off for the night, and I still don't feel like this RfC is the appropriate place for it considering it was started with barely anything for the community to gain consensus on, so will reluctantly provide a few off the top of my read pile here for the sake of discussion:

  "...from politicians and prominent anti-transgender voices, including former president Trump and author J.K. Rowling..." - Washington Post

  "Rowling is a prominent gender-critical campaigner and has faced a backlash over comments deemed as “anti-trans” by critics." - Reuters Fact Check team

  "Among its opponents is JK Rowling, author and prominent anti-trans activist." - The Independent

  "The author and anti-trans-rights activist is calling out celebrities she alleges have "used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors." - Entertainment Weekly

  Happy to do a more thorough review later if that is what is really needed, but this topic goes beyond a simple counting of headlines and mentions and I'd hate to see it devolve into a battle about individual sources. Umdlye (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for at least providing sources upon which we can base a discussion; most appreciated (srsly). But two sources that actually refer to her as an anti-trans activist (without getting in their own biases) are insufficient for labeling her as such in the first line of her bio; per TBicks, and as Vanamonde93 says, we'd need some heavy duty evidence that it's commonplace to label her as such if we are to do so in WikiVoice.

  When I searched, I found one source that labeled her that way (Pink News), along with scores of sources that talk about others as anti-trans activists within the same articles where they discuss JKR without using that label on her (samples [8] [9][10] [11]), so in your searches, remember to look for the absence of the label, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for these.

  As people keep asking for more sources:

  Rowling's increasingly extreme hate speech is noted and (often uncritically) published regularly by the UK media. Scholarly articles are harder to source, as the subject matter is only discussed in the context of children's literature or transphobia, the two things Rowling's noteworthy for. Some examples:

  • "...the article analyses some of the transphobic elements of Rowling's essay published on June 10, 2020, originally titled “TERF Wars,” which prompted an online backlash and a subsequent cycle of negative legacy media coverage against trans people." -- K. Rowling and the Echo Chamber of Secrets
  • "How could you think we'd care about what that—woman—wrote about you?": Harry Potter fans' reaction to J. K. Rowling's transphobic tweets
  • "And while fans’ queer reading practices extend to gender nonnormative interpretations, Rowling’s personal, conservative views on sex and gender have recently been made abundantly clear through her repeated and escalating anti-trans commentary, posted between 2017 and 2020 (Jeni, 2017; Rowling, 2019, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d, 2020e, 2020f, 2020g, 2020h, 2020i, 2020j, 2020k)." -- Readings: Harry Potter Fan Fiction, Trans/Queer Reader Response, and J. K. Rowling

  It's more commonly cited in popular culture articles:

  • "Rowling has made her antagonistic position on trans issues clear through tweets, sound bites, actions, and even a 3,600-word blog post. By 2024, her transphobia has become so rampant and constant that it’s difficult to build a completely comprehensive timeline of it." -- J.K. Rowling transphobic? Let’s let her speak for herself.
  • Rowling's transphobia controversy: A complete timeline

  Her transphobia's extensive enough that there are multiple articles merely summarising some of her hate speech over the last few years. It's even the subject of a play, TERF. ZoeB (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  None of those sources mention her being an activist either. The Vox article mentions that she is friends with anti-trans activists, but doesn't label her the same way. We're talking about changing the first sentence of the lead to "anti-trans activist". The bar has got to be that she is not only anti-trans in her views, but is actively engaging in *activism* about it, not just speech. I'm yet to see convincing source material of her "activism".

  Bear in mind, there's already a paragraph of the lead dedicated to her speech on gender issues, which states that many view her speech as transphobic, so it's not like the lead is crying out for a missing label here. TBicks (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Per TBicks, nothing to support the proposed addition.

  "Scholarly articles are harder to source, as the subject matter is only discussed in the context of children's literature or transphobia, the two things Rowling's noteworthy for" is untrue. Rowling's views on transgender rights are dealt with in scholarly articles on fandom, cancel culture, freedom of speech, academic freedom, language and linguistics, marketing, etc. As I said above re another post, this position indicates bias in the poster's range of familiarity with the topic and its sources; if one's focus is only one aspect of one of history's most prolific and successful authors, one's opinions on the overall notable aspects of that author are likely to be similarly skewed.

  I invited those posting cherry-picked source lists (most often of lower-quality sources) to go to scholar.google.com, enter "J. K. Rowling", restrict the search to "Since 2024" and have a look at the pages and pages of recent literature about Rowling for the unbiased view of sources and notable aspects of the author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Being intensely hated by sources with a particular POV is not sufficient to insert contentious value-laden labels into the lead of a BLP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, reliably sourced evidence seems insufficient, but I do believe there may be cause for activist concern and that her activities on this front should be monitored closely. This opinion shouldn't be held against future attempts to change the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plifal (talk • contribs) 01:08, August 8, 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose an unencyclopedic and POV. Bon courage (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It is very clear from her social media that opposing trans rights is one of her main activities and this is well documented in reliable sources over several years This feels like perhaps there's a difference in British vs American subtext on the term activist. In British English it's considered a neutral descriptor synonymous with campaigner or lobbyist, rather than a term with negative connotations. In that sense of being a neutral description is it clearly accurate; if the word activist is the problem then maybe the HuffPost formulation of "outspoken critic of the transgender community" might be more acceptable? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per SandyG and discussion above. Even by the usual standards of discussions of Rowling this seems a particularly pointless RfC, with no attempt to demonstrate that this is the consensus view of the HQ RSs. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, but I do think the phrase we have in the lead at present (Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors.) is weaselly. I suppose, by definition, those who describe her social media outpourings as transphobic become de facto her "critics", but I think this could be better worded. The "critics" include former collaborators like Radcliffe and mainstream media sources like CNN. There's got to be a better way to describe this. John (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  This, I agree with; and it's a point I've made before when we discussed the transgender views section, especially when we have pigeonholed her considerable number of "critics" - including prominent feminist scholars - with the handful of loonies who have delivered threats and insults. The transgender section is a little better than it was, but we did not carry over those changes to the lead paragraph. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I couldn't agree more. Perhaps this doesn't belong in the RfC which already seems doomed to fail, but let's talk in another section about deweaselling this part of the lead. Here's another CNN article meantime. John (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  The new transgender rights section was installed a bit prematurely, and the lead was never synced with the new body; in fact, there is now content in the lead which is not in the body. It would be grand if we could tame the dead-end proposals on this page that don't engage sources, and actually be able to focus on working on those sentences in the lead constructively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Suppport in futility. The fact Wikipedia is so reluctant to label the most famous transphobe of our times as such is, to me, lunacy, but obviously beyond my power and patience to change. Still, I would rather cast some kind of dissenting voice than let this erasure of the reality of JK Rowling go without any opposition whatsoever. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support - JK Rowling describes herself as gender critical. Due to this, I believe there are no contentious label or POV issues with this proposal.--Flounder fillet (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given that she doesn't describe herself as an activist, i'm not sure this is sufficient. Holding gender-critical views doesn't make you an "anti-trans activist". TBicks (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, but almost every tweet being on the subject does. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that simple speech expressing views on twitter can make one an activist. TBicks (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support 100%. It's extremely disappointing to see an article with a lead that is in desperate need of being updated, continually and consistently being denied the tiniest improvement. So many critics have accused her of being transphobic or anti-trans, and she is one of the most high-profile people to campaign against acceptance for trans identities, and in recent years has become known for her outspokenness on transgender issues. But you certainly wouldn't know any of that from reading the lead paragraph, or the 2nd, 3rd or 4th paragraphs in the lead. It's casually mentioned in the 5th paragraph as if it was just trivial information. Just a basic search for the name "J. K. Rowling" brought up these search results on the first page, with many more reporting on her anti-trans rhetoric. She is just as notable for Harry Potter as she is for her hateful anti-trans remarks. It's truly sad to witness the decline in quality of this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per SandyG's explanation and other arguments, but I do agree that the lead needs some work. As stated though, it was on the plan to get it synced to the updated transgender people section. I also suggest allowing the editors with extensive source knowledge more time to work effectively, rather than pressuring them with passive-aggressive remarks. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per
  • WP:BLP
  • WP:V / WP:PROVEIT
  • WP:NPOV / WP:UNDUE
  • WP:CONTENTIOUS

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose-This is clearly not a matter of top importance for Rowling. Celebrities advocate for causes all of the time and it is rarely even mentioned in the lead at all, let alone the first sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree about the relative importance; media interest over Rowling's views on this particular issue have dominated her coverage for a while now in a way that I cannot say I can recall non-political famous figures of her prominence doing in recent years. Time will probably need to tell if the cultural impact as retrospectively would elevate that controversy to top billing, and as of now I could concede might be too hasty for the first sentence, but it is definitely of fundamental interest in the lead for the convenience of most people that look her up in Wikipedia currently CloakedFerret (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with her position on transgender issues being mentioned in the lead, and concur that it has attracted a lot of attention. My objection is to its inclusion in the first sentence or first paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

CloakedFerret, the technical term is "clickbait", and the media takes that bait every time Rowling hits X/Twitter. Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopedia, and we don't have to succumb; we can, do and should rely on better sourcing than every news outlet that garners traffic every time Rowling types. She gets that attention because of her Potter fame, as Vanamonde93 has pointed out several times. But agree with Display name 99-- not worthy of first sentence inclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Her anti-transgender views are not integral to her notability, and she is not an activist. LK (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It has been her main activity, the only reason she is in the news for half a decade. She literally talks about nothing else; even Elon Musk—who is far from an ally of trans people—suggested that she should consider expanding her interests beyond just trans people.[12] I entirely agree with the user who said, above, that the fact Wikipedia is so reluctant to label the most famous transphobe of our times as such is, to me, lunacy. The omission is blatantly political. We can discuss how we should phrase it, but something about her anti-trans views, writings or activities (whether we call it campaigning, activism or something else) belongs in the first sentence, unlike the laughable claim that she is a "philanthropist" for donating money to anti-trans groups like Beira's Place, a woman who was suing Stonewall, LGB Alliance if I'm not mistaken, and other anti-trans activities. The fact that she has donated money to groups she agrees with, especially anti-trans groups, can be mentioned further down. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  In the last 'half decade' JK Rowling has published three best selling crime novels, one of which she one three awards for, and been involved in the television adaptation of the same series. She has also published two works of children's fiction, one of which again she is involved in the adaptation of, as well as a screenplay for a Hollywood film. Her notability continues to be for the fact she is a highly successful writer. The last 'half decade' has also seen her continuing philanthropy noted, with the ongoing work of her charity Lumos, as well as a significant financial donation to save female lawyers and their families from Afghanistan. Twitter activity is not the sum of a person's existence. Daff22 (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately @Amanda A. Brant, you give away your bias (and unfamiliarity with the source material) on Rowling fairly readily.

  Take "the laughable claim that she is a "philanthropist" for donating money to anti-trans groups". There is significant source material for her philanthropy, which includes creating and self-funding a charitable trust (Volant) as well as founding the charity Lumos. She also funded a regenerative neurology clinic at the University Of Edinburgh. If you genuinely think that the word philanthropist is in the first sentence because she "donat[es] money to anti-trans groups", then you should really familiarize yourself with her source material before suggesting edits on her page. TBicks (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per many of the arguments above, in particular WP:BLP, WP:NOT. Daff22 (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support For the reasons outlined above, I think her frequent public expressions of her opinion are more notable than her philanthropy. However, I think "anti-trans" is too controversial; I would suggest "gender-critical activist" or something along those lines. EruFish (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. Her anti-trans comments are notable but I think they have appropriate weight at the end of the lead. JSwift49 23:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose p.o.v. and bias issues, improper and too controversial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonkintorval (talk • contribs) 00:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support for anti-trans activist: I think we should mention this early but this specific wording and this early I'm not attached to. I could easily be convinced to call her a gender-critical activist. (However, I do think that now she's self-identifying as gender-critical and this is a big source of her notability right now we should mention it somewhere in the first paragraph, or at least match the lead with the body). I'm more convinced, however, by WP:PHILANTHROPY/Aquillion that she shouldn't be described as a "philanthropist" in the first sentence. That is definitely not a major source of her notability and even to the extent it gets reported on, she is usually not described as "a philanthropist" in those words. Loki (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per several of the comments above. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - anti-transgender activism is literally all that she has been in the media for, in the last couple of years. Oh - with the exception of her recent attacks on a cis Algerian woman for... *checks notes* looking too manly for Rowling's taste, or something? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per SandyGeorgia, TBicks, and John. Featured articles and BLPs are held to high standards and I don't think these proposals meet that standard. However, I do think that the very quick mention in the lead of her transphobic views doesn't do justice to the amount of criticism she has received for it. I think the lead should be slightly rewritten to discuss it in more depth. 〜 Askarion ✉ 18:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources
References

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

Rowling and Musk named in cyber-bullying case

This is interesting. It probably already merits inclusion in the article. We'll need to keep an eye on how it develops. John (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also here (BBC). As you say, WP:NOTNEWS means there's no hurry to include until more details are available in reliable sources. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that we should wait to see how it develops. It was added to the article, incorrectly stating Rowling was being sued, but I removed it. As of now, a criminal complaint has been made against X, with Rowling mentioned in the narrative of the complaint. As I understand it the whole process may take sometime. Unless Rowling is actually directly charged with something, it is WP:UNDUE for now. Daff22 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So, even though the BBC says it is unlikely that anything will come of this, as happens with this article, everything about JKR is news, and must go in right away ... if history serves, it will be continually added even though it's UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how we can avoid covering this in some form; there's a lot of coverage out already, it's only going to increase in volume, and it can't simply be covered as an example of her views on transgender people - Khelif isn't a transwoman. But the sources used in recent edits aren't good enough, and I don't see how the lawsuit is due weight at the moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we absolutely need to address this issue. She has been named in a lawsuit, which has resulted in an extended period of public silence—something unprecedented for her. The coverage has been extensive, dominating much of the Olympic coverage. Since Khelif is not transgender, it would be inappropriate to include this in the section on her anti-trans views. However, the issue is closely related to those views. The best solution would be to create a separate section immediately following the one on trans people. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus before adding content under discussion. Your conclusion that Rowling's Twitter break is in any way related to the case is pure speculation (and given one her first Tweets on return was doubling down on her previous comments, highly doubtful). A complaint has been made to the police in France. There is no lawsuit, and as of now, Rowling is not being sued, nor has she been charged, nor is she under official investigation. Daff22 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This addition was quite problematic and I agree with Daff2's revert. Amanda A. Brant, this article is BLP and an FA and subject to double contentious topic designations. And the issue was being discussed on talk when you made the unilateral insertion. Listed in this discussion are high-quality sources (BBC and The Guardian), and yet you dropped in highly speculative text, with bare URLs, sourced to lower quality sources. Please take greater care to discuss your edits on talk and gain consensus before making them, and then please edit in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:FAOWN, WP:WIAFA and WP:CTOP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither BBC nor The Guardian—both of which have faced strong criticism for a pattern of transphobic content—are "high quality" in this topic area. The edit was entirely normal editing and reliably sourced. Editors are not required to "gain consensus before making" edits; editing articles is part of the normal editorial process, and the vast majority of edits are not discussed beforehand. The edit was also based on the discussion favoring some coverage of this topic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

When a desired edit is already under discussion, it is convention to reach consensus before editing. Nowhere was it stated all edits require discussion, please don't make false implications. Deliberately adding content before reaching consensus on an ongoing discussion is not 'normal editing'. You may hold a personal opinion on the BBC and the Guardian, but this is not one reflected in Wikipedia guidance. Daff22 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion had stalled a long time ago. A few editors had suggested we should cover this, but there hadn't been much interest in discussing concrete proposals. It was not an "active discussion." Adding something about it in this situation was a constructive edit and entirely normal editing. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I could have viewed it that way had you a) used the higher quality sources, b) formatted the sources instead of dumping bare URLs in to an FA, and c) not furthered undue speculation from one source that didn't add to the narrative and certainly had not been discussed beforehand. Vanamonde93 mentions a cautious addition: I can see one sentence sourced to BBC in the Legal disputes section; the reverted edit was more ADVOCACY than encyclopedic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The formatting of sources has no bearing on whether the material is appropriate. Sources are often formatted after they are added with an automatic tool (refill). The tool didn't respond after I added the sources, which is why I didn't get around to formatting them. Whether you disagree with the edit is not the issue, it was completely reasonable for me to make the edit in the first place. It's important to remember that no single editor has ownership over an article (WP:OWN). We should aim to ensure that the content is well-balanced and not overly reliant on a single, potentially problematic source with a reputation for transphobia. This issue seems to merit more than just one sentence; two or three seems quite appropriate. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The portion of OWN relevant to this page is at WP:FAOWN; please notice the "particular care" part, which is actually good practice on any BLP. This big notice is what you saw before you hit the "Publish" button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

See #Suggestion: Khelif. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

J.K.Rowling and Imane Khelif

I would like to suggest updating the information on Rowling including her reference to this 2024 olymnpic gold medallist woman and Khelif's wish to sue her. TG talk 12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Please look up. #Rowling and Musk named in cyber-bullying case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Khelif

Re this reverted contribution, if there is consensus to add anything (there isn't yet), I suggest adding the following sentence to the Legal disputes section, cited to the BBC, Guardian and Variety, without the UNDUE section heading and without the speculation about deleted tweets:

An investigation was initiated by Paris authorities after Algerian boxer and 2024 Summer Olympics champion Imane Khelif, a cis woman, filed a criminal complaint alleging that Rowling and others had cyberbullied Khelif following her Olympic win.[13][14][15]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

There were several issues with the reverted edit in question, including the fact that it claimed that Rowling had deleted tweets about Khelif despite the cited source explaining that it is not known what tweets were deleted (only the number of tweets) and the fact that the tweets about Khelif are clearly still up on her account.

This seems like a good compromise. It doesn't need its own section (certainly not yet before any action has been taken by the french police) and can reasonably be called a legal dispute. TBicks (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I should add - we should probably wait to see what action is taken by the french police before deciding on this inclusion. If no further action is taken and the case is closed it seems pretty meaningless to include it. TBicks (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also agree. I think it's fine to include now but I'm not too bothered by holding off until the French police do something meaningful with the complaint. Loki (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I like the overall length and lack of a dedicated section. I think—if we include this—it needs to be clearer about what Rowling tweeted. A brief mention of misgendering or calling Khelif a "male" would be enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Aye. That's shamefully misleading as Sandy wrote it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 11:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Not misleading - just lacking context. TBicks (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that's why it's misleading. The context matters here; it's claiming a cis woman was trans and then cyberbullying her over it. That's a much more shocking and strange act than "mere" cyberbullying. But I should say I'm not concerned with intent, just effect. The effect is to mislead. The intent only Sandy knows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the original reverted contribution; none of those sources give the full tweet nor did the content inserted provide context. The Guardian source, however, does contain JKR's original tweet; should someone want to propose improved text, that's how the iterative process of consensus building on talk pages is supposed to work. There's no need to personalize discussion with terms like shameful, while making no concrete proposal for how to improve the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The improvement is in the comments I'm replying to. I don't care about intent; the effect is a shameful minimisation of what she did. Had we used that text, we should be ashamed at how poorly we covered the subject. That's all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Another reminder to focus on content on this article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You are the only one personalising this, Sandy. You wrote a poor summary. Everyone does it sometimes. You have suggestions on how to improve it, and me agreeing that it needs those improvements, because it's terrible as it is. Focus on the writing. A little context, and it's fine. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 14:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverted edit by LokitheLiar

Forgive me, @LokiTheLiar, what is wrong, under the "transgender views" section, with the short but heavily - and I mean extremely heavily cited quotation, taken from the Political views of J. K. Rowling - "Some performers and feminists have supported Rowling and condemned comments against her."

Seriously, with all those citations, and being already mentioned in the relevant article, how is this not relevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, the pretty fundamental phrase. -i.e. a clearly relevant thing to mention - from the other article, "even as she has received support from other feminists", was formerly in this article but now it is strangely eschewed.

Do you think ALL notable reception of Rowling's views are negative? Seriously? Does even the slightest mention of the well-sourced defenses by SOME in the performing arts and feminism, strike you as irrelevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see what is wrong with "Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors" in the lede: it was changed only a few weeks ago with very little comment (if you see above); hardly the consensus you describe. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Every aspect of this situation is heavily cited. But not every aspect is WP:DUE. The point of this article isn't to recapitulate every detail of the political views article. That article exists exactly to avoid this article being swamped with every detail of the situation.

The performers who support her are not the main characters, for one, and we agreed to giving only a gist because if we got into specifics we'd be here all day. The feminists who support her are gender-critical feminists, so their support is unsurprising for one, and also firmly in the minority internationally for two.

Like it or not, most responses to JKR are critical, and increasingly so more recently. Loki (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is it in the other article but not this one? It certainly used to be in this article. And it's more than just GCFs coming to defence, e.g. Eddie Izard, Hirsi Ali, and noted feminists in general like Julie Bindel. Why on Earth would you not see that as due. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

" most responses to JKR are critical"; so not all, right? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW, "even as she has received support from other feminists" is said in the short LEDE of the other article describing all her political views, but there is purge of it mentioned here. That is wholly and entirely uncalled for. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The other article hasn't been updated in a long time, so it probably could also use some updating. The transgender views section of this article was just updated recently.

Also, politely, you don't need to reply to me three times every time. :P Loki (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

" most responses to JKR are critical"; so not all, right? Zilch-nada (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have restored at least the uncontroversial lede which actually effectively summarises the topic more:

"Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights since 2017. Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors."

The other ending to the lede describes little of the discourse surrounding Rowling (which is probably the currently most relevant thing), whereas this very much describes proclamations of support, reactions of LGBT rights orgs, and culture wars, etc. That is most certainly - at least - something to include. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to that revert as much since I admit that edit was WP:BOLD. But some edit like that has consensus over the status quo; see above discussions including the recent RFC for details. Loki (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:False balance. Acting as if her support is equal or as valid as her opposition is just promoting transphobia, but there's a strong effort in this article to "both-sides" the issue, largely by taking defense of her early, much less egregious comments, and acting as if they counteract the opposition to her much more transphobic later positions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 11:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancy in date she first got the idea for Harry Potter?

Under the section Inspiration and mother's death it says:

"In mid-1990, she was on a train delayed by four hours from Manchester to London, when the characters Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger came plainly into her mind."

But then shortly after it says:

"Her mother died of multiple sclerosis on 30 December 1990. At the time, she was writing Harry Potter and had never told her mother about it."

Which is it? Did she conceive Harry Potter in 1990 or in the mid-1990s? Could someone fix this discrepancy? Airgum (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized it meant mid-1990 like middle of the year 1990. I misinterpreted it as mid-1990s like 1994, 1995, or 1996. Airgum (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)