Talk:J. K. Rowling#Summary style tag

As of April 2025, there are a few potential updates that could be made to this page:

1) J. K. Rowling's net worth is now estimated at $1.2B, therefore comments stating that she is not a billionaire due to philanthropy are out of date. Source: https://www.finance-monthly.com/2025/03/j-k-rowlings-net-worth-in-2025-legendary-author-with-a-spell-binding-fortune/

2) In addition to her history of transphobic commentary, J. K. Rowling has now also criticised asexual people on International Asexuality Day: https://qnews.com.au/j-k-rowling-adds-asexuals-to-her-lgbtqia-hit-list/. Luciellaes (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:The first source cited is utter junk. No comment on the second. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have watched for a high quality source re her net worth, and haven't come across one. The Asexuality content would be WP:UNDUE in this article; see WP:NOT (news) and try Politics of J. K. Rowling (where it may also be UNDUE). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Surely having a go at yet another branch of the LGBTQIA+ umbrella (not counting the obvious anti-trans stuff, she's also made more than one attack on bisexual people) classifies as enough of a pattern to include, even if it's just a single sentence? Enough places have talked about it and made the connection themselves, it's not as though it's us making stuff up. --81.106.251.63 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Just because you're 'not making it up', doesn't make it WP:DUE. There is discussion of her comments/stance on transgender rights because there is sustained coverage in secondary sources about that topic and it has become a fairly central part of coverage relating to her. As far as I can tell, she's only ever made one comment on asexuality, and it was largely ignored by RSs. TBicks (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think that there is a pervasive concern that the central JK Rowling page down-plays the extent of her anti-queer activism, in general. I think there is a pretty broad sentiment that the main JK Rowling page should make the extent of her anti-queer activism more apparent. And I'm worried that the GA status of the article has been used as a bit of a lampshade for preserving an increasingly tenuous status quo here. I guess the question becomes how much of a WP:NPOV violation can an article become while maintaining GA status. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The fact that some people don't like the amount of coverage a certain issue has in an article doesn't make this any less WP:UNDUE. We are restricted by coverage in reliable sources. There is a paucity of sources, let alone reliable ones, claiming that she is engaging in activism against asexual or gay people. TBicks (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:There's only one mention of her losing billionaire status due to philanthropy: "By 2012, Forbes concluded she was no longer a billionaire due to her charitable donations and high UK taxes."

:I wouldn't call it out of date, since it's not making a claim about her current financial status. TBicks (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree it's likely that she probably is a billionaire now, but we need a high-quality source that supports that. I haven't had time of late for a deep dive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Best I can tell, she is on neither the 2024 nor the 2025 Forbes billionaire lists. I do find some marginal sources parroting the old information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::There isn't a reliable source for the net worth of any person. It's all speculation. Forbes makes lists like this and even they think it is dubious. 2001:1970:4F67:B800:A8AB:BC70:5005:9B10 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I have now added a new source on her net worth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Continued at #For updating financials and more (eg, legacy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I see we have got in the article, twice (in the lead and in the body) that "Rowling's views have been described as transphobic, which she disputes". Not only does the "have been described as" take us well into WP:WEASEL territory, but the "which she disputes" adds another layer of weaselly wording and also a logical problem of meaning. It sounds like we are suggesting that she disputes that her views have been described that way, but I don't think that's true. I think she disputes that she actually is a transphobe, which is very different. This is dreadful writing. Can we make it a bit better, please? John (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd be fine with a rephrasing, and I'd also be fine with removing the "disputes" part from the lead. We are required by policy (WP:BLPPUBLIC) to include Rowling's denial of the allegation somewhere in the article, but a body mention is sufficient to comply with the policy. Lead space is at a premium, and it is increasingly common for high-quality sources to mention or use the descriptors without mentioning Rowling's rebuttal. This POV shift in the sources should ideally be accompanied by a shift in our article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:The bulk of the reliable sources (at least the non-academic ones) don't outright call her transphobic, they use "weasel words" such as those (probably to avoid being sued). Note that actually calling her transphobic in wikivoice is walking a tightrope for BLP articles, and there has been no consensus for adding this, so the current wording (or a form thereof) seems to be the best we're going to do for now.

:As for her denial, that's fairly simple BLP balance. I'm fine with it being rephrased to solve your syntax issue, but i'm not seeing a good reason for it being removed from the lead. TBicks (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=prev&diff=1292546147]

There's two soures for this, one source from 2020 and the other from 2023 but quoting [https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1269407862234775552 a tweet from 2020] as their reference for her denying being transphobic.

So we have four problems:

1. Is it at all noteworthy that someone objects to a negative characterisation of themself? Especially when tied to the already somewhat wishy-washy phrase "Her views have been called transphobic".
2. Since it's fairly clear that her views (at least as publicly stated) have become more extreme over time, is there a source that isn't from or derivative from comments from 2020?
3. Even if notable and not out of date, does this need summarised in the lead?
4. If all the above, can it be written in a way that isn't terribly written?

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a reason for two discussions of same on this page, one right under the other? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've coalesced the two sections, which I hope is OK, {{u|Adam Cuerden}}. My query was prompted by Adam's edit and your reversion Sandy. What do you think about the substantive issue? John (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think there's a really strong WP:MANDY case here, but also I agree with the case that it's outdated at this point and that her views and actions have evolved significantly since then. Snokalok (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, they clearly have. [https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline This] is an interesting read. John (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::[https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1120299781/jk-rowling-new-book-the-ink-black-heart This] too. John (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I support the removal from the lead, per both WP:DUE and MANDY - we allow space in the body for a fuller explanation of what Rowling sees her position to be, and that is more than sufficient. It is quite rare for us to include denials from an article subject in the lead, when we feature criticism of the views of a public figure. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: In this case, though, the transphobic views she is alleged to hold, have led to a widespread reversal of the adulation she formerly received, and have significantly damaged her reputation. I've lost count of people on social media who previously thought her books were the best thing since sliced bread, read them voraciously, saw all the movies multiple times, purchased all the merchandise, belonged to JKR fan clubs, the whole bit - but now say they always thought her books were rubbish. We can observe that extreme over-reaction (which has the effect of rendering the critics as stupid for ever allowing themselves to be taken in by such "rubbish" in the first place) in all its incomprehensibility, but these people are the ones who either themselves grew up on JKR books, or their kids did with their full blessing and approval. But now it's a vastly different story. I know Wikipedia must stick to published reliable sources, but never doubt the power of social media to create a virulent worldwide hate campaign against the current favourite target. In light of this, I think Rowling's denials of transphobism are equally important as the allegations against her, and deserve equal billing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps it is fairer to distinguish between the subject's views (which only she really knows about) and her statements, which are largely, as you say, on social media, and the reactions, which extend beyond social media and into real life. The there are her reactions to the reactions... these are of course worthy of mention, but I think not in the lead. John (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You frame this as though she messed up someone’s pronouns on accident and was crucified for it, and now her beliefs and whether they qualify as transphobic are this great unknown. And not, you know, her funding and subsequent celebrating the victory of a legal case that had trans women declared to be men and stripped of a wide variety of civil rights and protections, which she compared to the victory of the allies over the Nazis while also having previously denied that trans people were targeted in the Holocaust.

:::::At this point, her denial is UNDUE and MANDY for the lead. It’d be like saying a major klan leader denies being racist in the lead.Snokalok (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The legal case didn't strip civil rights from trans women. It clarified that they never had those rights in the first place under the Equality act. TBicks (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@TBicks this feels not very relevant to whether we should include Rowling's denial in the lead. Debate of what the legal case did is neither here nor there. GraziePrego (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yet it was brought up in the context of a discussion on her denial in the lead. Go figure. TBicks (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, Snokalok was however mentioning it where relevant whereas you were beginning a debate on the substance of the legal outcome, which isn't relevant. Not going to reply more in this bit of the thread as the entire point of my previous comment was to prevent the conversation being derailed into an argument about a legal outcome. GraziePrego (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think discussing it in a relevant way involves accuracy - if we're inaccurately describing the content of sources, it's ceases to be relevant. TBicks (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::We are describing it accurately. One day they had rights, the next day they didn't. "They never should have had those rights" is perhaps the stated justification, but the fact is, they did have them. Snokalok (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I disagree with your interpretation, and we're clearly not going to agree on this, so I will leave this here under the assumption that you're simply maintaining it as a personal opinion rather than hoping to make edits based on it. TBicks (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And yet, the prior day trans women could use the women’s facilities, the day after, they couldn’t. Saying they never should’ve been allowed those rights in the first place doesn’t change that it’s stripping their rights away, it just makes the ruling and subsequently government dictates sound aesthetically a lot more like something a totenkopf would say. “We’re not taking rights away from Jews, we’re simply clarifying that they were never rightfully German to begin with.” Snokalok (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That's a very bizarre Reductio ad Hitlerum and a misrepresentation of my words. TBicks (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No? Maybe you'd like a comparison to the Dred Scott decision then, which technically speaking didn't say that black people were no longer citizens, it said they were never citizens in the first place.

:::::::::The sort of legal technicality you're trying to raise is frankly pretty ridiculous, especially in this context where it doesn't matter at all. Loki (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I mean, you can keep making obviously irrelevant comparisons if you like, but i'm not sure what the purpose is. In neither the case of the Nazis or Dred Scott were the rights of another vulnerable group being considered/protected, so the comparisons obviously don't function.

::::::::::As for your second point, I think accurately describing sources when arguing for lead changes does matter. But hey, that's just one man's opinion. TBicks (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Having read WP:MANDY, it definitely makes sense to remove her denial from the lead. I think her views are very well known to those who have seen what she posts on a regular basis, mentioning the denial is unnecessary here. GraziePrego (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia doesn't work on the assumption that the reader is very familiar with the subject's views, so i'm not sure what relevance that has to this discussion.

:::I think its fair to say that WP:MANDY and WP:BLPPUBLIC have a clear clash here. However, since WP:BLPPUBLIC mandates that we report her denial, the question of whether to include it in the lead is probably less relevant to WP:MANDY and more a question of weight per WP:DUE. TBicks (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think we can satisfy both WP:MANDY and WP:BLPPUBLIC here. Her denial is described multiple times once we get to the section describing her views in more depth, with several sentences and sourcing for her denial. So we're not violating BLPPUBLIC by removing it from the lead. Satisfy MANDY by taking it out of the lead, satisfy BLPPUBLIC by retaining it in the Views section. GraziePrego (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::MANDY is somewhat redundant based on the fact we have to include it per BLPPUBLIC. MANDY doesn't discuss placement of denials, so as I said, its more of a WP:DUE question when it comes to inclusion in the lead. TBicks (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::MANDY is an essay. We are not required to satisfy it. Rather, perhaps we should be taking a step back and seeing if the whole sentence can be rewritten more neutrally and naturally. We have: {{tqb|Her comments have been described as transphobic, which she disputes, and have fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector.}}The key information for a reader is at the wrong end of the sentence. What about:

:::::{{tqb|These comments have led to criticism, whilst fuelling debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and have prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector. }} Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Is it helpful to omit that her views have been described as transphobic? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::From the lead, yes. I know there is a very vocal group of editors adamant that we should say this about Rowling, but this is an encyclopaedic article, and not a news article. If we want to describe Rowling, then what is important is what she unequivocally is and unequivocally has done. It is not immaterial what people think of her, but neither is that due in a tight summary of the subject (which is what the lead is). We do not, for instance, carry the opinions of those who side with her either. Neither do we carry the opinions of others who believe she is wrong but would use other terminology. {{pb}}Next is the question as to why we should be doing this. If we wish to educate people about the author, then we should concentrate on her actual views and not views on her views. By all means spend time on those in main text, where there is more room, but part of the debate that is elicited by Rowling's comments and the reaction to them is over the whole question of safe space for debate. We have none of that (and I don't advocate for it in the article as it is somewhat meta, but anyone professing to be well read on the subject needs to be aware of it). The point is that there are people who say things like:{{tqb|Spot the difference:{{pb}}“JK Rowling is dangerously wrong about sex and gender.{{pb}}JK Rowling hates trans people & denies their right to exist.{{pb}}If you believe the 1st please don’t tweet the 2nd.[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422020917616]}}If the only argument for saying that people have called her a transphobe in the lead is that we have sources that show they did this, then I would question why we don't also say that people called her a witch, or whatever the fundamentalists used to say about her and her books, rather than what we do say: {{tq|There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series.}} It seems we are capable of writing in summary style in a lead on that issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for explaining. I oppose the re-write. This is too weighty a criticism to be folded away. Here, I see summary style as a reason to include, not omit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Between the Robert Galbraith pseudonym on the transphobic mystery books and its obvious allusion to conversion therapy advocate Robert Galbraith Heath, the funding of orgs that seek to strip rights from trans people and the open celebration when there is success stripping rights from trans people, and as the relevance of her early success as a children's author becomes more and more distant from the present, this article's steadfast refusal to shift its focus to what is the increasing substance of her career is really quite frustrating. This article is perpetually stuck in 2011 and has become increasingly non-neutral due to the committed efforts of a small local consensus to block any efforts to bring increased attention to the last several years of her career. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|... and its obvious allusion to ...}} Obvious to you, perhaps. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::And to [https://www.newsweek.com/why-jk-rowling-robert-galbraith-pseudonym-gay-conversion-robert-galbraith-heath-1532341 Newsweek] too. John (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Except Newsweek reports that "A number of people have pointed out on social media the likeness between Rowling's pen name and that of [Heath]". It also reports her denial, and presents no claim that she actually named herself after him. TBicks (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Indeed it does. And indeed she did. A pure coincidence, she says. I suppose nobody but her knows the real truth of the matter. Certainly this would not be something we would include, as interesting as it is. John (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Well, exactly. TBicks (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Why is WP:NEWSWEEK even an option here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Please try to WP:AGF.

::::::::::There's no evidence, nor reliable sources that make the claim she named herself after Heath. TBicks (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Re Galbraith, please keep discussions focused on sources and avoid personal opinions. It would also be helpful to review talk page archives rather than filling talk discussions with unsourced opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I want to highlight this point about the article being perpetually stuck in 2011. JK Rowling is not simply "The Harry Potter author" anymore. I'd argue her public image at this point is not dissimilar to that of Graham Linehan. And yet despite that, this article reads like an absolute puff piece that only mentions her work against trans rights as though it was a minor inconvenience to all that. Snokalok (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

: MANDY is an irrelevant essay in relation to BLP policy; we must represent her position on the accusation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::In the article, absolutely, but in the lead? I'm less convinced by that. MANDY is by no means irrelevant to this discussion; by adding a self-denial, it may end up making the subject look worse, rather than better. Thus BLP comes into play. John (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Again, MANDY is superceded by BLPPUBLIC. We must report her denial. It's frustrating that BLPPUBLIC doesn't touch on location of the denial (i.e. should the denial appear in the same locations as the claim, or merely be mentioned somewhere in the article?). I suspect for the decision of which bits to put in the lead, we should be focusing on WP:WEIGHT. TBicks (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|John}}, because of IRL issues, I haven't had time to contemplate whether it should be in the lead. In what little editing time I have, I am just trying to keep the article somewhat clean for now, because people keep adding UNDUE content and CITEVAR breaches, along with sources that don't meet the requirements for WP:WIAFA. I always like to work on leads last. My hunch is that we have a number of biased sources mis-representing what Rowling's views actually are, so we must include her rebuttal, but I haven't had time to put together the sources on that or form an opinion on whether it belongs in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::To be clear, when I refer to MANDY, it is not because an essay carries policy weight but because an essay explains the application of good writing principles more eloquently and in more detail than I can. In this case, the vast majority of sources do at least agree that Rowling's views have been characterized as transphobic, even if they do not make such a characterization themselves - Rowling's denials are given little, if any, weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Especially considering that saying that her comments "have been described as transphobic" is already, given how little space is even given to the criticism, doing a lot to weaken the criticism. If we include her denial on top of that, we're basically doing literally everything that can be done to rhetorically weaken the accusation. Which feels like a huge POV issue, especially when we have no coherent statement on the other side. If we included the Variety quotte or the Whited quote, at least we wouldn't be giving her the final say on the point, when the sources don't. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 04:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, unlike a lot of previous times we've had this discussion we're starting to get some neutral news sources saying in their own voice she's said transphobic things: [https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1120299781/jk-rowling-new-book-the-ink-black-heart NPR] [https://www.npr.org/2024/08/02/nx-s1-5061280/olympic-womens-boxing-gender-imane-khelif-lin-yuting more than once], [https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2024/11/20/jk-rowling-supported-by-hbo-transgender-rhetoric/76464329007/ USA Today], [https://variety.com/2025/film/news/pedro-pascal-j-k-rowling-loser-anti-trans-1236377297/ Variety], [https://ew.com/jk-rowling-reacts-new-snape-actor-paapa-essiedu-pro-trans-views-11729767 Entertainment Weekly], [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/daniel-radcliffe-responds-jk-rowling-anti-trans-stance-1235887546/ The Hollywood Reporter], [https://www.vox.com/culture/21449215/troubled-blood-review-jk-rowling-transphobia-controversy Vox] [https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/12/19/21029874/jk-rowling-transgender-tweet-terf many] [https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23599799/hogwarts-legacy-review-rowling-trans times], [https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-trans-ruling-analysis-uk/ The Nation], every time I think I'm done I find more. This is not an exhaustive list: I've avoided anything that is at all "opinion" or in which the only mention of Rowling being anti-trans is in the headline, and there's still plenty. Loki (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Look again. For instance, Entertainment Weekly, there, does not call her transphobic. Further, the article is her response to speculation that she would fire someone for holding pro-trans views, and her response is no - she would not do so, even if it were within her gift, because she does not believe in "taking away people’s jobs or livelihoods because they hold legally protected beliefs that differ from mine". This, along with others, such as the Hollywood Reporter, use the term anti-trans, but not transphobic. The difference is semantic in denotation and connotation, and is addressed above. This conflation of ideas is sloppy thinking. {{pb}}As for opinion pieces such as in The Nation, notice the first sentence: {{tq|The UK Supreme Court’s transphobic ruling on the definition of “woman” last week is a defeat for all women}}. That piece is wearing its bias on its sleeve. The role of the supreme court in the UK is to rule on and clarify the law. The ruling cannot be transphobic, as it is a matter of interpretation of the law. Indeed, the ruling was careful to lay out that protections in law do exist for trans people, so if transphobia is defined as an attempt to deny the rights of trans people to exist, then this is clearly not transphobia. And again, we have sloppy thinking by the article author. The piece has a polemic, but if you think an encyclopaedic article has a polemic too, then you need to go read WP:NPOV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::"so if transphobia is defined as an attempt to deny the rights of trans people to exist, then this is clearly not transphobia" this is a ridiculous level of willful ignorance. The entire concept of a transgender woman is someone, not assigned female at birth, wishing to live as a woman and seek acceptance in that identity. It should be obvious to all involved that a ruling specifically ruling that someone assigned male at birth cannot be considered women is hostile in nature to transgender women and therefore transphobic. Pulling an arbitrarily more specific definition of transphobia to weasel out of this fact is not at all reasonable. As far as Entertainment Weekly goes, they say she has faced criticism for her "anti-trans rhetoric". The statement does not necessarily take a stance on whether this criticism is justified, but the idea she has anti-trans rhetoric is worded as factual. To pretend that there is some magical divide between being anti-trans and being transphobic feels, again, unhelpful and weaseling. If this article is to stay in this defanged state I really hope there's a better reason than such transparent attempts to obscure the evident truth. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 08:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No the wilful ignorance is not mine. The supreme court ruling[https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf] is specifically with respect to the interpretation of the act. It states in paragraph 2: {{tqb|It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.}}It does not seek to settle the broader matter for all time. It interprets a term for purposes of that one act. A specific legal definition. As for your other comments, look at the discussion above. We don't have a good definition of transphobic, but if you wish it to be an exact synonym of some other word, then just use the other word. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Denying legal status as a woman is obviously damaging to transgender women. As for an apparent lack of ability to define "transphobia", that's convenient, isn't it? As long as there's no acceptable definition it's practically impossible to prove she can be described as such. Much like the nebulous "comprehensive sources" this discussion can keep circling around the drain forever without getting anywhere. Did anybody try opening a dictionary?

:::::::::Merriam-Webster: discrimination against, aversion to, or fear of transgender people

:::::::::Cambridge: coming from or having a fear or dislike of transgender or non-binary people (= people whose gender does not match the body they were born with):

:::::::::Oxford: A person who is hostile towards, prejudiced against, or (less commonly) fearful of transgender people; a transphobic person.

:::::::::Colins: Transphobia is fear or hatred of transgender people.

:::::::::Wiktionary: Hatred or fear of, or prejudice against, transgender and transsexual people.

:::::::::Wikipedia: Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender or transsexual people, or transness in general.

::::::::It... seems to mean exactly what you'd expect it to? You know, given it's an obvious siblings to words like "racism" and "homophobia", and such? Would we seriously entertain the idea that "we just can't say if she's racist, we just know she's anti-black people"? "The ruling opposes the legal status of gay relationships, but we can't call that homophobic because it doesn't deny the idea gay people do exist". Is this talk page and its body of arguments so inbred on its messy history we have lost common sense? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::So again, the ruling does not deny the legal status of a trans woman as a woman. It specifically says it does not do that. What it does is it defines what the term woman refers to when reading the Equalities Act 2010. That difference may seem like a small one, but it is an important one that is often missed. Law, and perhaps especially the law in the UK, often uses words with restricted and specialised meanings. For instance, the definition of a person may not be quite what you expect, when reading various acts. But the ruling is very clear (and much ignored by people on both sides of the debate) in saying {{tq|It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” }} It doesn’t do that.

:::::::::And generally, to be honest, I’m surprised that anyone writing an encyclopaedia article, hoping to educate readers about J K Rowling, would be expending all this effort just to find some way to label her a transphobe, with a wikilink to Transphobia, defining the term (as you note) thus:

:::::::::{{tqb|Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender or transsexual people, or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence or anger towards people who do not conform to social gender roles. Transphobia is a type of prejudice and discrimination, similar to racism, sexism, or ableism, and it is closely associated with homophobia.}}

:::::::::That is to say, we are not fighting over telling the reader that she holds certain views. If we use this term, with this wikilink, we are saying she is characterised (to some extent) by fear, aversion, hatred, violence or anger towards trans people. And let’s be very clear: she has specifically denied all these representations of her views, with reasoning.

:::::::::Now yes, people have called her a transphobe. Equally, there are seven and a half million pages on the Internet, including thousands of published articles, that call Donald Trump a moron. We don’t, however, choose to write in the lead of his article that many have described him as a moron, although he denies this. We do say specific things about his policies and views, but it is not really leadworthy that a lot of people think he is a blithering idiot.

:::::::::So what about Rowling? It is clear that her gender critical views have kicked off a storm of protest, as well as quite a lot of support. It is clear that she is indomitable in this, and engages in Twitter debate in a manner that is raw and often downright provocative. But in an encyclopaedic article, we don’t need to climb into the bear pit too. Rather, we want to tell a reader about Rowling, which means explaining neutrally and carefully what she is arguing for (this is absent from the lead and not so clear in the article), and about the controversy this has caused.

:::::::::On that first point: Rowling’s views are poorly explained here. For instance, when she said Keir Starmer had misrepresented UK equalities law, [https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-accuses-keir-starmer-of-misrepresenting-equalities-law-on-trans-women-12564477] she was stating her view (elsewhere carefully expanded) that protections in the equality law that applied specifically to women only applied to those who are biologically women. Regardless of what we think of that view, it turns out that she was correct. We can argue that the implication of that is wrong (for instance, it means that women only spaces - where these are not otherwise discriminatory - may be reserved for biological women only - a contrary position to that in Australia, for instance, since the judgement of Tickle vs Giggle). And the British legislature could certainly change the law, but Rowling was correct. Starmer misrepresented UK equalities law.

:::::::::Now if you look at what Rowling is doing and saying, there is a pattern here. She has a position that is seeded in her feminist views. That those views are trans exclusionary is a matter of fact. She sees the rights that were hard won to protect women should apply only to biological women. She does not, in fact, oppose any transgender rights where they do not interface with her exclusionary view on women’s rights. At least, I’ve seen no evidence that she does. Her opposition is to trans women gaining rights that she believes were won by and for biological women. We can criticise the view, but we should recognise it for what it is. We should also explain this to the reader. This is the kind of information that is missing from the article. Why don’t we tell people what Rowling’s real issue is?

:::::::::Now, if this is the issue, then no, she is not characterised by fear, aversion, hatred, violence or anger towards people who do not conform to social gender roles. If there is any fear there (and we’d have issues trying to prove it) it is fear towards men. That she personally sees trans women as men is something we may believe she is profoundly wrong on, but it is not transphobia (as defined above). If we label a philosophical disagreement with pejorative terms to influence or shut down debate, then our arguments are ad hominem, and profoundly illiberal. Note that hate is certainly disruptive, but not all disagreement is hate. And, indeed, hate is a road that runs in two directions.

:::::::::So again, if we are committed to neutral and encyclopaedic coverage of the subject of J K Rowling, then we can do better here, but not if we keep focussing on one particular word.

:::::::::So to sum up: How can we rewrite the whole paragraph in a way that best educates and informs the reader? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::There is no way to rewrite it in a way that best educates and informs the reader than being honest about her transphobic views and influence. To write it any other way is to dishonestly put pillows around her reputation. The statement "That she personally sees trans women as men is something we may believe she is profoundly wrong on, but it is not transphobia" is absolutely insane and the reason nothing will ever happen here. There is absolutely nothing I can say to convince you and others on your side when you think it is not transphobic to call trans women men who are a threat to the rights of "biological women" because we live in two completely different realities. Are we stuck on some misunderstanding of what a trans woman is? The crux of the whole identity is that someone, assigned male at birth, wishes to live as a woman. That it is dehumanizing to be seen as a man. Trans rights is to seek legal and social recognition as their identified gender. For someone to have JK Rowling's views, that trans women are men, that they are a threat to biological womanhood, is in complete opposition to all of that. It is prejudice against trans people. If someone says that trans women should be able to exist, but only as "non-conforming" men who are afforded no inclusion to the rights and social spaces of women, that's not accepting transgender rights in any sense of the word. That is rejecting everything about their identity and the rights they seek. Even your phrasing "towards people who do not conform to social gender roles" is intentionally or not trying to detach the concept of being transgender from an identified gender and merely attach it to gender non-conformity. If you don't shift that definition of what a transgender identity is it becomes a lot harder to say "considering trans women men isn't transphobic" with a straight face.

::::::::::This talk page does not have a sources problem. It has a problem of a fundamental disrespect for transgender identity. If the view here is that you can consider trans women men and oppose them having any of the rights of women and not be transphobic, no amount of evidence and sourcing would ever convince you and others this article is rotten. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::This debate on the definition of transphobia is unhelpful. It's clear that personal opinions are rife here, which is why we only synthesize reliable sources when writing wiki articles. Our own personal definitions/criteria of words and labels are not relevant.

:::::::::::If the claim that she is 'transphobic' is in common and widespread usage within the reliable source material, then it doesn't matter what we each believe the word means, it should be included. However, if she denies being transphobic, we are required to report that too (regardless of MANDY, because BLPPUBLIC mandates it).

:::::::::::As for whether it should be included in the lead, that all comes down to WP:WEIGHT. We need to do a full review of the entire body of reliable literature since her trans views were first reported on, and determine if her denial is given sufficient weight vs the allegation in the collective source material to warrant inclusion in the lead.

:::::::::::That might seem like a lot of work, but it's LONG overdue for this article. All we've had for months/years is people posting a few links to articles here and there to support their views. We need a full view of the bigger picture of the literature.

:::::::::::We keep putting it off and putting it off for the sake of not delaying changes, but eventually we're going to end up with an article so unrecognizable from the broader source material that it needs a complete rewrite; we may actually already be at that point tbh.

:::::::::::Regardless, it's time to stop arguing about things that have no relevance and including our personal opinions/feelings in the discussion. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. TBicks (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq|Even your phrasing ...}} Not my phrasing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As has already been mentioned, "have been described as transphobic" (or words to that effect) is how most of the reliable sources describe the reaction to her speech. Its not weakening the criticism, its accurately synthesizing the source material. TBicks (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::When combined with a statement of her denial, and nothing else, it has the effect of weakening it. A weak statement combimed with a WP:MANDY very much diminishes it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 14:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::MANDY is a disputed essay and typically conflicts with BLP policy (see wp:NOTMANDY). Given the sort of accusation in question the fact that she denies it is absolutely due and likely should be in the lead as well as where the issue is discussed in the body. Remember that a core part of BLP articles is DO NO HARM [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Final_decision]. Allowing the accusation without the rebuttal is a harm. Springee (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That her statements have been described as transphobic is not an accusation and neither is it in dispute by anyone, not even the subject. It is a very well documented fact with enormously strong sources. Increasingly, it is the main thing she is famous for. What she denies is that she is actually a transphobe. WP:MANDY is an insightful essay that describes just this situation. The wording we have just won't do. It is deceptive at best, and potentially makes her look even worse. John (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That's easily solved.

::::::::Simply change "Her comments have been described as transphobic, which she disputes" to "Her comments have been described as transphobic, though she disputes this characterization" or something analogous. That way it doesn't sound like she's denying the veracity of the description rather than the description's existence.

::::::::I will disagree that its the thing she's most famous for. The fact its more recent doesn't mean that she still isn't most famous for writing the most successful book series of all time. If it weren't for the books, nobody would know or care about her speech on trans issues. TBicks (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I agree that the books are and probably always will be her main source of notability, but the trans stuff gets bigger every time we revisit this. It's definitely to the point where I would replace "philanthropist" with "anti-trans activist" in the first sentence. Loki (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Her philanthropy has continued since the label was applied here, and in the intervening years, her philanthropy has not been limited to trans issues (e.g. Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc). An increase in the visibility of her speech on trans issues is not a reason to remove 'philanthropist'. TBicks (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|LokiTheLiar}}, I don't think there is a clear consensus for this removal [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1293272491]. There is an active discussion on other ways to phrase this but your removal is premature. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Looking at the editorial history it used to be clear that the people saying this were specifically critics or trans-rights organizations. That scoping has been removed which could suggest this is a mainstream or consensus view of here comments. I would suggest either going back to earlier text or following BLP and including the denial. Springee (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Right now I count:

::::::::* For removal: John, FFF, Adam Cuerden, Snokalok, Vanamonde93, GraziePrego, Simonm223, LittleLazyLass, me

::::::::* Against removal: TBicks, Jack of Oz, Sirfurboy, SandyGeorgia, Springee

::::::::That's nearly 2-to-1 for. I know consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE but it's not like numbers are irrelevant. The amount of text produced by both sides is much more equal but that's also not how consensus is determined. In fact I sort of feel like what's happening here is an attempt to WP:STONEWALL this change. Loki (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Given the BLP issues associated with the statement, we should err on the side of caution. That suggests leaving the text in. Also, I don't think this is at the level of consensus to remove. If it's a stonewall then open a RfC. Springee (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Not least because some of the suggestions are about replacing with different text. This was definitely premature. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The discussion was only started a few days ago and is still very much active. This is premature.

:::::::::Not only that, but your count ignores the 3rd potential outcome that has been discussed. It should be 'For removal', 'For rephrasing' and 'Status Quo'.

:::::::::I, for example, am for a rewrite. John, from what I can tell, has only expressed a desire to rephrase it. FFF has indicated they would be fine with either removal or a rewrite, and has perhaps expressed a slight preference for removal, though not conclusively. Those mentioned can weight in to correct me if my reading of their posts doesn't line up with their standpoint.

:::::::::The point is, if you're going to vio WP:NOTAVOTE (which you freely admit) by basing an edit on numbers a few days into an active discussion, based on your own count, at least make the poll accurate to the views being expressed and give people a chance to indicate their preferred option. I'm going to do you the courtesy of assuming that your actions were just motivated by frustration and were done in good faith (which is more than can be said for the WP:AGF vio in your post). TBicks (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::And, indeed, active participants in a contentious discussion cannot close and summarise the consensus. So yeah, this needs to go back to status quo ante, and I'd give it a little longer before opening an RfC as several of us are suggesting rewrites, but we haven't yet found the rewrite that could command a consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The rewrite that could command a consensus is deleting the denial from the lead. I admit this is still an active discussion but it's a well-attended one, and the consensus is already clear. An RFC isn't necessary for deleting three words if there is a clear consensus to do so pre-RFC, which there is.

:::::::::::Also: TBicks's suggestion to split the opinions three ways would just make an even bigger consensus for deleting the denial from the lead. I specifically lumped anything other than "delete" together as against deletion to make the point that even doing that it's 2-to-1 for deletion. Loki (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Sometimes a consensus is obvious to all even those who oppose the consensus. This isn't one of those times. The discussion hasn't closed and if all you can claim is 2:1 then it's best to wait and ideally allow someone else to call the play. Springee (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{tq|would just make an even bigger consensus...}} The point is that you do not know what the consensus is because you jumped the gun by re-asserting the challenged edit. As Springee says, there is not an obvious consensus here, and now we are violating WP:BLP, which is a policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Would an RfC be a good idea? I'm thinking a multi-question RfC regarding: 1) {{!xt|which she disputes}} 2) whether "anti-trans activist" should be mentioned in the lead sentence 3) Category:Anti-transgender activist ... What other issues need resolving? Some1 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::An alternative might be too go to BLPN and ask there. Springee (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Some1}}, I wouldn't suggest three RFCs in one -- could get very tricky. I also think BLPN the best place to ask whether we can remove her refutal of charges. Not sure we are ready yet for any RFC, as there is much too much personal opinion ranting on talk compared to real source work, which should ideally happen before an RFC. {{u|WhatamIdoing}} is very good at RFC queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I forgot that a multi-question RfC could get really messy and extremely lengthy, especially with these transgender-related topics. I'll let those who are more invested in this article start the BLPN thread or any RfCs. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::IMO you should consider doing the Category:Anti-transgender activist question separately. The outcome for the cat is strictly binary (either the article is in the cat or it's not), and a short, direct question will suffice, e.g., "Shall we add J. K. Rowling to :Category:Anti-transgender activists?" If you are lucky, people will give you commonsense reasons (e.g., "She is/isn't an actual activist") or policy- or guideline-based reasons (e.g., "I think she does/doesn't rise to the level required by WP:BLPRACIST and WP:OPINIONCAT"), but even if most editors just post bare votes, the RFC will probably reach a conclusion one way or the other.

::::It's possible that an RFC on the cat would give you an implicit answer to #2 (e.g., if the opposition is strong, then there's no point in pursuing that addition; if the support is strong, then an RFC about that addition might be unnecessary). Even if the community's sentiment falls somewhere in the middle, the RFC might also give you some hints about what could be acceptable (e.g., perhaps "is regarded as an anti-trans activist by trans activists and progressive media" would be more acceptable than "is an anti-trans activist").

::::Working backwards to #1, ("which she disputes"), one of the things you need to consider before approaching an RFC is whether you want to re-write the "Her comments have been described as transphobic" part. For example: Just her comments? (I see someone above saying she paid for a lawsuit, which goes beyond "comments", and "comments" sounds like social media, which wouldn't include something like an opinion piece in a newspaper.) And who did this describing? Is this a case of "Mistakes were made/The passive voice was used/Responsibility was shirked"? Are we hiding a minority POV? Or is this a case of everyone agreeing on this, so maybe it should say that she really has published some transphobic stuff"? There's probably more to be considered in that sentence, but once you've considered it (which could include deciding that the current version is fine!), you might drop by Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and ask the regulars for suggestions about how to write a clean question for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for the detailed response, WhatamIdoing. I think your suggestion to rewrite the "Her comments have been described as transphobic" part is a good one--maybe that whole paragraph needs to be re-written in general. (And maybe her views on transgender people should even be elevated to the first paragraph.) As for the category, I guess it might be better to hold off until the lead issue is resolved (or until she makes more headlines in MSM for transgender-related reasons). Some1 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Another big problem is that the lead has deteriorated somewhat over the last year due to piecemeal edits; it needs a rewrite, and what we found in the 2022 FAR was that a premature RFC -- launched without serious source analysis -- hugely constrained our ability to improve the lead, even to the extent of forcing us to work around unsourcable content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::BLPN may be useful for getting further input on the nuances of BLP policy, but given abundant precedent in biographies - including FAs - for including criticisms of the subjects without their associated denials, I suggest it is not a useful exercise. A discussion at BLPN cannot form a binding consensus as to the specific wording here in any case: that is not the noticeboard's purpose. I believe consensus here is clear enough, but the only way to put the matter to bed for at least a little while is an RfC. The more specific and narrowly tailored the question, the more useful the outcome will be - we should very clearly not have an RfC about the entire last lead paragraph, but a question such as "should we include Rowling's denial of alleged transphobia in the lead" with accompanying clarification that the RfC does not affect wording in the body, is likely the way forward. On a related note: it is is poor practice to revert a change that is the result of active discussion on the basis of previous consensus, but to then neglect to participate in the discussion that affirms or changes that previous consensus. {{U|Daff22}} You made such a revert - I would now expect you to participate substantively (ie, not simply citing past consensus) in this discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nothing can form a binding consensus, because the community doesn't actually do "binding consensus". The closest we come is the rare temporary moratorium (usually six months). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would raise a caution regarding {{tq|we should very clearly not have an RfC about the entire last lead paragraph, but a question such as "should we include Rowling's denial of alleged transphobia in the lead" with accompanying clarification that the RfC does not affect wording in the body}}. Although an RfC needs to be focused and specific, particularly where it will be well attended, the danger of being over restrictive is that it will freeze something into the lead that prevents a wider rewrite. If we instead have a workshop phase, it may be that it will appear that a consensus is possible for something that does rewrite the whole last paragraph. I agree that any RfC should have a focused question, but I don't think we know what the question should be yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::My revert was per WP:STATUS QUO, not due to a previous consensus. The discussion is ongoing, no consensus for change has been reached, and an inline tag has been added. My participation, or not, in said discussion is entirely at my own discretion, and does not impact on my actions to restore a BLP article to its status quo whilst that discussion is still ongoing. Daff22 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::STATUSQUO is an essay, does not advocate for reverting back to the status quo, and most importantly is utterly irrelevant in consensus forming discussions. Reverting per that essay and then failing to participate in said discussion is evidence of battleground editing. Whether you choose to engage in that is, of course, up to your discretion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I have removed the text per WP:BLPUNDEL: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Therefore the discussion takes place with this content absent, and then if there is consensus for it to be re-added, then that will be done. GraziePrego (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The use of BLPUNDEL as justification for removing text that multiple editors have said is required to meet BLPPUBLIC appears to be tendentious. There is no way that anyone could suggest including that wording is non compliant with content policies. I suggest you self revert. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::While it's less common to say so, overly promotional BLPs are also WP:BLP violations. So it's not true that {{tq|There is no way that anyone could suggest including that wording is non compliant with content policies}}. I think it's not compliant with content policies, namely WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, and therefore also WP:BLPBALANCE. Loki (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::THANK YOU! Yes, any casual reader who comes onto this BLP would be entirely forgiven for thinking that it hasn't been unpdated since the age when politics was explained to the layman in terms of Deatheaters and Dumbledore's Army; and where people routinely identified each other by their Hogwarts House. Snokalok (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You think it is not neutral to include the subject's denial? Really? This is how the BBC (whose neutrality is enshrined its charter) covered it.[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64729304] The article will be neutral when we allow her to answer the accusation by describing what she actually thinks, which the lead does not currently do. Should I remove the part I think is not neutral, for the same reason? Will you respect that removal on the same grounds? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Okay, now show me how non-UK news covers her; because in the UK Joanne has been known to send lawyers after even insignificant news orgs that describe her actions in any stronger terms than this. [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-trans-people-row-apology-transphobia-the-day-harry-potter-a9635346.html]

:::::::::::Additionally, in regards to the BBC having neutrality enshrined in its charter, that means absolutely nothing. They're a state-run media outlet for a government extensively targeting and vilifying trans people, and have published what are indisputably propaganda pieces in pursuit of that. See We're being pressured into sex by some trans women.

:::::::::::Really, we should be writing her article at this point in the same style that we write Graham Linehan's, their public image is more or less the same, just one has billions of dollars and the other doesn't. Snokalok (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{tq|They're a state-run media outlet for a government ...}} You clearly do not know how the BBC is structured. {{tq|for a government extensively targeting and vilifying trans people}} appears to be ignorant of the policy position of the government in power. Neither of which answer my question: Should I remove the part I think is not neutral, for the same reason? Will you respect that removal on the same grounds? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{tq| You clearly do not know how the BBC is structured}}

:::::::::::::Right, well a quick search says they're a chartered corporation operating under the Secretary of State for Culture/Media/Sport, that broadcasts publicly and subsists on fees set by the state and forcibly collected by the state. That's state media.

:::::::::::::{{tq|appears to be ignorant of the policy position of the government in power}} Sorry, which part is that statement ignorant of - the unilateral banning of trans healthcare in favor of conversion therapy, the declaring of all trans women to be men and the extensive government policies implemented stripping away a wide array of civil rights based on that, or the [https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/prosecutors-publish-updated-deception-sex-guidance criminal guidelines] which say it's rape if a trans person has sex with a cis person without the cis person knowing they're trans...?

:::::::::::::{{tq|Should I remove the part I think is not neutral, for the same reason? Will you respect that removal on the same grounds?}}

:::::::::::::Neutrality is not the main issue at play here, the issue at play here is that her denial is not DUE for the lead. It's perfectly due for the body of the page, but the lead already goes far out of its way to water down a fact that sources overwhelmingly agree upon. That said, in assessing neutrality, I'd argue at this point that putting it in the lead would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. The only way we could include her denial and be neutral about it is if we included all of her actions in contradiction to that denial thereafter, otherwise we'd be giving leadspace and extra WEIGHT to something directly contradicted by the body of the article. Her denial of transphobia is not nearly so notable as it is the money and public support she's thrown at transphobic initiatives. Snokalok (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{tq|well a quick search says...}} Maybe a more measured search is called for. Did you, perhaps, just read the lead of BBC and attempt to paraphrase that? You misparaphrased. The governance of the BBC lies with the BBC Trust, and not the government. Meanwhile the BBC executive are separate from the trust and the government. The licence fee is not collected by the government, and the independence of the BBC executive is the reason given for resisting a change to funding the corporation through general taxation. The licence fee is not forcibly exacted. I choose to pay it, but friends of mine do not. This, and the rest of what you say, is avoiding the question, so for the third time: {{tq|Should I remove the part I think is not neutral, for the same reason? Will you respect that removal on the same grounds?}} Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::You question was already answered. Scroll up one comment. Snokalok (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::This debate on the BBC is pointless. Not only is the BBC editorially independent of the government, but BBC news is so neutral that it even regularly reports on the failings of the BBC as an organization.

::::::::::::::::Regardless, it's not just the BBC that reports her denial; see e.g. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/18/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gender-critical-campaigner The Guardian], [https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/harry-potter-author-jk-rowling-says-she-regrets-not-being-vocal-about-her-views-on-transgender-people-sooner/articleshow/110549072.cms?from=mdr Economic Times], [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-twitter-harry-potter-trans-comments-b2553010.html The Independent], [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jun/08/daniel-radcliffe-jk-rowling-transgender-tweets The Guardian], [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/11/jk-rowling-harry-potter-stars-daniel-radcliffe-transgender/ The Telegraph], [https://www.irishnews.com/news/uk/jk-rowling-from-beloved-childrens-author-to-being-outspoken-on-trans-issues-DHW3LDWL25P2ZNC3HDN3BA5XRU/ Irish News] and plenty of others, which all include her denial. TBicks (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Thank you for that; based on this list, and the careful and thorough discussion that went in to building the lead during the FAR, I for now oppose the removal of her statement of her position from the lead. Were we to rewrite that paragraph of the lead to be more in line with the balance presented in broader sources covering JKR, like for example the [https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcraig/2025/05/30/jk-rowling-is-a-billionaire-again/ May 2025 Forbes article] which touches on the culture wars with a broader perspective, then we might be able to remove that clause, but as the lead is currently written, the denial of the charges should be there as well. I do suggest that editors whose focus is exclusively on limited sections of the article could benefit by reading more broadly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Ah, but if neutrality is not the issue, you contradict yourself. You said it was the issue. But the question remains: should I remove the part I think is not due, for the same reason? Will you respect that removal on the same grounds? (note, I had already expressed an opinion on what is due in the lead). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Sirfurboy My edit is entirely in line with BLPUNDEL. This entire discussion exists because editors have good faith BLP objections to that particular phrase; "which she disputes". Therefore, BLPUNDEL clearly states that anyone wanting to undelete it must obtain consensus to do so. I will therefore not be self-reverting. GraziePrego (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Given that you seem to be the only person who has expressed your particular interpretation of BLPUNDEL usage in this situation (Even FFF, who is for removal, disagreed with your usage), and your deletion has created BLP/WEIGHT issues of its own, i'd recommend a self-revert. TBicks (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od|10}}

That's a dangerous game to play. As far as I recall, the allegations of transphobia in the lead only got consensus for being kept under the qualification that the denial was included for balance. Without the denial, I (and i'm sure others who participated in that discussion) have serious WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE concerns with how it currently stands. Under your logic, I should remove the accusations of transphobia from the lead. TBicks (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:@TBicks, do you have a link to that previous discussion about including allegations of transphobia? Would be good context for the discussion, thanks. Also, it's not my logic, I'm just quoting policy here. Anything can be removed from a BLP if there is a good faith BLP-policy related reason for removing it, and then consensus is required to restore it. My edit to remove the phrase was purely procedural. GraziePrego (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hmm, I can't seem to find the specific discussion I was thinking of (its possible I was remembering and concatenating multiple discussions). You can look at the archives and see that there have been LOTS of discussions on this topic lol.

::Regardless, the BLP and UNDUE concerns are real and good faith, and have been expressed by a number of editors in this discussion already. I think the entire paragraph should be removed until we can find a way to add all the info we want in a way that can command consensus. TBicks (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Either that or remove the word transphobic for the moment and say something like "have been criticized". TBicks (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah ok, thanks for looking- I found the discussion that was had when this was up for FA which might be helpful for everyone to have a look at. Basically a big discussion hashing out the lead line by line, this was back in 2022 though. GraziePrego (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes. Note that the version from that discussion had mention of support for Rowling by some feminists and individuals, and no policy concerns were raised.

::::Yet, since then, the support sentence has been removed (i'm not even sure when or by whom) and now even her own denial is being argued to be UNDUE? Make it make sense. TBicks (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::GraziePrego, I think you were misunderstanding BLPUNDEL here. Since this existed as part of a prior consensus and since BLP supports inclusion of such denials, we need consensus to remove. The typical BLPUNDEL discussion would be about inclusion of something negative about a person or to a lesser extent puffery. In no way is her own statement denying allegations of an alleged wrong a BLP violation. Springee (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think restoring the FA wording would be the best case since it was workshopped and represented a consensus vs a slow attritional fight. Springee (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Springee has it right regarding the contortion of policy used to apply BLPUNDEL and removal of negative material, which that clause is not. Issues like this are how the lead has gotten out of whack over the last year -- someone makes a non-consensual, non-policy-based edit, and other editors let it stand because they don't edit war. BLPUNDEL does not apply here; it's not the removal of negative material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:BLPUNDEL makes no mention of the nature of the material. My edit is entirely in accordance with BLPUNDEL. GraziePrego (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I continue to support removal of the disputed lead content, but I think BLPUNDEL is too far a reach here. We shouldn't use emergency provisions in non-emergencies. There are some good related points in the essay WP:CRYBLP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think this article has severe problems with an attempt to revert to the FA version, ignoring literal years of discussion that changed the consensus. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 14:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The correct way to handle that is start new discussions, present evidence and get a new consensus. It doesn't appear that has happened. Springee (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I strongly oppose any attempt to make a blanket revert to the FAR version. Many changes were discussed: most recently, for instance, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_23#Transgender_views_in_the_lead,_20250506 here]. As an aside, this discussion is a great example of why editors without an axe to grind in this debate stay away from this page: we have a carefully balanced paragraph being excoriated as a biased mess from both sides. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Vanamonde93, I am not sure it is helpful to describe this as a matter of two sides. I oppose what I see as some POV editing, but I am most certainly not on Rowling's side. I subscribe to WP:INSCRUTABLE as an editing philosophy, but I also have (especially in my youth) become very familiar with encyclopaedia articles, having copied out many with extremely close paraphrasing for homework assignments that were invariable marked "see me" in red pen. An encyclopaedia article doesn't take sides either. It tells you about the subject, providing the reader with all necessary information, good and bad, but avoiding value laden judgements. I am firmly of the opinion that an article about Rowling should tell you the good and the bad things she has done, and to allow the reader to understand who she is. Having presented that information, we allow the reader to make their own value judgements. That doesn't make me partisan, and I don't much like the implication otherwise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I have made no insinuations about you, Sirfurboy, or any other specific editor. I am describing a general pattern of participation here solely to advocate for the inclusion of adjectives we would not generally use in Wikipedia's voice, or conversely to advocate for watering down or removing even what criticism is reliably sourceable. That pattern is obvious to anyone who reads this page, and is responsible for neutral editors with subject-matter expertise refusing to touch this subject. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Thanks for clarifying. It is certainly a topic area that seems to bring out a lot of POV editing, but I think we should be calling out the behaviour, and not the discussion. Ultimately we would do a lot better here if people did not seek to put themselves into parties - even though that is human nature I suppose. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks, after around 10,000 words of discussion the offending three words have been removed. I've also discovered WP:MANDY, an unexpected bonus which seems to cover this situation nicely. John (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• :You've misunderstood the removal. They've been removed in a (controversial) attempt to satisfy WP:BLPUNDEL until a consensus on the status of the passage can be reached.
• :If you'd read the discussion, you'd see that WP:MANDY is an essay, which had nothing to do with its removal. TBicks (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::And you should also read WP:NOTMANDY which thoroughly refutes MANDY. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thank you both for raising your concerns with my reading ability. I confirm that I have read the entire discussion, that I know WP:MANDY is an essay, and that I am aware of the existence of WP:NOTMANDY. I am also able to tie my shoelaces and put on my clothes in the morning, at least for the moment. The assertions that the removal of this dreadful language is "controversial" and that NOTMANDY "refutes" MANDY are purely your opinions. These are noted but not shared. John (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::"I am also able to tie my shoelaces and put on my clothes in the morning, at least for the moment."
• ::::Be thankful for those things while they last.
• :::: :'( :'( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

As a way to move forward, what do you think of this paragraph for the lead? It is based on the current version of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people. Feel free to wordsmith and suggest any improvements:

{{tqb|Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical views on transgender people and related civil rights. Her remarks have been labelled as transphobic and anti-trans, resulting in condemnation from various sectors and fuelling debates on freedom of speech. Rowling denies being transphobic, stating that her views on women's rights stem from her experiences of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Her trans-exclusionary views have been described by a scholar as having "permanently changed her relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars, but also with her works themselves."}}

Some1 (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is better than what we have now in terms of balance, but a couple of queries:

:1. Is there a tangible difference between transphobic and anti-trans? Feels like one or the other should suffice if they effectively have the same meaning.

:2. While the quote is fine for inclusion in the body, I think the lead should summarize the literature as a whole rather than individual sources. TBicks (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Honestly, I can't deny that's an improvement.

:I have two quibbles:

:1. Basically the same as TBicks: if we say "transphobic and anti-trans" once we should either say both the second time or only say one each time. Otherwise we make it sound like she only denied being transphobic, not being anti-trans.

:2. We shouldn't say "her gender-critical views" in the first sentence but "her views on women's rights" when she's describing them. They're the same views and that should be clear to the reader. (Also, while the sources are not always that direct about whether her views are anti-trans, they are very rarely primarily described as views about women's rights. Even the most indirect sources are clear that they're something to do with trans people.) Loki (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah that's a good catch. I think just omitting "women's rights" and saying "her views stem from" would work. TBicks (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agree- I think with these changes, this proposed paragraph is a very good solution. GraziePrego (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think this reads better than the current text and generally agree with most of the suggestions. Is is reasonable to summarize the scholar's quote and make it generalized? I suspect that quote is there because it reflects a general view. If it's truly the view of only a single scholar it probably shouldn't be in the lead. Springee (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::These are all very good suggestions, I've updated the paragraph. I do think the last sentence (or some variation of it) should remain--without something tying her views on transgender people to her works/fans/readers, the paragraph (and the lead overall) seems very "incomplete" in a way. Some1 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think the quotes in the last sentence need to go. Ideally, we would put that in Wiki language My issue with the quotes is if we use "quotes" then we need to include attribution and ideally a citation. I feel like any direct quote should have a citation. Hence, keep the message but make it a summary statement. Springee (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with {{tq|keep the message but make it a summary statement}}; how would you rewrite the last sentence? Some1 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This is just a stab at it (with my thoughts in brackets): {{tq|Her views [reducing word count by presuming readers will understand views refers to trans-exclusionary views] impacted her relationship with readers, fans, scholars and colleagues [trying to capture the same scope without being a near direct quote]."}} I like that the language is more compact. That is something I also like about the rewrite in general. The end of the sentence is harder as I'm trying to say "some" the relationship is changed with at least some people in the following groups but presumable not everyone. Alternatively would be to say it negatively impacted her relationship with some readers, fans, etc. Springee (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think Springee's rewrite of the last sentence is good, though fans and readers are largely the same thing, and I don’t remember colleagues being part of the quote. Maybe rework that part to {{tq|impacted her public image, particularly with readers and scholars.}}? Unnamed anon (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I like the phrase "impacted her public image". TBicks (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Can we get a group of three? I think readers is clearly an important group. I'm not convinced that "scholars" are as important a group. Basically, few people outside of other scholars care what they think. I do think the coworkers (the movie cast and crew) matter to some extent. Perhaps just "readers and general public"? There are likely many people in the public who haven't read her books but have responded to her views on this topic. Springee (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I was iffy on including scholars anyways since that's a small group, so I'm fine with removing that. You make good points regarding coworkers, so perhaps {{tq|Her views have impacted her public image, particularly towards readers, colleagues, and the general public. Several Harry Potter properties released since Rowling has expressed her views have received negative press for their association with Rowling, even if she was not directly involved.}}? TBicks also listed a good sentence below, since several Harry Potter works have had controversies even if Rowling was not directly involved (such as the 2023 game Hogwarts Legacy, which is where the last sentence comes from. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{tq|Her views have impacted her public image and relationship with readers, colleagues, and the general public.}}? Some1 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I do like the phrase "public image and relationship with". That sounds good. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I'm not sure about "general public" as we don't have much sourcing on that. TBicks (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Why would we let a lack of sourcing get in the way of a good story? :D Springee (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:“Have been labeled” gives a connotation of hastiness and unfairness via lack of nuanced. “Have been considered” is better Snokalok (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:For what it's worth, the lead has degenerated to the point where there are serious WP:BLP and WP:DUE policy issues now. From the last FA review, the final paragraph has had all balance removed until only the negative implications about Rowling remain; so much so that we now don't even have her denial or expressed view, despite them being commonly reported in reliable sources (see e.g. [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/tom-felton-tonys-harry-potter-broadway-jk-rowling-b2766206.html The Independent] from literally today).

:Given the lack of balance and fairly obvious BLP issues, unless we find a way forward with this rewrite, I shall feel compelled to remove the accusation of transphobia from the lead per WP:BLPUNDEL (changing it to less specific wording) until we can find consensus on a workable paragraph which addresses everyone's concerns. This is the last thing I want to do (i'm generally against any action that doesnt have consensus), but we cannot leave a BLP article in this state for any sustained period of time, and i'd rather have something vague there than an obvious BLP violation. The workshopping of the main hasn't made any progress for days, so it doesn't seem it is going to be sorted any time soon.

:The lead rewording effort was going fairly well for a while there, so I hold out hope we can find something agreeable. I'd suggest we get it done before this action becomes necessary. TBicks (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Placing this comment here, in the middle of the discussion will make it hard to find. If this were not a FA, I would suggest a neutrality banner, or I'd support that removal, but either might be counter productive. How about changing the paragraph for what was workshopped thus far, bearing in mind that this will still need reworking once we have the main fixed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That would work. I'll let everyone weigh in first though. Will see if this is visible enough to get responses, but if not after a day or two, i'll make a new section for it. Seemed relevant to this section though. TBicks (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree there are BLP concerns. "BLP" does not mean "no negative information". The transphobia allegations are widely reported in reliable sources to the point where nearly every recent source at least mentions them.

::Furthermore, WP:BLPPUBLIC says if the person denies allegations that must be in the article somewhere, not specifically in the lead. Where it goes exactly is subject to the same rules of WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE that we'd apply to anything else. Loki (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, that all being said, there's enough consensus over Some1's proposed changes that I feel confident just replacing that paragraph anyway. Loki (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Suggesting that I believe "BLP mean[s] "no negative information" is a mischaracterization of my words. My point was about balance & due weight, not that you can't write anything negative about someone.

::::I agree regarding Some1's version. TBicks (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I think I support Loki's proposal but could we point to/quote the version of Some1's text that has reached the consensus. The nesting in this thread is a mess and I no longer remember which was the latest version. Springee (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Springee}} I believe it was {{tq|Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical views on transgender people and related civil rights. Her remarks have been labelled as transphobic, resulting in condemnation from various sectors and fueling debates on freedom of speech. Rowling denies being transphobic, stating that her views stem from her experiences of domestic abuse and sexual assault. These trans-exclusionary views have influenced her public image, impacted her relationship with readers and colleagues, and altered the way some fans engage with her published works.}} The paragraph Some1 posted and the one Loki put in are nearly exactly the same outside of {{tq|These trans-exclusionary views}} being replaced with {{tq|Her expression of these views}} in the main page. Either start to the sentence works for me. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is why I was asking. I think this version, also by Some1, had more feedback included: {{tq|Since 2020, Rowling has been vocal about her views on transgender people and related civil rights. Her gender-critical remarks have been described as transphobic, resulting in condemnation from various sectors and fuelling debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture. Rowling denies being transphobic, stating that her views stem from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Her expression of these views has impacted her public image and relationship with readers and colleagues, altering the way they engage with her works.}} Based on what I recall/saw below editors felt 2020 was the better start date and wanted "labelled as transphobic" replaced with "described as transphobic" (I think other suggestions were also made). Springee (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The version I added was almost exactly the same as that, including in particular the 2020 date and "described" instead of "labelled".

:::::::I did make two changes back to the version before the latest, though. One is I removed "cancel culture" because the source for that AFAICT is one mention of the term in the Forbes article, which I didn't think was sufficient sourcing. And the other is I moved "gender-critical" back before "views", mostly because I think it flows better and is clearer. The remarks and the views are both gender-critical and sourcably so, but if we make a point of saying her remarks are gender-critical but not her views it invites the reader to wonder what her views could be, or if we're using "gender-critical" as a euphemism or something. Loki (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Re cancel culture, one source was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&oldid=1294856928#For_updating_financials_and_more_(eg,_legacy) coincidentially mentioned on this talk page in a discussion about another issue], but there are scores of easily found scholarly articles about Rowling and cancel culture; it has been a constant theme since the #RIP hashtag. There are many sources in addition to the recent Forbes article -- here's a few samples: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00027642241240337] [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1097198X.2025.2491909] [https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-80071-597-420221021/full/html] [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2046147X231180501] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If cancel culture is in the article body I would prefer it also be in the paragraph in question. It's not a strong preference but I do think cancel culture discussions have been associated with discussions to the reactions to her comments, especially with the recent Hogwarts video game. Still, what we have isn't bad. Springee (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Is there prior discussion that resulted in the inclusion of the "fueling debates on cancel culture and freedom of speech" bit? I mostly think it just bloats the lede. The fact that some sources mention it in the context of reporting on her political actions and views and attendant reactions doesn't seem very important to me given the primary debate she's credited with fueling is overwhelmingly the one about trans people and space is at a premium up top. Thatbox (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The prior discussion that occurred on the talk pages of the 2022 FAR and resulted in consensual text has been obliterated here with piecemeal editing. That particular bit was not in the lead in the version that passed FAR; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1082873609#Transgender_people what was in the body has also changed]. Someone else might research how that bit got changed over time, but tracking it down might be hard as not all recent changes have had consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od|10}}

How about: {{tq|Her views have impacted her public image, relationship with readers and colleagues, and the way some fans experience her published works.}} which is a combination of the sentence above and your (TBicks) suggestion below. Some1 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I like that a lot. Loki (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Honestly, that's perfect. My apologies Some1; I had no idea if your earlier question was either suggesting a small change or questioning the use of "general public". I did think "general public" was a bit too vague, but rolled with it because Springee suggested three groups and I was struggling to think of a third. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::So would that make the total paragraph something like:

:::{{tpb|Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical views on transgender people and related civil rights. Her remarks have been labelled as transphobic, resulting in condemnation from various sectors and fueling debates on freedom of speech. Rowling denies being transphobic, stating that her views on women's rights stem from her experiences of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Her views have impacted her public image, relationship with readers and colleagues, and the way some fans experience her published works.}}

::Springee (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I believe some editors have suggested omitting the words {{tq|on women's rights}} per Loki's point #2 above, which I agree with. Non-content nitpick, but the repetition of "her views" (3rd sentence) and "Her views" (4th sentence) could be improved in some way... Maybe: {{tqb|Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical views on transgender people and related civil rights. Her remarks have been labelled as transphobic, resulting in condemnation from various sectors and fueling debates on freedom of speech. Rowling denies being transphobic, stating that her views stem from her experiences of domestic abuse and sexual assault. These trans-exclusionary views have influenced her public image, impacted her relationship with readers and colleagues, and altered the way some fans engage with her published works.}}? Some1 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah that sounds good. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od|8}}

Maybe something analogous to {{tq | "Her views have divided her fanbase and, for some, have impacted their experience with her published works.}} or do you think it needs to be explicit about changing their relationship with her as an individual? TBicks (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not a huge fan of using Rowling's statement from, what is it, 2020, 2021? - to state she denies being anti-trans, when she's recently, as far as I can tell, has embraced being seen as anti-trans, e.g. the recent legal fund she made. I don't think there's much evidence that even Rowling would want that defense of her brought up now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 03:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think you would need to find new sourcing to support that her view of her statements has changed. Springee (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::For what it's worth, the wording we're currently running with is "transphobic", not "anti-trans", and from what I have seen, there is no reliable source that has claimed she identifies that way.

::We do, however, have sources stating that she denies it (even as recently as a month or so ago in [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/18/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gender-critical-campaigner The Guardian]).

::Given that her position on the denial seemingly hasn't changed, i'm not sure we'd even expect a more recent source than her original statement? The date therefore doesn't seem to be a disqualifying factor. TBicks (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Here's a version without the "deny" language:

::{{tqb|Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical views on transgender people and related civil rights. Her remarks have been labelled as transphobic, resulting in condemnation from various sectors and fuelling debates on freedom of speech. Her trans-exclusionary views, which stem from her experiences of domestic abuse and sexual assault, have been described as having "permanently changed her relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars, but also with her works themselves."}} (Yes, that last sentence still needs to be reworked to avoid the quote.) Some1 (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd keep the denial language since reliable sources continue to include it. It's starting to sound contorted when we weasel word around the denial. TBicks (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I also think the denial needs to be included. I liked the earlier, "Rowling denies being transphobic, stating that her views on women's rights stem from her experiences of domestic abuse and sexual assault." as it flows reasonably well. Springee (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Some1}} I am just catching up; is this the latest proposal and can I skip over earlier? I dislike having a direct quote in the lead (or anywhere) without attribution. Can we either attribute, or water it down to where it's not a direct quote so doesn't need attribution? I disagree with using the term "trans-exclusionary" and am not sure from whence it comes. And I'm not sure about using 2017 in the lead any longer (have a look at the Forbes article below for a better framing of the timing ... I think most peg it to about 2020, although in the past we did find one article referring to her first comment in 2017, but I don't think that date lead-worthy and it feels overly specific for the lead considering one 2017 minor comment we found somewhere along the way). Other than those small items, great start and thanks for getting the ball rolling the right way (concrete proposal instead of talk page ranting)! This fixes many of the issues that have crept in with piecemeal non-consensual changes. Separately, cancel culture should come back after we fix the body (see Forbes article and others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::So again, and we have been here before - but it has probably been swamped in the discussion - she does not deny being trans exclusionary. She has embraced that term. She does, however, deny being transphobic, and continues to do so, and that is a matter of philosophy. This rewrite is better, but what it is based on in the main could also be clearer. I'll say more when I have some time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The nesting above got messed up so I'm posting {{u|Some1}}'s suggestion again as I think it was the last full suggestion:

{{tqb|Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical views on transgender people and related civil rights. Her remarks have been labelled as transphobic, resulting in condemnation from various sectors and fueling debates on freedom of speech. Rowling denies being transphobic, stating that her views stem from her experiences of domestic abuse and sexual assault. These trans-exclusionary views have influenced her public image, impacted her relationship with readers and colleagues, and altered the way some fans engage with her published works.}} (Some1's suggestion posted 12:43, 3 June 2025) Springee (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think maybe take "on transgender people and related civil rights" out of the first sentence. 'Gender-critical views' kinda implies those anyway. Otherwise I like this wording. TBicks (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would support that. Given the reduced length of the first sentence could the first and second sentences be combined? Springee (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have a mild preference for saying "These view have influenced..." vs "These trans-exclusionary views" as it's extra words and "which" views should be clear from the preceding sentences. This isn't a strong preference. SandyGreorgia has questioned the 2017 date so I think that should still be resolved. Springee (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm fine with that change. I'd argue for "Her expression of these views" though, since I think there's stronger sourcing in terms of reactions to her comments on the topic as opposed to the simple fact she holds the views. TBicks (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{tqb|Since 2020, Rowling has been vocal about her views on transgender people and related civil rights. Her gender-critical remarks have been described as transphobic, resulting in condemnation from various sectors and fuelling debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture. Rowling denies being transphobic, stating that her views stem from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Her expression of these views has impacted her public image and relationship with readers and colleagues, altering the way they engage with her works.}}? Tweaked it a bit per some feedback above and per SandyGeorgia's feedback (2017->2020 but could also be reworded, and added cancel culture, both per the [https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcraig/2025/05/30/jk-rowling-is-a-billionaire-again/ Forbes article Sandy mentioned]). Feel free to propose your own wording! Some1 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think "labelled" is quite right though. "Regarded"? "Described"? Per NPOV I'd prefer a more neutral term. John (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Updated to "described" as suggested Some1 (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I still think "Her expression of these views" is a better start for the final sentence (see reasoning above). TBicks (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Updated Some1 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, though it should now be "has impacted" since 'expression' is singular. TBicks (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::And "and has altered" TBicks (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks, I had missed that. Updated x2 Some1 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I like where this has ended up. I think it hits the top points without violating IMPARTIAL. The denial isn't so in your face and reads like a natural part of the sentence. So only 45 paragraphs to go :D Springee (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I agree, the paragraph we've worked on here is very good. I also agree with switching 2017 to 2020, as that is when Rowling's views became well-known instead of obscure. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I oppose this proposal. I agree we need the lead to cover what Rowling's views are, but we should do so based on how reliable sources describe them (I am sounding like a broken record at this point), not give extensive space to Rowling's self-descriptions. FWIW "published" is misleading - the impacts have been described on all forms of media - and "some" in "some fans" is unnecessary given the proposal says "readers" and "colleagues" without woolly qualification. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::How would you rewrite the paragraph? Or do you think the current version on the article right now is fine as is? Some1 (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Opposing the current form is fine, but could you give us an example of wording that you would be happy with? TBicks (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::At this moment, no. I lack the time, and I more importantly I am not operating under the assumption that a change must be made - we are getting close to the Politician's syllogism at various points in this discussion. The current wording does a creditable job of summarizing dreadfully messy source material, and I see the proposal as worsening the current text, so I oppose it. If I were held at gunpoint today and told to revise the paragraph with no opportunity to review sources, I would not use Rowling's words in the lead at all. I would insert a summary of the third paragraph of the transgender views section, and also use the quotes from Whited and Variety; while quotes are not ideal, in an arena such as this where the summarizing is a matter of contention it is often correct to leave the summarizing to the sources which do so. But again, I have not reviewed sources recently beyond the ones already discussed, and I lack the bandwidth to do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The current version violates a BLP content policy since the denial was removed without consensus; but unfortunate as that may be, that only means something must be done, not that something must be done right now. My view is we fix the main first. It is the main, not the lead, that must follow carefully what reliable sources say (with due care in source evaluation, and with due regard to the nature of the sources we have available). Where there is consensus on improvements to the main text, a new paragraph should then summarise the main text. It does not supplant, and so as long as the main text is right, we need not worry, in the lead, about summarising source material. We will be summarising the consensus summary of the source material.{{pb}}The problem we find ourselves in is that we have jumped the gun, and changes were made without consensus. I would therefore support either a reversion to the status quo ante bellum, or else the above workshopped lead as a stop gap, on the understanding that either is temporary. I will accept and not edit war the current version for the same reason, but it is sub optimal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm confused by these two statements from your last two replies:

::::{{tqb|I agree we need the lead to cover what Rowling's views are}}

::::{{tqb|I am not operating under the assumption that a change must be made}}

::::Given that the lead currently does not cover what her views are, the second statement does not logically follow to me. Can you explain what you mean by these, in a way where both make sense? TBicks (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::BLP does not mandate inclusion of denial at every point that criticism is introduced. We have numerous BLPs, including FAs, wherein criticism of the subject is present in the lead without rebuttals. The supposed lack of consensus isn't relevant to the application of BLP. {{pb}} TBicks, if you read my comments in context, the meaning is entirely clear. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|BLP does not mandate inclusion of denial at every point that criticism is introduced.}} I don't mean to suggest that you, an editor I greatly respect, might be wikilawyering, but... the lead is a short summary of an article. It is also the only part that a great number - probably a signifcant majority - of readers will read. BLP mandates that we include the denial for a good reason. Per NOTMANDY, it is not the case that anyone will assume the denial, and if we don't put the denial in the lead, most readers will not see it. They will only see the accusation, without the denial. To note that BLP doesn't specifically say the denial should be as prominent and available as the accusation, and therefore can be tucked away far down in the body of the article does look like wikilawyering, sorry. That might be okay for journalists and newspaper articles, but it is not good enough here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That is your interpretation of the policy, which is clearly not shared by a large portion of the community here or elsewhere. If you truly believe it is a clear-cut BLP violation I invite you to raise the matter at AE, where a BLP violation in a CTOP would be grounds to ban an editor from this topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|That is your interpretation of the policy, which is clearly not shared by a large portion of the community here or elsewhere.}}

::::::::Except you're the only person thusfar who has argued against the rewrite outright. Even editors such as John and Loki, who were against the previous wording of her denial, have constructively engaged with the rewrite and don't seem to share your concerns (or at least, haven't expressed them). TBicks (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::For what it's worth I maintain we don't need to include the denial in the lead. I just think the rewrite is enough better overall that I'm willing to give on it. Loki (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I am kind of with Loki here. Unlike Vanamonde93 I don't believe any part of this article accurately represents the present state of best sources.

::::::::::I do think her denial is very WP:MANDY but find it hard to care much about that. If we can have the article summarize that her views are received by many scholars as being transphobic then I don't really have a problem with the article saying she denies it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I think the new wording is less of a MANDY issue, given that its no longer just a flat "she denies this", its an explanation for the basis of her views. TBicks (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::One thing I like about the most recent draft is that it makes it clear that is her description of why she holds trans exclusionary views rather than suggesting that it is a natural progression from her history with domestic violence. That is something that absolutely must be attributed so it's good to see it is. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{re|Simonm223}} You've stated at length elsewhere that this article doesn't go far enough in labelling Rowling's views transphobic. This proposal gives no greater heft to that view - I'm very confused as to how it addresses your concerns, or those of {{U|LokiTheLiar}}, for that matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::The majority of the sources don't actually label her transphobic; they say things analogous to "she has been called transphobic". TBicks (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

So, to compare, this is the status quo:

{{tq2|Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. Her comments have been described as transphobic, have fuelled debates on freedom of speech, and have prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector.}}

and here's the proposed change:

{{tq2|Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her gender-critical views on transgender people and related civil rights. Her remarks have been labelled as transphobic, resulting in condemnation from various sectors and fuelling debates on freedom of speech. Rowling denies being transphobic, stating that her views stem from her experiences of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Her trans-exclusionary views have been described as having "permanently changed her relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars, but also with her works themselves."

}}

IMO this is much clearer about what's been going on with her lately than the current version. In the status-quo version it's not even clear that she actually doesn't like trans people. Especially the presence of the last line is a massive improvement by itself. Loki (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Which is absolutely fine. We have different interpretations of BLP policy and we're compromising on the wording to allow for progress. For the record, I appreciate that, as compromise is not something that has been plentiful on this talk page for a while, so thank you. TBicks (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I've never opened a matter at AE before and I don't intend to start now. I am not sure I have even ever commented at one. I am not out to get anyone banned, and we will not find a consensus by turning the article into a battleground. I have said what I think of that edit, and will not repeat it. If the editor won't self revert, I have said I will not take the matter further. The wording is only temporary, although clearly sub optimal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've read them in context and don't understand, which is why i'm asking for clarification. TBicks (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Given that this is the lead and this is the first time these accusations are made in the article I think some level of response is warranted here. I think in the past the article noted people who supported her views. That, in my view, negated the need for a denial in the lead. Since the statements of story are gone, her denial should remain. This is a BLP and we should err on the side of do no harm/caution. Springee (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The general statement will be in the article body whatever gets changed here, but I think that, given there's debate as to whether her denial belongs in the lead in the first place, expanding her denial to give more weight to it - a whole sentence - is quite far out of any consensus. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Although the above suggestions on rewriting the paragraph are okay, I think much of the problem here is that our main text is itself both choppy and insufficient. Looking at what we have, we say in the main:{{tqb|she opposes many proposed laws that would make it simpler for transgender people to transition}}

This has three sources, but source-text integrity is not what it should be. What she particularly opposed, according to the quoted sources, is gender self recognition (and the associated identity politics). She opposed (Reuters source) the Scottish Gender self recognition law that would allow people to change their birth certificates without having received a medical diagnosis.{{pb}}She didn’t oppose this because of being a survivor of domestic abuse, but rather, she gave that as her reason for speaking out on the issue. The opposition itself was philosophical. Her concern was that if someone can self recognise as female and then, protected by equalities law, could access female only spaces, then safe spaces reserved for women under equalities law would be effectively open to any male who chose to self identify as female.{{pb}}I will note that there are good reasons to disagree with this view - but this is not the place to have that debate. What we need to do is to establish clearly Rowling’s position. The view can justly be called “trans exclusionary” because her argument is that people can identify as what they like, but that this should not allow them access to female only spaces. All three of the quoted sources make this point.{{pb}}Rowling’s view is that sex is a matter of biology and not identity. She specifically says that women should not be required to conform to ideas of feminity and gender roles (not necessarily in those sources, but elsewhere), and the corollary of that position is that sex is real and not over-ridden by a desire to adopt feminine gender roles. I am not quite clear as to how she deals with the edge cases, and again, there are counter arguments that have been made here, but fundamentally it is her view that biological sex is real that is the issue.{{tqb|Her views are often described as transphobic or anti-trans}}But why are we fixated on the transphobia term, when the trans exclusionary one is absent? She has owned the trans exclusionary label, speaking of TERF wars (need a source, but there must be plenty. It is certainly in her own writing). She has denied the transphobia term (which is polemical and perjorative. We might add why she opposes that term, as we see in the BBC, Guardian and other articles cited above. Those sources spend time explaining why she does not see this viewpoint as transphobic.){{tqb|Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she made gender-critical statements, which some considered "anti-trans”.}}But Forstater was actually making the same argument, and the case showed it was protected free speech and not hate speech, and that she had been discriminated against when her employment was terminated. We seem to neglect to mention that. {{tqb|Rowling believes that making it simpler for transgender people to transition could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections or women.}}This is again a mistatement of the sources. These are the same three sources as above, and so what Rowling was saying was that it was her belief that gender self recognition, without a medical diagnosis, but then protected by law, would give men access to female only spaces, eroding legal protections for women. (Again, one may criticise the argument, but that is her argument, and should be correctly described). We have the opposition to gender self recognition in the next sentence, but these are the same thing. If we described the argument properly, we wouldn’t need the “on social media she…” part, as we would have already covered that.{{tqb}}I could propose a rewrite, but bfore I spend any more time doing so, are we on the same page on this? If we can get the main text fixed, the lead may come to look quite different. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not as familiar with the background here but I do support the idea of clearly explaining the details of her views. A clear, neutral explanation should not be viewed as any sort of endorsement. Springee (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:This analysis summarizes well the gist of what is missing and has been systematically minimized, both in the body and the lead -- what JKR's views actually are, in attempts to reduce them to being something against trans people. Advocacy for safety and laws to protect females from abuse isn't the same as being anti-trans (and our section heading is still wrong; her views are not at all about "transgender people", they are about laws and women's rights. Transgender rights would be a better section heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sandy, I agree with much of what you have said. The problem and the controversy arise from the contention by the subject that "allowing" minorities (trans women) to gain rights and protections that most of us would take for granted, is a threat to the majority (cis women), in the absence of any evidence to that effect. Imagine we were in the 1950s, or even 1980s South Africa, and someone decent and reasonable like yourself was to say, as indeed they did, {{tq|Advocacy for safety and laws to protect whites from abuse isn't the same as being anti-black}}. It sounds reasonable, doesn't it, but it is actually a deeply reactionary position. As careful as we must be to protect the rights of the subject, we should also reflect the prevalent opinion that her views are at the centre of the (in my view shameful) anti-trans backlash and the idea that this tiny minority, who suffer abuse and discrimination every day of their lives, should be punished for being who they are, and deprived of the rights and protections that they need. We need careful attention to sources and to write in a reasonable and measured way, but we also must avoid false balance. It's tricky but I do share your optimism that it can be done. John (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|John}} ... I understand, and also think it can be done; we just need for a talk page environment conducive to rolling up the sleeves and doing the work. The talk page environment has been problematic for about a year, which is why I am wondering if we would have better success working under a FAR; the last time we did it that way, it was clear that collaboration was key, and misbehaving wouldn't get anyone anywhere ... so the misbehaving stopped when folks realized they were better off being part of the work than fighting it. I'm not getting much feedback on the Forbes article, which I think works in the trans issues in the same balanced way that Pugh did ... it shows the difference in looking at JKR in a broad overview, versus looking only at sources that examine one perspective, one issue, leaving out the rest of the picture. Thoughts ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::She's not advocating for women's safety, she's accusing trans people of being unsafe to women. I oppose any and all attempts to frame her as a woman's advocate when her advocacy is 100% and solely to advocate for women's "right" to exclude trans people, and to deny trans people basic services - even deny them the right to use any toilet facilities at all, for example.

::We don't frame someone who wants to add lead to paint as a consumer's rights advocate for the right to buy the paint they want. We don't frame Israel's attack on Gaza as solely an attempt to protect Jewish settlers. We don't frame anti-immigrant parties as trying to protect local workers.

::WE DO NOT BUY INTO THE PROPAGANDA. While useful to know SandyGeorgia is coming at this from the perspective of herself being gender-critical ("Advocacy for safety and laws to protect females from abuse isn't the same as being anti-trans" cannot be read as anything but a dog-whistle: Stating that trans people should be excluded from basic protections to protect females from abuse only logically works if you think trans people are predators.), that just makes her views on the subject not worthy of consideration. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We're here to synthesize the reliable academic and grey literature, not conform the article to our own opinions. There is no sourcing for her wanting to "deny [trans people] the right to use any toilet facilities at all". TBicks (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|that just makes her views on the subject not worthy of consideration.}} Whether you are talking about an editor or the page subject, that comment has no place anywhere. The whole point of an encyclopaedia article is to educate the reader. If you want a polemic, go write an op-ed. Don't try shutting down debate by pigeon holing people. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::More to the point, the majority of people (Adam included) seem to have personal biases in this area that they are bringing to the table, so "X person's views on this subjects aren't worthy of consideration" would make most of the editors on this page unable to contribute, which wouldn't help anyone.

::::I think its time to start thinking about this from a neutral encyclopedic perspective on all sides. It shouldn't matter what you think is propaganda or what you think her views are... We synthesize the reliable sources, and only the reliable sources, regardless of what they say and whether we agree with it. TBicks (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I just think it'd be nice to see a shred of awareness or sympathy we're dealing with a sensitive topic. No, we're not here to insert opinions and ignore the sources. But yes, it is in fact relevant to pause and ask if one of the most prominent sources of information on JK Rowling on the internet pushes harmful framings of a vulnerable minority. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Claiming that other editors do not feel awareness or empathy for this topic, or that their opinions aren't worthy of consideration isn't helpful.

::::::It is possible to like/dislike or agree/disagree with what she says, while reporting on it encyclopedically and unemotionally. It's a BLP, so we have a greater responsibility than most articles to be neutral here. The fact that we have to relay her viewpoint doesn't mean that we have to state its true in wikivoice, but we do have to relay it nonetheless. TBicks (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Transgender people, despite attempts to the contrary, are still living people. We can't protect Rowling by smearing an entire class of people. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 11:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Simply reporting her views isn't "smearing an entire class of people". We're not claiming they have any validity, we are simply stating that they are her views. TBicks (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Please review wp:NOTCENSORED. Accusations of being a transphobe without actually providing Rowling's POV would violate NPOV. It also doesn't explain the controversy which is what an encyclopedia should do. Springee (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::We don't necessarily need to "explain the controversy". That depends on the sources. What we do is summarize what the sources say. If the sources all say that David Duke is a racist without "explaining the controversy", so do we. Loki (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::WP:No queerphobia explicitly lists claims that transgender acceptance are harming women's rights. WP:FRINGE requires us to treat Rowling's fringe hate speech as fringe hate speech, not worthy of equal coverage with its rebuttals. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::WP:No queerphobia is an essay and a new one. It is not a content policy. It purports to layout common queerphobic beliefs, but your paraphrase of what it says is not explicitly there. It has this similar statement, {{tq|That the human rights of transgender people are at odds with women’s rights}} which is, I presume, what you are referring to. That was added last October, and is sourced to [https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/explainer/2024/05/lgbtiq-communities-and-the-anti-rights-pushback-5-things-to-know], which actually says {{tq|Falsely portraying the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, and particularly of trans people, as competing with women’s rights only widens divisions in the broader gender equality movement.}} None of which helps here. The essay is about editors who are using their editing to advance such beliefs. It argues they may be sanctioned. Whether they will be will not be determined by the essay. Where an editor brings their beliefs to an article and tries to edit it with a specific POV, sanctions are likely, so the essay is probably right, whether we spell out examples or not. The section has a boxed caveat to the effect it is an essay on editor behaviour, and it is specifically not a content guideline about how we describe the views of someone. Neither is it intended or able to tell us what subjects are WP:FRINGE. We do not withhold Rowling's belief from readers because we believe the beliefs are wrong. We do not endorse her view by describing it. And we do not make articles better by violating source-text integrity so as to avoid saying what the sources are saying. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Imagine replying to a call for "no queerphobia" with "its not policy". Personally I am not motivated to be considerate of how we represent views on minorities because it's policy but because it's basic human decency. Pages and pages of consideration for how we portray Rowling exist but everything about how trans people are talk about on this page is so cold and detached. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Imagine reading the above and thinking I was saying it can be summed up as "its[sic] not policy". In fact I didn't say that. The nub of it is that this essay correctly describes behavioural guidelines inasmuch as {{tq|where an editor brings their beliefs to an article and tries to edit it with a specific POV, sanctions are likely}}. The essay is correct in what it says, and clear in what it doesn't say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::To be clear, the link to WP:No queerphobia was strictly to show that it was a known bad-faith argument by the gender critical movement. The policy is WP:FRINGE. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 18:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|We don't necessarily need to "explain the controversy". That depends on the sources.}} In my analysis of the page section at the start of this sub-thread, I pointed out that we are already citing, in the article, sources that explain her view. We just don't summarise the sources well. In any case, there are many good sources that discuss her view. This one is quite well balanced, quotes her and is quite relevant, although it has some Spanish specifics, and is really dealing with Gender Critical views as a class and not just Rowling:

::::::::::{{cite journal |last1=Willem |first1=Cilia |last2=Platero |first2=R. Lucas |last3=Tortajada |first3=Iolanda |title=Trans-exclusionary Discourses on Social Media in Spain |journal=Identities and Intimacies on Social Media |date=10 November 2022 |pages=185–200 |doi=10.4324/9781003250982-15}}

::::::::::And here we have an issue I've been wrestling with: Much of what we have in the article is news reports. This is a featured article, and we really need WP:BESTSOURCES. We can rewrite from sources we are already using, but an article such as (Willem et al, 2022) would be better. But if describing her views, the sources should be about Rowling's views specifically. As far as I can see, we may be limited to the kind of news articles we are already using, albeit some of these have clear secondary analysis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{u|Sirfurboy}} in going back through old discussion to summarize differences in 12 and 13 June versions, I've re-visited Willem 2022. It's very light on Rowling (unlike Pugh, which is an entire work about Rowling), but does frame the basics of the transgender dispute. {{pb}} Separately, I notice Willem provides additional scholarly source support for sourced text that was deleted from the 2022 FAR version (that the debate divided feminists). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yes, Willem has strengths, but is indeed light on Rowling. I am not sure if it is needed, but it is a good one in that it goes to some lengths to present the division neutrally and describe/critique the views. I didn't like the neologism radfem - I didn't think it helpful - but the intent was good. An example of neutral point of view, but probably not suitably detailed enough on Rowling for re-inclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:This all seems reasonable to be and there seems to be appropriate sourcing behind it. TBicks (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq2|This has three sources, but source-text integrity is not what it should be. What she particularly opposed, according to the quoted sources, is gender self recognition.}}

:I disagree with your summary of this and I think the summary in the article is correct. It's not just one law she opposes: she opposed the proposed Scottish reforms but also a bunch of other generally trans-inclusionary laws. So for instance she supported this recent UK Supreme Court decision.

:{{tq2|She didn’t oppose this because of being a survivor of domestic abuse, but rather, she gave that as her reason for speaking out on the issue. The opposition itself was philosophical.}}

:This is true and we could summarize this better.

:{{tq2|But why are we fixated on the transphobia term, when the trans exclusionary one is absent? She has owned the trans exclusionary label [...] She has denied the transphobia term [...]}}

:Because her denial isn't the end of the story and other sources regularly call her "transphobic" or "anti-trans", or at least say she's been called those things. I think if we can find a good source for her calling herself "trans-exclusionary" then we can definitely include that.

:{{tq2|But Forstater was actually making the same argument, and the case showed it was protected free speech}}

:Yes.

:{{tq2| and not hate speech}}

:No, that doesn't follow. The same statement can be protected free speech and also transphobic.

:{{tq2|These are the same three sources as above, and so what Rowling was saying was that it was her belief that gender self recognition, without a medical diagnosis, but then protected by law, would give men access to female only spaces, eroding legal protections for women.}}

:Upon reflection I actually agree with you about the "simpler for trans people to transition" language. That makes it sound like she opposes medical transition specifically when she actually opposes legal recognition of trans people. Maybe "simpler for trans people to legally change their gender"? Loki (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your consideration. I'll have to keep this brief as the WiFi IP I am currently using appears to be subject to a block, so having to hotspot off my phone in another country. I'll just pick up a couple of points.{{tqb|So for instance she supported this recent UK Supreme Court decision}}But that is the same issue. The UK supreme court decision is very specifically about how a woman is defined for purposes of the UK Equalities Act. It states quite clearly that it does not seek to answer the wider question. It merely answers the specific term as used in one specific act. The reason this is the same question is this: it is the UK Equalities Act that establishes the legality of women only spaces. Under the identity politics that Rowling opposes, if someone self identified as a woman, they could be recognised as a woman, and thus access the spaces and carve outs given to women in the Equalities Act. As I mention above, Keir Starmer, the PM, expressed his view that this was so, and Rowling said that he had misrepresented the law. The Supreme Court agreed with Rowling. The Act specifically uses the term woman to refer to biological women. That is not a new law - it is an interpretation of the existing law, and that law could be changed. But in determining this, the Act would have force in Scotland too. It is all, I think, the same issue.{{tqb|No, that doesn't follow. The same statement can be protected free speech and also transphobic.}}We need to be clear that hate speech in the UK is not protected free speech. Hate speech is criminalised in the Public Order Act 1986 and subsequent amendments, under both the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and also the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, as well as the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Whether transphobia is hate speech probably depends on what you mean by the term (I didn't use it there). But Forstater's views were protected free speech because they were not hate speech. Had they been hate speech, she would have lost.{{pb}}In any case, it looks like we are edging towards some kind of emerging consensus on some improvements, so thanks again for that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• We are obliged per NPOV to report not what Rowling's views are, but what reliable sources report her views to be. This means that her words are subordinate to characterizations in reliable sources, just as much as criticism of her from advocacy organizations is. I see no evidence whatsoever that reliable sources characterize Rowling's actions as {{tq|"Advocacy for safety and laws to protect females from abuse"}}: that is an editorial interpretation of her actions, and equally inappropriate as a descriptor in-text as a wiki-voice statement of transphobia. If we are to rewrite this, we need to focus on what she has said and done as reported by reliable sources, which is difficult, because most sources offer blow-by-blow reporting of single incidents rather than summary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Agreed. While we have reason to accurately portray her views, we also have a duty to facts, and that means not taking on bad-faith framings of views, per WP:FRINGE. The gender critical movement which Rowling openly supports, advocates for a lot of fringe framings with barely hidden anti-trans statements under them. E.g. the claim that anti-trans activity is protecting women from abuse only works with the unstated assumption that trans people are a threat to women, a fringe theory.Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 18:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• "But why are we fixated on the transphobia term, when the trans exclusionary one is absent? She has owned the trans exclusionary label [...] She has denied the transphobia term [...]" because she owns it for a reason. Trans people and those who support them consider her views transphobic, whereas of course she isn't going to characterize herself as such and so and finds more mild terms to put it. Letting her set the playing field of terminology is letting her set the narrative about her own views in a way that's definitely not neutral. I believe at some point somebody compared it to describing a racist as a "race realist". If it is biographically necessarily to document how she views herself, so bet it, but we absolutely cannot let her framing be the sole and dominant one and that's why the inclusion of transphobia as a descriptor matters. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't like "Which some described as anti trans" because it says it with a tone of skepticism. Honestly, you could very easily "were widely received as anti-trans", the backlash at the time was pretty broad, and the GC movement was not a shadow of what it is today. Snokalok (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I have, in this edit,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1294952843&oldid=1294880964] partially rewritten the section in the main, per discussion above, and improving source-text integrity and including information on Rowling's views. I'll explain my methodology and the changes. I have tried to avoid too major a change to avoid summary reverts. I have retained the same sources for the most part - even though there is more to say on these. My aim was to keep the word count as close as possible to 500 words, which would still make this one of the largest sections in the article. I have slightly re-arranged material so that the five paragraphs each have a purpose/focus, which I have commented. Changes are:

1. Removed wikilink to gender-critical feminism. That duplicates a link further up the article. WP:OVERLINK pertains.
2. Improved source-text integrity in the first paragraph, which now focuses on describing her as gender critical and the legislation she has opposed.
3. Included a sentence about the tribunal conclusion ref. Forstater
4. Rewrote the part about her "sex is real" tweet. The main now follows the first source, droped the second that is on another matter, and included the text of the tweet (referenced) in a footnote.
5. The transphobic allegation and response is now consolidated in paragraph 3 (was in 2 places).
6. Para 4 has the safe space views
7. Para 5 has responses. I added Izzard's comment for balance (noting that quite a lot of others have supported her, but that having all the for and against here would make this overlong).
8. I dropped a bit of PROSELINE that is unnecessary
9. Still missing: I decided not to attack the missing cancel culture information here.

I note that this article has a child article, linked from here, in political views of J K Rowling. I think that this section should be kept brief, and as an overview in summary style. The fuller information belongs in the child article and not here. I note that the child article still has a lot of PROSELINE but if it were structured around this section, that could be rewritten and expanded in more encyclopaedic prose. {{pb}}This is not intended as a finished edit. Please do adapt/amend/discuss as appropriate. I trust it will be seen as an improvement though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:This piece of text {{tq|Her view is that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.}} is based on what we had before. I have it now at the end of the paragraph. I considered whether we should have a reply at this point. The problem with that is whose reply we would privilege. It may well be something that could be amended. Two good replies can be found in the sources. On the one hand, that there is no evidence of increased risk in inclusive spaces, and on the other hand, some make the point that she is projecting fears from one domain into another. The problem with this (and also the cancel culture section) is that there is a lot we could say, but that this is not clearly the article for us to say it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::One more point from me and then I'll shut up! A lot of the sources are newspapers for this section. They don't need to be. There are books and journal articles we can use. I didn't remove the sources because I wanted to avoid making this edit so much of a rewrite that it would just be reverted, but improving the sources would also be worth doing, and might lead to further amends and improvements. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm reverting this wholesale because I don't think the idea the main section needs to be rewritten wholesale reached consensus, much less this specific revision. If you want to make edits, make them one-by-one so we can discuss them separately. Loki (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::This is unhelpful because:

::# This was not a wholesale rewrite it was largely a re-arrangement of the material into a more logical structure;

::# It is not possible to re-arrange material in a sequence of edits as moving text from one paragraph involves adding it to another;

::# I maintained the sourcing deliberately to avoid this;

::# You have raised no objections to the re-arranged text, suggesting you are merely disatisfied with the process rather than the content.

::Rather than bold-revert, please either state clearly where your objections are, or else could you reinstate the text and we can improve it from there. Note that the small amount of additional text, which I describe above, was indeed discussed over a week ago. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's hard to do that succinctly. I think that your changes were a lot more sweeping than it seems you do.

:::But the biggest single reason was that in general your edits were softening allegations of transphobia (such as by demoting them to the third paragraph), increasing the amount of coverage devoted to her own denials, and adding material from defenders even if it wasn't particularly notable or due. (Like, why quote Eddie Izzard but not the three main actors in the movies?)

:::I also just frankly think that no rewrite is necessary. That part of the page is good already. It was workshopped extensively only about a year ago and I really don't think enough has changed to justify a major rewrite. Loki (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::We have accusations of transphobia in two different paragraphs. Consolidating into one paragraph is simply good writing. I don't see your hierarchy of priority, since this is already deep in the main text of the article, but I note that I moved it up from the fifth paragraph to the third, whilst removing the single sentence from the first. If we were foolish enough to consider that quantitively, we would note that on average I found the correct spot. But, in fact, it is more down to this: there is no point criticisng a view before you have explained a view. It is just a matter of communicating the subject matter. The question as to why Izzard's view is chosen can be levelled at every named view in the paragraph. I'd be in favour of taking them all out, and pointing the reader to the Political Views page instead. However, since we have some named views, there is a clear logic in having a quote from a gender fluid actor who has spoken out, been widely reported as having done so, (and who voiced Voldemort in the Lego Batman movie, although that is less relevant).{{pb}}Regarding the necessity of the rewrite: it is required, because the text we have is not, in fact, properly supported by the sources (although Loki appears to have deleted two of the tags relating to that matter. I did not tag all the problematic sources. There are a number of them). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The tag deletion was a mistake, feel free to add those back.

:::::That being said, I remember when we compiled those sources and doubt they actually fail verification like you said. I'll look more closely when I'm at a real computer though. Loki (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::But do you have any actual objection to the text I spent most of yesterday on? You reverted it. Why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I already gave you my objections. Twice, in fact, because you asked before and I told you why I didn't think your arguments for a rewrite were sound. As did several other people. Loki (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No, that is not how it works. I made a bold edit and you reverted it, but all you are opposing is the process. You apparently don't think I should have made a bold edit. What, specifically, is wrong with the text of my edit? If you cannot explain that, it should go back in. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I already explained that. It violates WP:NPOV by minimizing significant criticism of the subject. Loki (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Where? I used the same text as is already there. In what way is the text, which I spent several hours on, minimising significant criticism of the subject? Which changes do this? Please be specific so that I can amend. Thank you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od|::::::::::}}So no specific objection has been raised. The blanket reversion is clearly uncalled for. However, I have spent considerable more time this morning to compare my proposed text with the status quo, so that you can see exactly what I added, edited and changed, and thus, if you have specific objections, it should be perfectly possible to amend the specifics rather than revert the whole.{{pb}}On the following list of deltas, I use this terminology: PxSy is paragraph x and sentence y of the original text, and where the numbering differs in the new version, I give the new numbering in brackets. Comments on the change are in italics after the change.

P1S1: without first receiving a medical diagnosis. Comment: Per the sources.

P1S2: She argued this would impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. Comment: Per the sources and as a summary of her views.

P1S3: She also supported a challenge to the UK Supreme Court, which successfully argued that the term "woman", for the purposes of the definition in the UK Equalities Act, 2010, referred exclusively to biological women. Comment: clearly new and relevant. Sources added.

P2S3:The tribunal found that Forstater had been discriminated against. Comment: per earlier discussion. Clarifies.

P5: Nevertheless, Genderfluid comedian and actor Eddie Izzard stated that she does not consider Rowling transphobic and encouraged people to read Rowling's work about the topic. Comment: See discussion above.

P2S6: In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them" Comment: This is PROSELINE, and merely restates her view on biological sex. If we want to say something about her engagement on Twitter, let's find a secondary source that speaks of her combatitive style or similar, rather than relying on single tweets, which becomes our own synthesis.

P3: Rowling believes that making it simpler for transgender people to transition could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. She opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis. On social media, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages. Comment: (S1 and S2 now in P1, S3 deleted as repetitive

P4S2 (Now in P5S2) on transgender people Comment: unnecessarily repetition.

P5 S2 (Now P3S2) on women's rights Comment: This could go back in as SandyGeorgia has questioned the removal, although Loki argues it is better as the "on woman's rights" is not quite right.

P2S5 and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real" => and tweeted that biological sex is real Comment: per source, with full tweet added as a note. Source-text integrity

P5S1 (Now P3S1) Rowling denies being transphobic. => Rowling's views have been described as transphobic, an allegation she denies. Comment: This just joins information that was in paragraph 1 and para 5 into a coherent while in paragraph 3.

P5S2 (Now P3S2) In an essay posted on her website in June 2020, she explained that her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault. => In an essay posted on her website, she explained that she felt compelled to express her views since her own experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault caused her to appreciate the value of safe spaces reserved for women.{{efn|Rowing said, "So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."{{R|Rowling 2020}}}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}} Comment: This rewording is necessary because she does not say her views on women's rights come from this experience, but uses it as a reason as to why she spoke out on the issue.

{{cot|title= Sources}}

{{notelist-talk}}

{{reflist-talk}}

{{cob}}

Per WP:BOLDREFINE, I am sure we can deliver page improvements by focusing on the prose as a whole and discussing specifics for refinement. I'll put the text back in to allow this to proceed. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Sirfurboy}}, thank you for all that work. At some points, I can't easily follow the PxSy; could you put the original and the new side-by-side, in this format? That would make it easier to see, for example, what happened to P4S2 and P5S2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. Just on a phone right now. I’ll do that later. May be a few hours, sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Reformatted as requested and with some gratuitous highlighting. Colours for text that was changed, underlines show text added, strikethroughs show text removed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! I know this was a TON of work, but it's very helpful! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|Sources}}

{{notelist-talk}}

{{reflist-talk}}

{{cob}}

Preliminary comments on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1295253352#Transgender_people this 12 June version] (I agree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1295253352 Vanamonde93's deletion for now], as the issue of the actors who agreed with Rowling could be better fleshed out). I'm not tied to any of this -- just pointing out what sticks out:

1. Wasn't there previously a link here ?
2. : She also supported a challenge to the UK Supreme Court, which successfully argued that the term "woman", for the purposes of the definition in the UK Equalities Act, 2010, referred exclusively to biological women.[423]
3. :: Also, the term woman ... words as words, italics.
4. ::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1295266407 Fixed], SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
5. This is where the updated [https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcraig/2025/05/30/jk-rowling-is-a-billionaire-again/ Forbes article] could be used ... it's not just her book sales.
6. : Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books have been unaffected.[446][447]
7. This is kinda weird because it leaves out actors/Hollywood types ... I suspect the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1082873609#Transgender_people FAR version was better on this]. But leading actors are then mentioned later, so this is really a flow issue.
8. : Rowling's public expression of her views has prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[448] music,[449] theme park, and video gaming sectors.[450]
9. We're still missing cancel culture, for which there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1294873791 numerous scholarly] as well as [https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcraig/2025/05/30/jk-rowling-is-a-billionaire-again/ recent news] sources:
10. : well as fuelling debates on freedom of speech.
11. Repetitive wording:
12. : This negative reaction has included insults and threats, including death threats.[455][456]

All for now, thanks for the effort, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for reviewing these. Some answers, also by paragraph number:

:# Yes, the Steinfeld ref went astray. My error. I have restored it to paragraph 3, where the transphobic accusation now sits. Thanks for the fix for woman.

:# Agree, it's a good fit there. Happy for anyone to edit as appropriate. I can do it, but I'm trying to take this in relatively small steps (which they don't feel like!) So I won't do it immediately.

:# Public expressions is now in paragraph 5. Was this comment for paragraph 5? Apologies that it is hard to track the changes. Hopefully the table will help.

:# Yes, when I posted this change, I said that I had not attempted to tackle the cancel culture at all. Partly that was so as not to significantly change the tone of this section. There is also a question as to how deeply we want to get into that. Cancellation is a response to Rowling's views, but Rowling's only real contribution on that is to stand up for freedom of speech, in essays and as a signatory to the Harper's letter. She is used as a case study regarding cancel culture, but I wonder whether it belongs here or elsewhere. I wasn't sure, and thought more discussion was required. In any case, as I said above, when I said I did not tackle this issue, I only saw this as a partial change, and more work is required.

:# How about "has included insults and death threats." The repeated wording is not that terrible, IMHO, and the revision loses lesser threats, so I won't make the change yet, but would be relaxed about it either way.

:Also, yes, happy with Vanamonde93's removal of the Izzard quote, but that ties in with my view about the last paragraph, (and perhaps what you meant at point 3). We name some critics, but we don't name any supporters for some reason. Who we name, and why, is opaque. It smacks of a piecemeal editor led synthesis. The FAR version may well be better (and it has a clearer consensus, if an older one), but for now it is something else I did not tackle, except to attempt to balance it with one example of support. It might, however, be better reworked with the cancel culture stuff if we feel this is the section for it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think we need to worry about including anything about cancel culture. From what I can tell, it's not commonly reported in sources. Her book sales are unaffected. You could argue the Hogwarts Legacy boycott could pertain to it, but given that we don't mention HL or the boycott anywhere else in the article, I think it would probably be UNDUE to bring it up in this context. TBicks (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It is actually found in quite a lot of sources. SandyGeorgia posted three or four yesterday. Additional to those, here's a book chapter [https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv31r2mn5.13?seq=1], another [https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11442022.11?seq=1] and another [https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2pwtns3.10?seq=1]. I read these three before deciding that I could not use them in text here in this section meaningfully - but yes, Rowling is definitely found in sources dealing with cancel culture. This may not be the article for it - or if it is the article, this may not be the section for it. And if it is the section for it, these may not be the sources for that section. But there is something here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'll admit I don't have access to too many of the academic/paywalled sources, so i'll certainly defer to those who do. I think we should be careful about weight (i.e. she may be in sources that are about cancel culture, but if the majority of sources that discuss her don't mention cancel culture, is it DUE?). TBicks (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Re #1, I meant the link to the UK Supreme Court case, but I see it is mentioned at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1295276076#Philanthropy Philanthropy]; can we some how sync ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Re #2, draft proposal started in the next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Re the [https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcraig/2025/05/30/jk-rowling-is-a-billionaire-again/ recent Forbes article], which states:

• thanks to new Potterverse books, movies, a play, and several theme parks
• Bruising culture war aside, the 59-year-old’s Rowling’s business empire is now larger than ever. In the four years since she began posting about transgender rights in 2020, Forbes estimates Rowling has earned more than $80 million per year from the sales of her books and the vast litany of Potterverse brand extensions, including movies, TV shows, theme parks, video games, theater and merchandise. Even after factoring in high U.K. taxes and her extensive charity ventures, she has comfortably rejoined the billionaire ranks with a net worth of $1.2 billion, according to Forbes estimates.
• And her momentum is not slowing any time soon, with a new HBO Max series adaptation of the Harry Potter books going into production this summer, expected to run for a decade beginning in late 2026 and mint a whole new generation of fans.
• Still, Rowling was far from cancelled. By that point, tickets for her Harry Potter and the Cursed Child stage play were selling steadily on Broadway, in London’s West End and five other locations around the world—grossing more than $1 billion since its premiere in 2016, of which Rowling shares in the profits. HBO Max was also producing the fifth season of C.B. Strike, an adaptation of Rowling’s adult detective novels, written under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith. And in 2023 a new video game Hogwarts Legacy sold 24 million copies, the best-selling game of that year, grossing another $1 billion.

So how about expanding the current:

• Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books have been unaffected.[446][447]

To something like:

• Since the controversy began, sales of Harry Potter books have been unaffected,[446][447] and Rowling's revenue has grown from book and merchandise sales, movies, a play staged on Broadway and around the world, theme parks and a best-selling video game, with new television series in development.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I had a hard time sorting, though, what was new and what was ongoing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::There's some logical fallacies:

::* Firstly, saying that sales increased during COVID really doesn't say much, when sales of all books did. It's speculation whether they would have increased more or not, but it's clear it's not a typical situation? Also,

::* "Grossing more than $1 billion since 2016 includes four years before anything started.

::* I believe the theme parks also were there before any of this started. Are there new ones?

::Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There are actually two new amusement parks. A third area called Ministry of Magic opened up in Orlando in 2025 (in the very new, less than a month old Universal Epic Universe). There was also a Harry Potter park that opened in Beijing in 2021. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I waive that point. But the other two stand. We could argue what the cutoff point is for when the controversy "should" have begun affecting her, but the dates need to at least somewhat line up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Where is the mention of COVID coming from? It's not in the Forbes source, nor our current text, nor the proposed draft. Similar for 2016 -- that date is mentioned once in the Forbes article, not in my proposal, and doesn't affect the general point. {{pb}} It would be helpful if someone would improve upon my proposal, as it's not very finely worded. For example, sorting new from old or making the broader general point that the article makes with clearer prose; the Rowling business empire has not suffered from the controversy, and it's more than books. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think the concern is rather that it seems somewhat synthetic to say her political actions had no impact when there were other mitigating circumstances such as the impact of COVID-19 on the book market in general. This is especially questionable in light of impacts on the business such as the fraught reception of Hogwarts Legacy. Simonm223 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I understand that generality, but I don't propose our text should go there, and the Forbes article makes it clear that revenue growth extends even to theme parks, movies and Broadway plays, which would be affected in the opposite direction as books by COVID ... so I propose we go with an overview from a good source, avoid specifics of COVID, dates, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hogwarts Legacy is something like the 30th best selling game of all time, so I don't think it can be argued her views impacted the business much there. TBicks (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Further, I'm not proposing we add content saying that "her political actions had no impact"; we can't know how the empire might have fared without the controversy, but we do have now three sources saying business grew. That's all my proposed text adds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, but we need to use approprate examples. That a newspaper talks about Cursed Child{{'s}} income since 2016 does not make it relevant to the point. If you want to talk about Hogwarts Legacy ad theme parks, sure, but the "book sales have been unaffected" is speculative, and not really supported in the sources. I don't think anyone imagines that they're selling at the same rate as when they came out, so, without a control universe where she doesn't do what she did, we can't tell whether book sales were unaffected or not. There's evidence they're still selling, e.g. [https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/bestselling-childrens-books-2023-sunday-times-4460766?page=2], [https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/childrens/childrens-industry-news/article/97136-2024-children-s-bestsellers-graphic-novels-ya-sequels-and-old-favorites-chart-high.html] - but how much Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone being the 123rd best selling children's book in America in 2024 means... I don't know, and it's the only one on the list, though the list only runs a few entries past that. (Christmas at Hogwarts, an illustrated book from 2024, is much higher up, though whether that has legs remains to be seen this ywar.)

::::::::Having done some research - this is OR, but gives context - in 2018, about 522 million HP books had sold. Apparently about 600 million have sold now. That's 87% before 2018, call it about 90% before 2020

::::::::But that could easily be a natural falling off.

::::::::Anyway, point is, without a control universe, "book sales were unaffected" is unprovable and meaningless. Let's stick with things we can say. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 02:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

: Updated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1295574815] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1295313384#Transgender_people this version], some of the same comments as the 12 June version, but also:

1. There are several tense changes in the third paragraph ... is that intentional?
2. : Rowling opposes ... She also supported ... On social media, Rowling suggests ... In June 2020,[432] Rowling mocked ... she tweeted a list of trans women ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
3. I'm not a fan of four citations (WP:CITATIONOVERKILL); is it possible to lose one?
4. : Her views are often described as transphobic or anti-trans,[417][418][419][420] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
5. Are the quotes necessary?
6. : which some considered "anti-trans". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
7. Is this sentence recovering the same territory as the first sentence of the first paragraph?
8. : Rowling opposes proposed gender self-recognition law reforms[t] in the UK that would make it easier for trans people to change their legal gender. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
9. Attribute this opinion to Duggan?
10. : On social media, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[440]
11. Why is womanhood wikilinked?
12. : she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood"

Basically nitpicks; I don't have any big problems with either this version or the previous one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Struck and updated per subsequent analysis indicating that 12 June version better reflects sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:# Tense changes very much not intentional. That's a side effect of chopping up a bunch of text from two different versions of the page into one coherent whole.

:# Yes, I think so.

:# I'm fine with dropping the quotes.

:# It might be more distinct if we split out the footnote into its own text. But I worry that might make that section overly long.

:I'll go make the changes from points 1, 2, and 3 right now. Loki (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Addendum (these were added after my last comment): I'm fine with 5 and 6. 6 is just a copy straight from the old status quo version. Loki (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes ... I couldn't figure out how to restore the bullet-point numbering without moving your comment below them ... sorry! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::So the biggest problem with this replacement of my version is that once again it has removed her actual views from up front. Rowling stepped into the fray to oppose proposed gender self recognition law that would allow people to change their legal sex as described on their birth certificates without a medical diagnosis. She also came to the defence of Forstater for stating that sex is real. We need to say that before we launch into the transphobia accusations. The accusations came as a result of that. This new version is also polemical in an unencylopaedic way. We have the transphobic accusation in paragraph one, friction in paragraph 2, proseline in editor selected tweets to demonstrate "mocking" in paragraph 3 (and I don't oppose saying more about her social media engagement, but again, we need to write that from a secondary source that describes this with careful synthesis), more about the transphobic accusation at paragraph 4, and examples of condemnation at paragraph 5. This is not encylopaedic writing, and it is not from a neutral point of view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Does the paragraph above describe the core dilemma/difference between the two positions, or is there more? I'm asking in case we need to begin to develop a framework for an RFC (which would be more effective if everything else is fleshed out in the two versions, including the remainder of the issues I raised, and the two versions were viewed side-by-side). {{pb}}If this is the core difference (and it may not be), could a compromise be reached via moving some text around?{{pb}}Do both of you have access to Pugh? I believe that is to date our most comprehensive scholarly work on Rowling, although the introduction is dated re the Forstater appeal. Are either of you aware of any more recent comprehensive scholarly look at Rowling on the scale of Pugh? I'm asking because if we can't resolve this core difference via talk page discussion, and an RFC is formulated, that RFC would ideally look at how the best sources resolve the core difference described above, if this summarizes the basic difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Looking back over the earlier discussion, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1293942907 comment on 4 June] by {{u|Springee}} seems to be a straggler. That is, I'm not sure if it is addressed in either version. If I am understanding correctly what Springee was saying (through a few typos), we have now removed the voices that were in support of Rowling's position (which were previously in the article), and Springee seems to be saying that necessitates making her denial more prominent. Can this be solved by going back to some version that footnotes the voices in support of Rowling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sigh... I really need to stop using the phone to enter replies. I did correct the biggest typo/swypo here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1293948049]. My concern was addressed with the Some1 based change to the lead. The previous comment was that including a BLP denial is less important if we already have 3rd party, "denial" type replies. As an analogy, BLP says J Doe was driving recklessly (a negative accusation against a BLP). J Doe's lead says "A cop said J Doe was driving recklessly on [date]". If we have the denial then we should say, "A cop said J Doe was driving recklessly, on [date]. Doe denied..." But if we have witnesses that deny the reckless driving (in RSs) we could use that instead, "A cop said J Doe was driving recklessly. This was disputed by witnesses to the event". I see a 3rd party denial as stronger and thus supersedes the personal denial. As for the article body, I haven't had time to dive into the text and sources. Generally, IMO, we should describe what she actually said, not just include the responses/characterizations from others. Ideally we have RSs that state what Rowling actually stated. My concern with just including replies is, in part, sometimes a single event can reasonably be viewed as many different things. If we present the "responses" without presenting the original thing the reader may never have the original context. It's often easy to make a person's views appear different than they actually are when such context is removed. Springee (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks. Yes, I have access to Pugh. A more up to date work with a relevant chapter to also consider is Butler (2024):

:::::* {{cite book |last1=Butler |first1=Judith |title=Who's Afraid of Gender? |date=18 February 2025 |publisher=Random House |isbn=978-1-0390-0735-2 |url=https://books.google.fr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rTIwEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&ots=-oxu4kbyuz&sig=rNjlf2QV3DrhYVkSTQO3vu_ujcs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false|language=en}}

:::::There is a paper that discusses this book:

:::::* {{cite journal |last1=McRobbie |first1=Angela |title=On phantasms of gender: A feminist cultural studies perspective |journal=European Journal of Cultural Studies |date=3 May 2025 |pages=13675494251335555 |doi=10.1177/13675494251335555}}

:::::A strength of the book is how it has a secondary treatment of Rowling that includes analysis of her actual arguments, with rebuttal. Butler first shows what Rowling argues and then she answers it. The book is clearly more up to date, being published last year.

:::::I have read quite a lot of the literature here now, both for and against Rowling. Butler is a good source. Pugh and Duggan are good. There are sources we don't use, but my update yesterday was designed to be the smallest possible to allow our treatment to be structured logically (what she believes, the background of the controversy, how people have disagreed, her response to the criticism and finally public reaction). Loki has twice reverted that structure, without explaining why, but that edit was not meant to be the end of the matter - it was simply an attempt to give the treatment structure. If we go to an RFC at this stage, we have no version that I personally think would be FA class. We still have a bunch of newspaper reports and editor selected examples, and as you note, removal of all the examples of people supporting Rowling. If we can't manage to fix the structure first, then all I can think is that we completely rewrite the section from scratch, based on WP:BESTSOURCES only.

{{collapse top|title=Question about how to treat criticism}}

:::::I have questions, though. We simply must describe what Rowling believes. What use is a biography that includes a section on views, that refuses to tell us what the subject believes? Arguments that this must be omitted are disingenuous. But, there are issues with what she believes. One belief that Rowling has repeatedly stated is that sex is real, by which she means that if someone is born a woman, they are female, whether they feel female or not. This is, in fact, an important part of Rowling's feminism - that women should not be forced into female roles. That a woman is perfectly entitled not to feel feminine. That's her view.{{pb}}It is not an unchallenged view, however. It is a view that many have indeed called transphobic. But more to the point, and, in my view, more important for inclusion in an encyclopaedic article, it is a view that can be challenged on the evidence, and by approach from the edge cases (tricky as that always is), and on the biology. Gender dysphoria is real, and not just people rejecting their gender roles. There is medical evidence that it is real, and an understanding of biological sex is not limited to visual categorisation. This is not the page for fleshing all that out, but neither should we hide the fact that Rowling's beliefs are thoroughly answered elsewhere.{{pb}}But there are even some issues with the refutation. Firstly, because Rowling's stated views (not those garnered from analysis of Twitter comments, but those she has published) seem to suggest that she accepts the medical case, and her issue was with those seeking to change their legal sex "without a medical diagnosis". This appears to be a more restricted opposition than the belief that all transgender women are men. Further, Butler herself criticises the gender critical movement for seeing a uniformity of belief about gender that does not exist. She points out different views on gender among pro-trans people. Quite right, but then we can't jump onto one definition either. So for this article, we want WP:BESTSOURCES that describe Rowling's belief, provide a critique of those arguments, but that do not then take us into definitions or territory that is not, itself widely shared. And here there is just a caution about Butler and other sources. Butler spends a lot of time laying out a case for gender as a concept that she believes is evidence based and reasonable. In so doing, she inadvertently describes it as exclusive of the right wing, of Christians (especially catholic and evangelicals) and of a wing of radical feminism. She dismisses Christian views as Bible based and thus not evidence based, but all the same, she has pretty much stated that her views on gender are a minority view, albeit (in her view, and with her evidence) the most reasonable view. Looking at a lot of the literature, we are not quite in a walled garden scenario, but there definitely seem to be anchoring effects going on. Source evaluation, analysis, criticism and interpretation are vital skills of the historian. It is not quite what we are doing here - but some of the same skills and caution are required. If there is entrenchment, we need to pick out the best of what the sources say.

{{collapse bottom}}

::::::Thanks Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Some random thoughts ... hopefully to encourage discussion to resolve the core dilemma:

::::::1. Have we gotten the cart before the horse? That is, if we have multiple good scholarly sources, why aren't we already using them? My concern is the 2021 RFC that was prematurely launched and did not rely on an accurate representation of sources at all left us with content in the lead that we couldn't change because the RFC was so hugely attended. We shouldn't repeat that mistake! If we end up with an RFC, I don't want to see us stuck again, so why are we drafting content that doesn't use the current best sources. Except, I appreciate that ...

::::::2. The two versions seem to serve to highlight the core issue. So that is progress ... it gives us the basis for an RFC.

::::::3. Loki and Sirfur, is any compromise possible between your positions? Would you view compromise text as a better alternative than an RFC, or do you prefer to launch an RFC?

::::::4. And if you want to go the RFC route, can you each develop a version that uses best current sources, so we aren't asking the broader Wikipedia to opine on something that is based on dated sources?

::::::5. Or do you see a way to ask the core question in an RFC that doesn't tie us to dated sources/content?

::::::6. Separately, what to do about Springee's concern about deleting supporting voices and feminists divided. See Willem 2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks. On 1, once again, my edit was an interim to establish that the logical structure was this:

:::::::# Explain what she believes

:::::::# (Optionally) provide the historical background that brought this to public attention. (We do, so I left it in)

:::::::# Explain how people disagree and criticise her view

:::::::# Provide her response

:::::::# Describe reactions

:::::::That is all that edit was trying to establish. If we have an RFC at this stage, it will be a month spent merely trying to establish structure. I don't see an alternate structure in Loki's latest edit. {{u|LokiTheLiar}}, what is wrong with this structure please (and could you also provide a current/previous diff to show how you changed my version - what is added and what is removed)? Thanks.{{pb}}As I have repeatedly said, this section has sourcing issues and my preference for an RfC would be to completely rewrite it, keeping the rewrire to no more than 500 words, and using only WP:BESTSOURCES and a clear logical structure. That would be what I would commend to an RfC and not this version that contains overcited editor selected newspaper sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Just a note: there was a time when the news sources used were only those that complemented and were more accessible than scholarly (paywalled) sources and contained content also mentioned in scholarly sources, but those days may be long gone -- it's hard to tell at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think that structure as-stated is mostly fine. The one criticism I have is that "3" and "5" are essentially the same thing, so I replaced 3 with a section on what she has actually specifically done that is controversial.

::::::::The actual issue AFAICT is that what I think "Explain what she believes" means and what you think it means are totally different things. I think her views are as-described-by-independent-reliable-sources, which you for some reason seem to want to relegate to paragraph 3. Conversely what you say "her views" are I think are in fact are her POV, which is mostly not reflected in other sources, and so should be part of paragraph 4. Loki (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::3 and 5 are only the same thing if you omit those who support her. But yes, we can roll 5 into three and make this tighter. So we have:

:::::::::# Explain what she believes

:::::::::# Provide the historical background that brought this to public attention.

:::::::::# Explain how people reacted to her view

:::::::::# Provide her response

:::::::::This would leave space to consider the freedom of speech question if we wanted. Agreed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq2|So the biggest problem with this replacement of my version is that once again it has removed her actual views from up front.}}

::::I think this is a pretty good core of what my problem with your version, because my immediate reaction is "No it hasn't, what are you talking about? It's your version that removed her views from up front." I think you're overprivileging her own description of her views, and specifically her essay, over what reliable secondary and most notably independent sources say about her.

::::This is important because she says she's defending women's rights while everyone else says she's opposing trans rights. And since we want to avoid primary sources like her essay and the WP:BESTSOURCES say she opposes trans rights, "opposing trans rights" is the view we put in the summary, while we leave her POV for later. It's not an allegation like you're trying to paint it, it's the best description of her views in the sources. Loki (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I didn't have the essay until the third paragraph, and I don't ind if it is in the fourth. But what the reader needs to know, and what no one could tell from reading this page before, is that Rowling's views, as described in the sources we were already using on the page, were around challenges to proposed laws in the UK that allowed gender self recognition. That was not just what she thought, it is what she did. She stepped into that debate, and also funded a successful legal challenge on the issue. Note that the sources I used, already found on the page, were BESTSOURCES.

:::::This is what these best sources say: "This study argues that a new women’s cooperative constellation has been established in Scotland around the issue of the Scottish Government’s proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act." (Pedersen, 2022), "In the UK, they have been triggered partly by proposed legislative change, in the form of changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act" (Suissa & Sullivan, 2021:3) and "To summarize, in 2017, Rowling shared an article critiquing a proposed change to the United Kingdom’s Gender Recognition Act (2004), which was interpreted by some commentators as a change that would allow trans women to access women’s spaces, such as bathrooms" (Duggan, 2021:160) There are sources that point out that Rowlings first intervention was the Forstater tweet, but that was arguably a matter of free speech, which Rowling has also defended elsewhere in other ways. The matter that drew her into this debate was the Scottish Gender Self Recognition Act. That is not my view, that is what the WP:BESTSOURCES tell us. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::So, I agree that she has as part of her anti-trans activism opposed several specific pieces of legislation and supported For Women Scotland, in particular in their legal challenge regarding the UK Equalities Act. However, that's not what her views are, those are actions she's taken in pursuit of her views. The first paragraph should be a summary, which means it needs to say as clearly as possible what Rowling actually believes in a way that makes it clear to the reader why it's controversial.

::::::I note that only one of those quotes you've linked actually mentions Rowling by name: the others seem to be talking about gender-critical feminism in general. The one that does mention her seems to suggest it's part of the background of the controversy in question, which would suggest it goes in paragraph 2, not paragraph 1. Meanwhile, we already source and in many cases quote from several scholarly sources, including Whited, Pugh, and Duggan herself, that actually do explain what she believes. (I'll look up more details later.)

::::::I also would like to say that we do not and should not rely exclusively on scholarly sources here. A lot of the sources here are going to be news sources and that's fine: otherwise we'd be waiting to document current events, which this section very much involves, not just until after they pass from the news cycle but until they're firmly historical. Loki (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There is some rapid goalpost moving going on here. You now complain that these are not "what her views are" but you are insisting on putting her statement of what her views are in the fourth paragraph. What she publicly did and was seen to do, and was interpreted as having done is not to be up front because these are not "what her views are" but we can't have her tell us what her views are, because we cannot privilege her words? So instead we get to put in how someone called her transphobic - which is content free without the other information, but a fine polemic. No. As the sources show, she entered the debate, and has been closely involved, with respect to those matters. Where is the evidence she has been involved in anything else? This is what she was active over, isn't it? What sources speak of more? And when you say that two of those sources don't mention Rowling, it makes me wonder if you have read the sources. Have you?

:::::::As for news sources: why would we need these? News reports are often primary sources. Sometimes they do analysis and synthesis, but that doesn't mean they do it well. WP:BESTSOURCES is part of WP:NPOV. If we want to treat this issue neutrally, we want to use the best sources when we can. In an evolving matter, it is understandable that some news sources were incorporated into this section, but no, they are not going to be the best sources.

:::::::When you mention Whited, there are three Whited sources. Which are you referring to? And when you say "we already..." did you again miss the fact that I did not add those sources. They were already there too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::First, I'd like to request you slow down a bit, because it seems like you are trying to accuse me of something and I'm not very clear about what it is.

::::::::{{tq2|You now complain that these are not "what her views are" but you are insisting on putting her statement of what her views are in the fourth paragraph. What she publicly did and was seen to do, and was interpreted as having done is not to be up front because these are not "what her views are" but we can't have her tell us what her views are, because we cannot privilege her words?}}

::::::::Maybe an analogy would help. Let's say you have a political pundit who regularly takes a stance that reliable sources describe as "conservative". It's very consistent that this guy believes conservative things about essentially any active political issue. But when asked directly, he says "no no, I'm not a conservative, I'm a centrist". Reliable sources do not take this self-description very seriously, and continue to describe him as a conservative. So, how should we describe this guy's views?

::::::::This is basically the situation we have with Rowling. Everyone except for her says her views are about trans people, and most of them agree that she is in some form opposed to either trans people or trans rights or both. News sources do, scholarly sources do, everyone does. Even you apparently agree because the law you mentioned above is about trans people's ability to change their gender, which Rowling opposes. Rowling denies she's anti-trans rights by saying she's pro-women's rights, but nobody else agrees and you basically can't find any reliable sources of any provenance supporting her in this. In fact, that is the whole reason this section is under the heading "Transgender People" instead of "Women's Rights".

::::::::{{tq2|Where is the evidence she has been involved in anything else? This is what she was active over, isn't it?}}

::::::::This is hard to answer without clarifying what you mean by "this". If you mean her opposition to the Gender Recognition Act, that is one of the things she's been active over but it was not the source of the controversy, and it's only one of her many views on transgender people.

::::::::The primary source of the controversy, as we already mention, is Rowling "bec[oming] increasingly vocal" about her views about transgender people, primarily on social media. One of those views is opposition to that particular pro-trans law but it's certainly not the only one. We quote her directly in the article saying other anti-trans things.

::::::::{{tq2|What sources speak of more?}}

::::::::Some examples:

::::::::Pugh 2020:

::::::::{{tq|In a tweet on December 19, 2019, Rowling voiced her support for Maya Forstater’s anti-transgender beliefs. In a controversial case, Forstater’s position as a tax expert at the Center for Global Development was not renewed owing to her anti-trans statements, with judge James Tayler ruling against her [...] Given Judge Tayler’s eloquent rebuttal against Forstater’s disregard for the reality of transgender experience, Rowling’s endorsement of her position evinces a narrow view of the dignity and rights of trans people.}}

::::::::Whited 2024:

::::::::{{tq|Over the next six months, Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal and, in a few cases, flippant about gender identity. In perhaps her most ridiculous public comment on the subject, Rowling pretended to have forgotten the word woman, implying that the term had passed out of fashion. [...] Perhaps the final straw for some Rowling fans came on June 10, 2020, when Rowling posted a lengthy letter on her own website explaining her perception that women are endangered by policies welcoming transgender individuals into spaces such as restrooms and changing areas matching their gender identity [...] In late 2022 and early 2023, as Scotland considered its own gender identity reform, Rowling continued to be a vocal opponent of self-designation, especially for those in early adolescence. But in June 2020, Rowling’s manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as “gender critical.” Many transgender persons felt shocked and betrayed by the author’s public statements.}} (and it goes on for several more pages, FWIW)

::::::::Kullmann in Whited 2024:

::::::::{{tq|J. K. Rowling has publicly voiced controversial views on sex and gender on Twitter and in the media since the end of 2019, displaying not only an antiquated understanding of gender identity but also quite overt transphobia on her part. Her statements divided fans, and the controversy led to boycotts of the film series. Actors Daniel Radcliffe and Eddie Redmayne have officially spoken out against Rowling despite continuing their professional relationship with her. For a detailed discussion of this issue, please see Lana A. Whited’s introduction to this volume.}}

::::::::Duggan 2021, one of the sources you quoted above:

::::::::{{tq|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}}

::::::::Borah in Whited 2024 is too long to blockquote but it does have a long discussion of Rowling's comments on trans people as well.

::::::::{{tq2|And when you say that two of those sources don't mention Rowling, it makes me wonder if you have read the sources.}}

::::::::That's a weird accusation to make, especially considering what I actually said is {{tq|only one of those quotes }} mentions Rowling by name. Could you please strike this, since this seems to be a clear misreading of what I said? Just because I can't access sources at work to quote them at length like that doesn't mean I haven't read them. I have read them and that's why I was so confident that you were incorrect.

::::::::{{tq2|As for news sources: why would we need these?}}

::::::::Because they are reliable sources that document things that happened much more recently than scholarly sources can reasonably cover, and this is a quickly moving area. (It's notable that all the years on those scholarly sources are 202X, and many are from 2024 specifically.) WP:BESTSOURCES is in fact part of WP:NPOV, and it says {{tq|In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.}} There's nothing in it that says a news source cannot be a reliable, independent, secondary source. Loki (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Since your comment is over 1000 words, I'll bullet the points raised

:::::::::*Requesting me to slow down is rich considering you are the one who summarily removed an edit I spent 10 days on, and replaced it with something that broke teh structure and contained an attack in every paragraph. It is a testament to my restraint that I didn't just revert it citing BLPUNDEL.

:::::::::*{{tq|Maybe an analogy would help.}} They rarely do. Analogies are a great way to introduce a straw man. Here's a case in point. Let's fix that: Imagine you had an author who took a stand on an issue, such as gender self identity (and what she called "identity politics"). Suppose that author engaged directly in that debate, and as a consequence, was called transphobic and became the subject of attacks. If we wanted to describe what this author's views were, which of these is a summary of her views: (a) That she is a gender critical feminist who opposes gender self recognition laws in the UK, or (2) that she is a transphobe. Which of those statements describes her *views*? Note that our wikilinked definition of transphobia describes this as: {{tq|Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender or transsexual people, or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence or anger towards people who do not conform to social gender roles.}} We all agree that it is relevant that we include that she has been described as a transphobe. The question is not whether this be included. The question is whether that is an adequate encyclopaedic summary of her actual views. You know it is not.

:::::::::* BUT, you will object, rightly, that you didn't just put that accusation back in the first line. You also replaced the description of her views with "who believes that making it simpler for transgender people to legally transition could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" sourced to three news sources. But that is your synthesis of those sources. This is what they say:{{pb}}Reuters:{{tqb|Rowling is unhappy that Scotland plans to relax the law so that trans people can change their birth certificates without having to provide a medical diagnosis.[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI/]}}The Guardian:{{tqb|she felt compelled to write about after reading of the Scottish government’s latest progress towards changing gender recognition laws.[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate]}}CNN:{{tqb|What is this spat about?{{pb}}Forstater, a tax expert, lost an employment tribunal claim against her former employer following comments on Twitter criticizing UK government plans to allow people to self-identify their gender. [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html]}}These sources all support the first paragraph as I had it. The issue is entirely about the proposed gender self recognition laws and what Rowling calls the "identity politics". That sources reasonably conclude this makes her a gender critical feminist is something that is certainly fair, which is why I made that very point in my first sentence. Nevertheless, my summary of the issue was the better summary of the sources. It needs to be up front, as we agreed that is what the first paragraph is for.

:::::::::*On your examples from sources: As above, the Forstater issue discussed by Pugh is this issue, and I already discussed Forstater above.

:::::::::*Whited is not summarising her views there she is summarising her social media engagement. We should include something about that engagement, as I have said repeatedly. But that is not a summary of her views. Note that individual tweets are going to be primary (specific engagement events), even if they are encapsulated in some other source. What comes from the horse's mouth is never independent of the horse.

:::::::::* Kullman likewise is not summarising any views there and specifically says so.

:::::::::* Duggan calls the views conservative, but does not describe the views there. So do you understand what the problem is here? you are confusing the characterisation of her views with the views themselves. We can use a summary from a secondary source (indeed, as above, we have the newspaper summaries, and some other sources with summaries) but don't confuse the characterisation of the person with a description of her views.

:::::::::* Best sources: again, newspapers are reliable and independent but they are often primary. If a newspaper reports a tweet, that is still primary. Consider: how many encyclopaedias do you know that largely base their biographies on newspaper reports? This is a Wikipedia thing, but it's not a good thing. We have plenty of WP:BESTSOURCES - we need to be using them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Honestly, I'd like some third opinions here, because I don't think we're ever going to convince each other. But fortunately, neither of us have any obligation to WP:SATISFY each other.

So: {{u|Springee}}, {{u|SandyGeorgia}}, {{u|John}}, {{u|Adam Cuerden}}, {{u|TBicks}}, {{u|LittleLazyLass}}, {{u|Vanamonde93}}, {{u|Snokalok}}, you all have previously commented on the concept of this rewrite. In addition, {{u|Some1}} edited this section of the article recently without commenting on the talk page.

Here are the three versions of the article in question: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1294974445#Transgender_people original status quo], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1295209074#Transgender_people Sirfurboy's attempted rewrite], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1295319050#Transgender_people me paring down the rewrite towards the status quo]. Please say which of these three you prefer and why. Loki (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Both are improvements over the old, and my preference would be for you and Sirfurboy to come to a compromise; we shouldn't have editors opining who haven't read or don't have access to all the sources (and we have that in spades on the FAR), opinions that aren't squarely grounded in sources don't mean much, and I'd rather see us move towards a place where, if we have to hold an RFC, that RFC can be based on our best possible version of each alternative. The two of you have a good faith core difference that I hope you can resolve. My personal impression is that too much time is being spent on differences that are probably not that hard to resolve, if people will push back for a day or two to reflect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think i'm with Sandy here. They both have merit, and they are both better than the original. I just don't have a particularly strong feeling either way. I'd suggest that the easiest way forward is to find a compromise version between the two, that addresses both your concerns as best as possible. TBicks (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1295575235#Transgender_people current version] of the section; it's an improvement over the original version. I'm not sure whose version it is, but that's how I would personally organize the section: 1) short intro, 2) background info, 3) her views and beliefs, 4) her defense, 5) reactions. The third paragraph could use a bit of copy-editing ("Responding to an online", "Responding to a strengthening"), and the second and third sentences of the last paragraph could be combined into one sentence. Other than that, the section, or at least the organization, looks fine to me; I don't really have any strong opinions either way though. Some1 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:So, I read through both, and I'll go through both in detail.

:Both of you:

:If I'm being honest, I don't like {{tq|impinge on access to female only spaces}}. The issue isn't that she believes that the women's bathroom suddenly has a forcefield cast around it when trans people are in there, it's that her belief is that trans women in these spaces makes the spaces unsafe. "Impinge on access" says nothing of any real substance.

:@Sirfurboy:

:{{tq|Biological women}} is not neutral terminology, it's a dog-whistle that we can't use in wikivoice. Either we have to put it in quotation marks, or use cisgender.

:{{tq|Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate" as a euphemism and tweeted that biological sex is real.}} This makes it sound like people who menstruate is objectively a euphemism, when it's not. Trans men menstruate as well. Likewise, "biological sex is real" is a dogwhistle that we need to directly quote or else just not state in wikivoice. I recommend Loki's direct quoting of {{tq|if "sex isn't real"}}

:{{tq|her view is that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.}} This part is good, I wish Loki's had this.

:@LokiTheLiar:

:I like the Variety quote in the first paragraph.

:{{tq|which some considered anti-trans.}} This... understates the moment, imo. They were widely received as anti-trans at the time. Whether the editors in this discussion agree with them being anti-trans, the fact is that "some" gives a connotation of like 40%, whereas this was very much 90%.

:{{tq|The tribunal found that Forstater had been discriminated against}} This needs to be expanded, on what basis was she discriminated against? Sex, religion, etc

:After that, it's fine.

:Ultimately, Loki's version is better. Sirfurboy's version imo frames her views in a positive light in wikivoice, it sanewashes them far too much to be a neutral article Snokalok (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Some quick responses:

::{{tq|impinge on access}} wasn't in the status quo version as far as I remember. I'm mostly okay with removing it. I kept it in because I do think we need to give a quick overview of what she believes in the first paragraph, so I'd prefer to replace it with something else.

::{{tq|which some considered anti-trans}} on the other hand is status quo version language, and that's why I kept it. I agree I'd like it to be stronger.

::{{tq|found that Forstater had been discriminated against}} was in the footnote before; Sirfurboy moved it to main text and I kept it there because it is relevant to what happened. But on second thought it might be better to put it back in the footnote. Loki (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No Forstater was there already. I only added "The tribunal found that Forstater had been discriminated against." Because we did not say that for some reason. I am aware that some have argued that "biological women" is a dog whistle, and I certainly am in favour of quoting it when it is Rowling's term. But... where I have used it, it refers to text about the UK Supreme Court ruling. I have: {{tq|She also supported a challenge to the UK Supreme Court, which successfully argued that the term "woman", for the purposes of the definition in the UK Equalities Act, 2010, referred exclusively to biological women.}} Now this is straight out of the ruling, and also how sources have covered this. Sources consistently report that the Supreme Court found that the definition of a woman, for purposes of the Act, refers to biological sex. For instance, the ruling says:{{tqb|The court found that as a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination could only be interpreted as referring to biological sex. For example, the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity are based on the fact that only biological women can become pregnant.}}

:::Now if we refuse to use the language of the Act and the sources reporting the ruling, we are, in fact taking a side on the issue. If we are required to do so by an RfC, then we'll have to follow consensus. Has there been an RfC? But if there is no RfC, I think the argument that the term is a dog whistle - in this instance - is actually non neutral. That is, quoting in such a case is scare quoting, and will be read to signify that the writer (us) believes the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to be in error. So, rather than just saying it is a dog whistle - can you point me to a consensus discussion that has determined that? And if so, how should we report the Supreme Court's findings without introducing scare quoting?{{pb}}Once again, I absolutely agree that we should use quotes when reporting Rowling's use of the term. Those quotes would simply be quotes showing it is her term (and not ours). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::So, a few points.

::::1. This is a ruling that stripped significant social rights and equality from trans people and was used to implement a policy of mass segregation. It’s not a neutral law, and thus we can’t repeat its language as neutral. To repeat its language in wikivoice is arguably taking far more of a side than scarequotes. Scarequotes simply say “I’m not saying this is right, this is just what they’ve said” whereas saying it at face value lends the credibility of the project towards it, which is far more of a deviation from neutral than scarequotes would ever be.

::::2. We use quotes around the terms “biological men” and “biological women” in the articles for both the court case itself and the EHRC.For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish MinistersEquality and Human Rights Commission

::::3. The project is in no way obligated to repeat as neutral and reasonable, devoid of anything that might read as dissentious, the opinion of a government towards a minority group it is actively hostile towards. That is, the project has no obligation to go out of its way to make the British govt look good. Snokalok (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::These points did not answer my question. Has there been an RfC where the question of use of the term "biological sex" has been debated and determined to be inappropriate language? If there had, then all other discussion is moot. If there had, then it would take another RfC to determine if consensus has changed. But, if there is no RfC, then we follow the sources. On that: sources do not quote the term. The primary sources certainly don't, but neither do the news reports. Again, I know someone has said that this term is a dog whistle - but people say all kinds of things. An alternate point of view is that it is simply a matter if categorisation - and here, your suggestion we choose cisgender as an alternative fails. Cisgender is not a co-extensive class. The court determined what it determined, and it is not POV to simply report what the court set out to determine. {{pb}}And note carefully that your characterisation of what it determined is incorrect. The court ruling doesn't strip rights, because it interprets rights that already existed through an act of parliament. It did not create new law, and neither did it seek to, nor did it in practice, determine the definition of terms like woman. Its scope was restricted wholly to the Equalities Act, and the determination was on the definition of a woman for the purposes of (as used in) the Act. Specialised precise terms are common in law. But the belief that they settle a matter beyond the application of the specific law to which they pertain is a category error. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I basically agree here with Snokalok regarding the term "biological woman". In this context "biological woman" is a contentious label to be avoided. If we need to use it, we should quote it.

::::::I don't think arguing over what the UK Supreme Court did is super helpful here. FWIW I agree with Sirfurboy that the UK Supreme Court does not determine the definition of "woman" for anything except UK law, but with Snokalok that if the law is initially interpreted in a way that grants rights to a broad group of people, and then a court narrows the interpretation to no longer refer to some of that group, the members of that group that were previously included but are not any longer can reasonably say their rights were stripped by the court. But also this is not For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, this is JK Rowling, so only the WP:LABEL concern really applies here. Loki (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I had guessed you would agree that it is contentious. My question is this: where is the consensus on Wikipedia that it should be avoided as a dog whistle? Also, what other term can we use for the exact concept that it encapsulates? Also, why are we ignoring the sources? {{pb}}The ruling does not determine the meaning for the whole of the law even? Again, as I have carefully stated in edits and in talk, the ruling only defines the term for purposes of the Equalities Act. That is all. As I pointed out to you in previous discussion: the ruling is very clear on that point. It does not determine the meaning of the term in any other scope. {{pb}}Stripping of rights in this respect is POV language. I take it you would object to someone pointing out that they never had those rights. We need to avoid saying either. The ruling clarified what rights were conferred and to whom in that act. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq2|My question is this: where is the consensus on Wikipedia that it should be avoided as a dog whistle?}}

::::::::Right here? I dunno why you keep on insisting that there has to be precedent for a label to be contentious.

::::::::{{tq2|Also, what other term can we use for the exact concept that it encapsulates?}}

::::::::If you want to say it in Wikivoice without attribution, "cis woman". If you believe that means something slightly different, I agree: it's not implicitly pejorative to trans women.

::::::::If you want to say someone else said it, just quote it. I don't know what the objection here is to just putting the phrase in quotation marks.

::::::::{{tq2|Also, why are we ignoring the sources?}}

::::::::We're not? The source said Rowling said something, so we can quote her as saying it. The source does not endorse what she said, so we can't say or imply "trans women are not biological women", which is what we'd be doing if we used that phrase in Wikivoice.

::::::::{{tq2|I take it you would object to someone pointing out that they never had those rights.}}

::::::::At least as the government and courts had been interpreting the act, they did have those rights. You're not "pointing out" anything, you're just wrong. You're using the framing of the decision to make sweeping claims about the state of the law before the decision.

::::::::This feels like an argument you would never make in other contexts. The Dred Scott Decision claimed that black people never had rights under the constitution but all modern historians agree (and most people at the time agreed) that it actually stripped rights from black people, rights that they both legally and factually already had. This is not a complicated concept and I cannot see any legitimate reason why you keep insisting on this in areas where it doesn't matter anyway. Loki (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::"so we can't say or imply "trans women are not biological women"" -- Why? I don't think that's controversial? I think even trans women would agree that they're not biological women, otherwise they definitionally wouldn't be trans? There's a difference between saying that trans women aren't biological women, and saying that they are not women. The former is just an observable fact, and i'm yet to come across anyone who disagrees with it. The latter would be extremely problematic for wikipedia, but that's not what anyone is attempting to add here.

:::::::::As you have noted, "cis woman" is not a definitional analog to "biological woman", so that would not be a misleading term to use here. TBicks (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq2|I think even trans women would agree that they're not biological women, otherwise they definitionally wouldn't be trans ... [that's] just an observable fact}}

::::::::::I don't want to get too deep into this, because I think the actual core of the dispute is "why not just use quotation marks?", but I do think it might be helpful to give you an answer here.

::::::::::The short answer is, what do you think the hormones are for?

::::::::::The longer answer is that trans women would definitely agree they were assigned male at birth, and many might agree that they were "born male" in some sense, but most would resist the implication that they are currently "biological men". The way you're using the word "biological" is not really based in actual physical biology, it's using "biological" as a synonym for "innate". Loki (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The concept that there is no biological definition of male and female is a silly one, as it is the basis for being assigned male/female at birth. "Biological female" refers to sex rather than gender.

:::::::::::This is an argument which isn't going to get us anywhere. Besides, I think I have a solution...

:::::::::::The court decision itself states:

:::::::::::"Similarly, a person who is a biological woman, ie who was at birth of the female sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a “trans man”"

:::::::::::I would suggest that since it states its definition of biological woman is someone the female sex at birth, we can faithfully synthesize 'biological woman' into 'person assigned female at birth'. That solves all the issues. TBicks (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::My biggest issue with your solution is that we currently don't actually say what the court decided and I'm not sure why we would need to. The important part of that case for this article is that Rowling supported For Women Scotland, which we say. But if the reader wants to know details about the legal ruling in the case, they can go over to the page on the case. Loki (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I mean, for the record, I agree that we don't need the court decision, as she wasn't an actual party to the case. But just in case consensus does change to advocate for its inclusion, it can't hurt to agree on an alternative word. TBicks (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Right here, fooey! {{tq|"In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."}} Right? But before we go proscribing words on Wikipedia, there needs to be a consensus that they should be proscribed, and this because a considered look at the issue has shown that there is actually a reason for doing so, and not just because someone has pronounced it proscribed. Your answer confirms that you are unaware of any such RFC. So that much is settled.

:::::::::My next question was what other word we could use, and you say cis woman. But that just shows that you didn't read what I said. That is not a co-extensive concept. The UK supreme court ruling did not find that the term woman in the Equalities Act referred only to cis women. It used (and is widely reported as using in secondary sources) the term biological sex as being the basis for determining the meaning of the word woman in the Act. That this includes trans men may not be welcome by them, but nevertheless is a fact. To use cis woman where the act uses biological woman in describing the ruling would be to make the ruling exclusionary of trans men in a way that it is not. Do you see the problem here? To quote Orwell again: {{tq|Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?}} - that is the effect of proscribing a term that defines a concept that you may not like but that doesn't have any other means of describing it. Unless you do know another means - but no, cis woman will not do it.

:::::::::Also, I'll just add, I am not keen on cis woman, simply because many readers do not understand the term. That may change in time, but as it stands, that is a kind of specialist terminology that requires some understanding of the issue. I'm not asking we proscribe the term, though. Just raising a caution that we need to consider where readers are at, and not where we think they should be, when writing articles for them.

:::::::::When I asked why we are ignoring sources, read up: we are not talking about what Rowling said. I have said I agree we put Rowling's words in quotes. We are talking about the sentence about the supreme court ruling. Rowling's words are not relevant there. We are describing what the Supreme Court found, and sources do not use scare quotes when reporting this. E.g. [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/14/campaigners-scottish-government-supreme-court-gender-women],[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t], [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo]. That was not cherry-picked. It was literally the first three I found, and from my reading this is general.

:::::::::On framing: you are again not looking at the sources. Let's look at just one. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/22/equalities-minister-bridget-phillipson-welcomes-uk-gender-ruling-supreme-court]. Here, the UK Prime Minister, had previously "taken a different view on the subject. As a Labour leadership candidate he signed up to a pledge 'that trans women are women'", agreed that the judgement brings "real clarity in an area where we did need clarity." Starmer, of course, is a lawyer and a former attorney general. He understands the law as well as the role of the Supreme Court, which is to clarify the law. That is the neutral language.

:::::::::Can you see that your framing is fighting a corner here? And if you are fighting a corner, that is not neutral. Neutrality is not easy, but Wikipedia is not for advocacy. If we are to write encyclopaedic neutral articles, sometimes (often) we need to bite our tongue, grit our teeth, and hold back from saying what we really think. That is not our role. We have a sentence that describes the UK supreme court ruling. Our job is to report that ruling without letting the reader know we dislike it. If the reader can tell the Wikipedia editor's POV, we have failed. WP:INSCRUTABLE. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Can we spare the dramatic George Orwell quotes here? The continued insistence there is apparently no grounds for arguing a term is inappropriate until we have an RfC is baffling. It is in fact explicitly encouraged at WP:RFCBEFORE to not use RfC before trying to resolve it at the talk page normally, which is exactly what is being attempted at the moment. Now we all know by now it's likely we won't arrive at a consensus and something like an RfC would be justified, but that is in no way any kind of justification for trying to smother an entire talking point on the grounds it doesn't have a previous RfC precedent, specifically. The accusation of "fighting in a corner" is also confusing to me. In what sense does that apply here? What does that even mean in this context? So no, I can't see that, and I also can't see how it is any kind of appropriate line of argumentation. Please just engage with the argument at hand of whether or not "biological women" is a pejorative term in this context. Cis women does not mean the exact same thing biological woman does, but this does not necessarily invalidate the arguments against the use of that term in the article. All it means is we need to look for other acceptable possibilities and go from there. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I second this response except:

:::::::::::Do we all know that? I don't actually think an RFC is necessary here. There seems to be a reasonably clear consensus already. WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY is not a lack of consensus even if the one is very persistent. Loki (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I at no point suggested we should have an RfC. My question was to establish whether there was a prior consensus I should be taking note of. Specifically, O said, {{tq|Now if we refuse to use the language of the Act and the sources reporting the ruling, we are, in fact taking a side on the issue. If we are required to do so by an RfC, then we'll have to follow consensus.}} Having established that there is no consensus that we should not use the plain English term "biological sex", I believe we should follow the sources. The question about prior consensus was an honest one. The answer, it seems, is that Wikipedia ediotrs have never discussed, and certainly not agreed, that the term should be proscribed from pages owing to it being a dog whistle. That is the point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Actually, now I've read your response more closely I have one important thing to add:

::::::::::Are you aware that this is JK Rowling, not For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, and that we currently have zero words in the article about what was actually ruled in that case? All we say is that Rowling supported For Women Scotland, which she did, and which is the only part that's actually relevant to her page. We have no reason to figure out whether to use a quote or synonym or whatever about the case because we don't talk about what the case decided here. Loki (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Because you removed it. Look, this is the sentence we are discussing, once again. I also quote it above: {{tq|She also supported a challenge to the UK Supreme Court, which successfully argued that the term "woman", for the purposes of the definition in the UK Equalities Act, 2010, referred exclusively to biological women.}} Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It wasn't there before your attempted rewrite and I don't support adding it back in that form. I think the version we have is clearer about the parts that are actually relevant to this article. Loki (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't had the chance to read through the various versions but I will try to in the next day or so. A quick note on the biological women part. I'm always concerned about claims of dog whistle since it's ends up allowing allowing one side to often claim mal intent on the part of the opposing side without proof or even much evidence (I'm thinking of topics outside of this one). However, I think we should also try to be sensitive when terms like cigender women are equally specific. Perhaps the way to handle the court case would be to put the whole decision in quotes (not the specific term) while using cigender women in the wiki article body. My feeling is this addresses sensitivity concerns while not altering the legal decision. It also avoids engaging in any debate about if the biological term is or is not a dog whistle. Springee (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::The problem is that cisgender women and biological women are not definitionally the same, so our synthesis would be augmenting the meaning of the ruling. TBicks (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd be interested to hear opinions on "people assigned female at birth". I suspect that may have similar issues, though probably to a much lesser extent. TBicks (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think this is a pretty reasonable idea if we had reason in this article to say what the case actually decided. But we currently don't say that, and I don't think the article is any worse off for it. If a reader wants to know about the case, they can go to the page on the case. Here all that's relevant is that Rowling supported For Women Scotland in the case. Loki (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• I continue to lack the time to engage deeply here, so my thoughts will be limited. Of the versions offered, I prefer Loki's, as it trims some extraneous material. I believe we could go further in this direction - the outcome of Forstater's tribunal hearing is not very relevant to this biography, and should likely be moved to a footnote - but that's a minor point. I feel similarly about reporting any other court rulings. I also agree with those above saying we should avoid the term "biological women", unless we are quoting someone who is themselves saying that. I am not accusing anyone of malintent, but the term is nonsense in this circumstance, when we are discussing trans women who may meet a lot of definitions of "biological women". If "cis women" is unpalatable, we need to at least say "people who were born women". Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::: See discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling#%22In_2024,_Rowling_founded_the_J._K._Rowling_Women's_Fund,_which_would_provide_funding_for_gender_critical_women_to_pursue_sex-based_rights_in_legal_cases_against_employers_and_public_services;%22 in separate section] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand the qualms of many users here and this is the first time I'm writing. I will say that I don't know most of the editing rules. However, it's been recently revealed publicly and confirmed by JKR that this fund is entirely funded by her and has been functioning for "some time".

https://jkrwf.org/

It openly states that its goal is to pay all the legal fees of people fighting various legal battles linked with anti-trans subjects including "overturning legislation".

So 2 questions:

1. shouldn't this be in the wiki?

2. surely this is enough to categorize her as an activist? This goes beyond just giving money and posting online, she created an organization dedicated to fighting trans rights 2A01:CB1C:12DE:8900:A00E:2AEE:122E:27F8 (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:It doesn't really "go beyond just giving money" because that's exactly what the fund does.

:I'm not 100% clear what sort of activist you're proposing we call her, but if its yet another proposal to call her an "anti-trans activist", see the above section on that proposal, as well as previous discussions.

:Making this specific fund isn't any more reason to assign that label than it would be to assign the labels "womens rights activist" or "childrens rights activist" based on other charities and funds she has set up. It is clear that despite her extensive financial contributions and public engagement/speech in those areas, they are not appropriate labels. Nor is anti-trans activist at this time (though that may change depending on the direction reliable sources take). TBicks (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I can understand this opinion. Especially since I'm still very much unaware of how specific definitions are applied on wiki. I would personally call her an anti-trans activist, but I recognize that's entirely personal and subjective. I do wonder however if there's a specific definition of activism on this website and criteria to meet, or if it's entirely dependent on reliable sources categorizing her as such. 2A01:CB1C:12DE:8900:B0B6:9949:9782:A729 (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, it should be in common usage in reliable source material, especially for a contentious label on a BLP. I'm not aware of a specific definition/criteria for being labeled an activist on wikipedia, but I think community consensus is probably the main thing to aim for. TBicks (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is in the article now (with a WP:CITEVAR breach, poor prose, and non-neutral presentation), in spite of no major news organization running the story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see references to Pink News and The National which are both fairly major news organisations. John (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Which honestly surprised me. Since she has both tweeted about it and the website is fairly transparent about its objectives.

::However, typing "J K Rowling women's fund" on google doesn't lead you to the website (probably due to the domain name). You have to specify "website". The fact that it's sort of hard to find might explain why newspapers haven't reported it. 2A01:CB16:2054:BE93:91D7:7C21:222E:750B (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Shouldn't there also be a line about how it funds people challenging existing legislation? They're pretty open about it on the website. 2A01:CB1C:12DE:8900:DB0:B086:6ED7:FCF1 (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We should wait for that to be discussed in reliable sources before looking to add to an already questionable inclusion. TBicks (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::How is it questionable when it's explicitly stated on the website? 2A01:CB1C:12DE:8900:DB0:B086:6ED7:FCF1 (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Because our job is to synthesize the reliable secondary source material available, not list everything written on the website. There is barely any secondary sourcing for this fund yet, let alone from reliable sources. TBicks (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::So just to be clear, if a fund openly states their objectives, but no reliable secondary sourcing reports on it because said fund has been relatively discreet, you would never include it on the website? Even if they continue to do so for years? 2A01:CB1C:12DE:8900:DB0:B086:6ED7:FCF1 (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's quite a recent event, but we already have Pink News. The National and [https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/jk-rowling-sets-up-private-fund-to-offer-legal-support-for-women-s-sex-based-rights-what-we-know-101748510331539.html Hindustan Times]. These are all reliable sources. John (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Here is [https://www.advocate.com/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-organization an article] by The Advocate about this fund. I just wanted to add it here in case it is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Regardless, no mainstream news source has reported the story and it is UNDUE. The BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, USA Today, every other mainstream US news and Hollywood source that routinely report on Rowling have not reported this story. We have a sub-articles for minor issues; this article is a broad overview that reflects highest quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::PinkNews and The Advocate aren't exactly unbiased sources when it comes to this, either. TBicks (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Bias does not take away from reliability and, frankly, excluding PinkNews on issues surrounding transphobia will be introducing a failure of neutrality. I would say a major queer media outlet represents a significant viewpoint on anti-trans bigotry. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I didn't suggest excluding it, but if 50% of the sources that have been provided have bias, it raises the question if inclusion in the article is WP:UNDUE based on the current source material. TBicks (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Why would it be undue? The RSP green publication whose entire purpose is to cover LGBT news, is covering LGBT news. Would we say that a development in the world of science is UNDUE if only RSP green scientific publications covered it, but not CNN? Because if so, I'd like to make you aware that not all facts have to be on major news networks to be notable and worthy of inclusion. Snokalok (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The science analogy is a nonstarter since scientific publications don't tend to be biased against scientific developments.

:::::::::::::If a significant proportion of reporting on a topic is from sources which are biased against the subject, two issues arise:

:::::::::::::1) Neutral sources who frequently report on Rowling do not believe it is noteworthy enough to report, which is a natural indicator that it is UNDUE.

:::::::::::::2) If we synthesize that broadly biased source material, we are likely unconsciously introducing bias into the article. TBicks (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{tq| scientific publications don't tend to be biased against scientific developments.}} When those 'developments' are such things as are anti-vaxxing and rubbing arsenic on your face, they absolutely are. PinkNews being potentially biased against rollbacks in LGBT rights is no different.

::::::::::::::{{tq|Neutral sources who frequently report on Rowling do not believe it is noteworthy enough to report}} I've not seen a single news story about her in the last five years that *doesn't* make mention of her actions regarding trans people.

::::::::::::::{{tq|If we synthesize that broadly biased source material, we are likely unconsciously introducing bias into the article.}} As opposed to, every other article we've written about public figures that devote their public and professional lives to railing against the rights of minority groups? Snokalok (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::"I've not seen a single news story about her in the last five years that *doesn't* make mention of her actions regarding trans people."

:::::::::::::::And that's relevant to adding a passage specifically about this fund, how exactly? If anything, the fact that they frequently report on her trans speech but have chosen not to report on this is a stronger argument against its inclusion.

:::::::::::::::"As opposed to, every other article we've written about public figures that devote their public and professional lives to railing against the rights of minority groups?"

:::::::::::::::We synthesize neutral sources for such articles, while avoiding the biased ones. It's not a difficult concept. TBicks (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::{{tq| I've not seen a single news story about her in the last five years that *doesn't* make mention of her actions regarding trans people.}} Then there is probably an issue in how you are conducting your searches or what sources and topics you are confining your reading to; this helps explain a lot of the differences in perception on this talk page, and I suggest doing broader searches and broader reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Not a single news story is definitely an exaggeration, but it's definitely the large majority that mention it. Google News results don't always link well but for me [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-lm&q=rowling&tbm=nws&source=lnms&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZrjP_Cx0LI1Ytb_FGcOviEiTm5uW1q0uNfK7KsnoL8hUyUYUJLZ_b-p0lT09DIkR7bwzZ58goNnPFwCobO9Lr1FJy27_ddIL61O5aDZqsFHcHHuRFHQk7kxoaLdgj0KZZIU_JDUonyMsHdJdQkliK1bPwqcc0Qm1U_K-UcOsxPbe_46Hc9znarUsxAr9dQ4t5M01Vcw&sa=X 7 out of the 10 top results here] mention Rowling's views on trans people, even in stories that aren't directly about them. Loki (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Which is irrelevant to what is being suggested, which is a specific fund she set up. TBicks (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::I have cleaned up the CITEVAR and balance issues, but this content is UNDUE and does not belong in this article (we have sub-articles for items that are not DUE weight in this article). Highest quality sources are expected in FAs, and we have none of the usual reporting this issue. I had made some other copy edits, lost in edit conflict, but ran out of time for further fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the replies. Just to be clear, I was not saying that The Advocate source had to be used. I was more so linking it here just in case it would help. I trust your opinion, as you are more familiar with the coverage surrounding these issues and have more experience with the article in general. I hope that I have not caused any issues. I just thought the link may be helpful, even in the future when looking back on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::at least two articles in the Daily Mail. Mattymmoo (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Daily Mail is unreliable (see WP:DAILYMAIL) TBicks (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::This Times article has a short paragraph on the fund, (it is about a potential case for support):

::https://www.thetimes.com/article/720b241b-56a2-4707-bb99-b6fe48df7d06

::(There is also a sentence in this article about an X spat between Rowling & Maugham: https://www.thetimes.com/article/67f6f74c-3cd6-4786-8702-c27d776d9a80)

:: Mattymmoo (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1294877644&oldid=1294786044 large insertion of UNDUE content], including an entire section on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1294877644#Philanthropy Women's Fund] and changes to content that was under talk page discussion or previously discussed many times. On the UNDUE philanthropy insertion, Rowling has founded numerous charities that are widely discussed in scholarly and other sources; the Women's Fund (as discussed above) isn't covered by most sources, and doesn't warrant an entire section equivalent in size to the rest of her philanthropic ventures. Writing the article on the J. K. Rowling Women's Fund or adding content to the Political views sub-article would be the place for DUE content. Hyliad, please read this information which appears every time you edit this article, and gain consensus for such changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have time today to get to this:

• {{cite news |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcraig/2025/05/30/jk-rowling-is-a-billionaire-again/ |title= J.K. Rowling is a billionaire – again |date= 30 May 2025 |access-date= 1 June 2025 |work= Forbes |first= Matt |last= Craig|ref=none}}

{{ping|Firefangledfeathers|Vanamonde93}}... noting Forbes staff, not contributor, and I hope no one drops in partial and poorly written content, as this article offers potential for considerable content work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Eg, note things such as "Romania, Haiti, Colombia and Ukraine", which we are missing ... there's lots of material in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Can work on this soon. No objections if Johnny-on-the-spot gets there first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for working in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1293799399&oldid=1293712745 update on financials and philanthropy], FFF; more work is still needed to update legacy issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Still on my radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:When did cancel culture get deleted from the article body? An effort to correct some sub-standard prose and content changes over the last year is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Going to repost this as a topic, as it feels like its important and shouldn't be lost in another discussion.

The state of this article is horrible. We've mangled it so much with changes to wording and contentious additions/removals that it seems whenever we want to change anything due to a perceived policy breach, that change ends up creating another policy breach elsewhere. I think there is a significant amount of this article that needs a rewrite, particularly the gender views/speech aspect. That won't be easy though, given what really needs to be done.

We need to do a full review of the entire body of reliable literature since her trans views were first reported on, and determine what weighting is given to what factors. Only then will we hopefully be able to stop this constant back-and-forth. It will allow us to build a natural order for content and give a bigger picture in terms of what should/shouldn't be in the article, and consequently the lead (which is supposed to be a summary of the article).

That might seem like a lot of work, but it's LONG overdue for this article. All we've had for months/years is people posting a few links to articles here and there to support their views. We need a full view of the bigger picture of the literature.

We keep putting it off and putting it off for the sake of not delaying changes, but eventually we're going to end up with an article so unrecognizable from the broader source material that it needs a complete rewrite. To be honest, I think we're already at that point. TBicks (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:We only need to partially re-invent the wheel. It's probable that most high-quality sources on this topic prior to the FAR were dug up during that process. Many more high-quality sources came up during the last major attempt at a section re-write in early 2024. See Archive 16 for a source collection and the following few archives for the many drafts and suggestions. Above, at #Newer sources, we started a collection of even newer high-quality sources, and if you turn up anymore it might be best to consolidate there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, exactly, a lot of new literature was presented. What we lack is consensus to actually do anything with it. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::As a general comment, I hope everyone opining on overall rewrite has had a chance to review Pugh, as it was the best and most thorough scholarly source during the rewrite, providing a good measure of weight. I wonder if we can't find something more recent that is similar.{{pb}} #For updating financial and more (eg, legacy) covers a lot of other needed updates; as discussion here has focused on one section, JKR's professional work that has advanced hasn't been updated; I think the Forbes article gets all of that, and don't think we need to completely re-invent the wheel, agreeing with FFF.{{pb}} I continue to hold out hope that some of the ranting and battleground behavior will subside so that this page can focus on concrete proposals and best sources. If it doesn't, I wonder if it would be easier to work under a FAR, as we did last time, as that forum provided more structure, external input and made it clear to some that misbehaviors weren't going to work. We could either work under FAR, or make more use of WP:AE, but the progress made on this page in the last 24 hours gives some hope that neither will be necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Sirfurboy}} I don't understand [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1294878616&oldid=1294877644 these tags] (I reinstated them after removing an intervening large edit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, yes, it's a bit of an odd case TBH. The text we have says Rowing {{tq|tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real"}}. The tweet is certainly real [https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1269389298664701952], but we have two sources given that are from secondary WP:BESTSOURCES rather than the primary source, the tweet itself. The problem is that the first reference does not say what we quote, it only says {{tq|Rowling was quick to defend herself with posts claiming that biological sex is “real”}}, whereas the second source doesn't reference this tweet at all, but the Forstater "this is not a drill" tweet. It seems to be a case of us trying to improve the sourcing, but not actually following the sources. Meanwhile this summary of the tweet, which stresses erasure, and says nothing about her view that same sex attraction cannot exist if sex isn't real, is our own summary of the source, and not the summary found in the sources. This is not the only issue I see with this section, where source-text integrity is not what it should be. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thx, {{u|Sirfurboy}}. I can guess at what happened there, which might suggest how to fix things. At one point during the FAR, we were trying to make sure that everything mentioned in the article was also covered by scholarly sources, so we were adding scholarly source mentions to primary or lesser quality sources. It looks like the primary (or news?) source in this case went missing. Besides re-adding the primary, can you suggest other ways to repair? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If we found a secondary source that said more about the erasure of women, we could cite that. Otherwise, we could adjust the text to match the first source and delete the second. But, in fact, I found these because I am looking at providing a suggested rewrite of the whole paragraph. If you wish, please feel free to delete the tags for now. I have taken note of this and other issues and will have some suggested changes ... er ... sometime. 😜 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::No need to remove the tags; your approach is good (rewrite the whole paragraph). Remember that, at the time of the FAR, we were constrained by a poorly launched but very widely attended RFC, that as it turned out, endorsed text that wasn't even sourced, so we working to honor the intent of the RFC as it was too soon to revisit it, but we always knew we would need to revisit when more and newer sources were available. I just wanted to make sure I understood what the problem was here, as that sentence was inserted to explain her stance, IIRC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

First of all, there was absolutely no consensus to expand the wording. In a discussion of whether Rowling's denial should be included at all, expanding the text from three words to a lengthy sentence is really anti-consensus.

Secondly, without context, this is at best a non sequitur (There were no trans people involved in her domestic abuse or sexual assault) and at worst, a really nasty attack on trans people, implying that they were responsible, or that they're highly likely to do such things.

It is not permitted to use Wikipedia to promote anti-trans speech, even if it's what Rowling believes. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Quotations explains that we can't just quote her fringe opinions. WP:PARITY makes it clear that the sources debunking her only need to be as good as the sources quoting her.

It's a matter of fact that there's no evidence of men pretending to be women to get into women's spaces being a significant problem. There is a lot of evidence that trans people are at a much higher risk of violence and sexual assault. We need to act accordingly. Sample evidence: [https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/transgender-people-arent-threat-you].

Further, per WP:PARITY, if we're using Reuters, the Guardian and the BBC to state Rowling's fringe views, we are not required to use sources any higher than that to discuss the problems with them. Either the sources being used to defend her are not good enough, or things like the Variety piece are ample and need to be given equal weight.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 08:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Consensus ideally should result in everyone at least accepting the change. However, it isn't required and that was clearly a consensus change that you reverted. Nothing in the material you removed "promoted anti-trans speech" and wp:NOTCENSORED certainly suggested that such material can be on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Although, in fact, it was Loki who reverted (without stating why). At least Adam Cuerden has engaged with the content. I am inclined to agree that this particular sentence could be misunderstood, and am happy to clarify it. I note that it is reworked from the status quo of {{tq|she explained that her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault}}. That is, all I did was shorten it slightly - that is not an expansion. We can leave it as the longer form for now. A fuller reworking of the sentence should actually stress that it was the experience fo domestic abuse that led her to want to speak out on the issue - not that this was why she holds the views, but in the interests of moving us forwards, let's just leave it at the status quo for now, and the rest of the edit can then presumably go back in.{{pb}}Regarding Reuters, the Guardian and the BBC, I again note (and I stated this above) that these are newspaper sources that are already in the article, and it is these sources I wish to improve in later edits. All I did was improve the source-text integrity of what we already are using. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, I took this section to be a justification for these changes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1295033118&oldid=1294974445]. I haven't weighed in on the article body changes other than to say I think better explaining her views is good. We don't have to agree with those views but I always feel readers come out better educated when such things are explained. I would feel the same if we were talking about the motivations of the September 11th terrorists. Springee (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah no, you were correct - my mistake. It seems we have that in the lead too, and that is what Adam Cuerden has marked. So yes, this section is about the lead and not about my re-arrangement in the main (which has essentially the same text). Regarding the lead, I'd again suggest we just leave it alone for a while until we get the main text sorted. Once the main section is improved, a new lead will be easier. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I disagree. There's a qualitative difference between having that text in the body, where it's explained, and having it in the lead with no further details. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think I agree. Although the same is true of the "accused of transphobia" text. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Starting to get bored of the argument that stating what her views are is somehow promoting those views. Without attempting to analogise his views to Rowling's, in Hitler's article, we literally say that he believed that Jews were "sub-human". That is about as FRINGE as it gets, but it's what he believed and is relevant to his article, so we report it. Nobody fair-minded would claim that we are promoting or endorsing that stereotype. If we are going to report a negative allegation about someone's views (particularly if we have a whole section about it), we must discuss what their expressed views are, regardless of if we agree with them, otherwise we fall foul of WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT (which is particularly important for a BLP).

:As for consensus, the fact that you disagree with it doesn't mean there was "absolutely no consensus". People from both sides of the denial/no denial debate constructively engaged with the rewrite and were fine with the resulting passage. If you want to make further changes, by all means contribute in the relevant section of the talk page. FWIW I still think there are improvements that could be made to the passage, but having it in as a placeholder is better than leaving the paragraph in the state of WP:DUE vio that it was before. TBicks (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've not been following this page but I've had a quick read of #"Which she disputes". The second half of that sentence seems clearly more controversial in that discussion than the first half. I don't think there's clear consensus for that second half of that sentence. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::There's a difference between stating that Hitler thought of Jewish people as subhuman, and saying - without rebuttal, that "Hitler thought of them as subhuman and pointed out, to back his views, their [https://www.museumoftolerance.com/assets/documents/hitler-letter-handout-1.pdf inbreeding and usurous practices]."

::Doing that implies, at least somewhat, that the basis of Hitler's opinion is based on fact. When we say that J.K. Rowling opposes transgender rights because she wishes to protect women, it implies that transgender people being a danger to women is an accepted, non-controversial fact.

::One can certainly phrase these things in ways that don't promote their views. But there's a difference between "Rowling claims that her attempts to get transgender people out of women's spaces is an attempt to protect non-transgender women from men who might use a claim of being transgender to sneak in." (ideally followed by a rebuttal of the false facts of that premise) and what we're doing here. By keeping the attacks on transgender people subtext, it hides them from criticism. It's also just badly written. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Promotion_of_anti-trans_fringe_theories_on_J._K._Rowling. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The lead doesn't say that she "opposes transgender rights because she wishes to protect women" or that transgender people are any danger to women. The fact that you choose to draw certain subtext from the current wording doesn't mean that the article promotes those ideas, nor does it mean that others draw that subtext. It also doesn't present her views "without rebuttal" because they're immediately preceded by the accusation that the views are transphobic.

:::"Rowling claims that her attempts to get transgender people out of women's spaces[...]" would be even worse, because she isn't simply trying to "get transgender people out of womens' spaces". She has never expressed an opposition to trans men utilizing womens spaces, because she considers them to be women.

:::As for it being badly written, like I said, there's a section above for improving the wording, and the current version is merely a placeholder until we can get a better paragraph agreed upon. As I said earlier, I think there are improvements to be made. TBicks (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm with TBicks here. I don't think that there is subtext about trans people being dangerous, I think that we are just repeating the reasoning she gave. Does that reasoning make full logical sense, no, but a lot of things people believe don't make sense if you interrogate them fully.

:::I again don't really think we need to include her denial in the lead but if we're going to do that I don't think that a close paraphrase of her denial is in any way undue. In fact later we quote her saying things that seem quite transphobic as illustration of the sort of things she's been saying, so if you really think that her claims are hateful I think that's all the more reason to include them. Loki (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: Sirfurboy wrote above:

::::: QUOTE: I note that it is reworked from the status quo of {{tq|she explained that her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault}}. That is, all I did was shorten it slightly - that is not an expansion. UNQUOTE

:::: That slight shortening removed context (her views on women's rights) -- removing those words led to the current problem, and I suggest they should be re-instated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I actually think the shortening was a clear improvement, because her views actually aren't on women's rights and many sources say specifically that they're not. Loki (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with Sandy: suggest restoring the wording as it was. Jusdafax (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The status quo a week or so ago was "which she denies". Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 02:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Please note that the shortening referred to my reworking of this text in the main. As above, I thought Adam Cuerden was talking about main text here, but corrected myself. He is talking about the lead, which I did not write nor shorten. I have not touched the text in the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The (bloated) talk page would be less confusing if more editors would use diffs to the version or section they are discussing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

{{tpq|Secondly, without context, this is at best a non sequitur (There were no trans people involved in her domestic abuse or sexual assault) and at worst, a really nasty attack on trans people, implying that they were responsible, or that they're highly likely to do such things.}} - THIS! It makes no sense to include this non sequitur rebuttal by her when the violence and assault she experienced were at the hands of a cis man! Wasn't the sentence referred to shortened, at least a couple of years ago, for this very reason?! I'm sure it was! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not a huge fan of the phrase as it currently is tbh, as it doesn't fully cover her views and leaves subtext open to interpretation where it needn't be. It was workshopped in response to a lot of WP:MANDY shouting, to show that she's not just denying it offhand for the sake of denying it (as MANDY would imply), but has elucidated her reasons for her views. It is really in there as a placeholder until we can agree on better wording (see the Re-writing the paragraph section above).

:The broader context of her views on single-sex spaces, as explained in the essay, is "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."

:To me, that reads as 'if you let anyone who claims they're trans come in to womens spaces, any cis male predator can do so too'. That's not necessarily claiming that trans people are a danger to women. The phrase could definitely be worded better to avoid this potential subtextual implication. TBicks (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

User:TurboSuperA+ suggested at the NPOVN: {{tqq|While Rowling denies being transphobic, her expression of these views has impacted her public image and relationship with readers and colleagues, altering the way they engage with her works.}} which I think is a good compromise. Is everyone okay with that sentence? Some1 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Works for me, though I fear that would reignite the MANDY criticism we saw before. TBicks (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::I like this phrasing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This works for me too. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It's better than what we have, and at least flows well enough that it avoids the clunkiness of the original version (not the one currently in the article) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 06:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Updated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1295570530] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"While Rowling has supported fan fiction, her statements about characters – for instance, that Harry and Hermione could have been a couple, and that Dumbledore was gay – have complicated her relationship with readers; according to Pugh, she only announced Dumbledore's sexuality to her fans, but not in the books, thus "closeting this character for unexplained reasons". According to scholars, this shows that modern readers feel a sense of ownership over the text that is independent of, and sometimes contradicts, authorial intent."

I presume the quote from Pugh was added later, but it creates a problem that the sources go Thomas and Tosenburger for the first of those sentences, Pugh for the second, and then Thomas and Tosenburger for the third, meaning that, unless Thomas and Tosenburger cover the "Dumbledore is gay" issue, the "this shows" refers back to the wrong point. I don't have every bo, but this seems questionable. Also, while I can imagine an earlier draft where "While Rowling has supported fan fiction" does not create a non-sequitur, the connection is very loose now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 06:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Also, the phrasing "according to Pugh, she only announced Dumbledore's sexuality to her fans, but not in the books" elides the distinction between a basic fact (the books don't state that Dumbledore is gay) and Pugh's evaluation. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:The statement "Rowling has supported fan fiction" is rather badly unspecific. The reader can't tell from that whether she tweeted once that fanfic is OK, whether she actively encouraged it over a span of years, or what exactly. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::This is kind of the article's biggest problem outside of the controversial parts: it feels like there's a lot of artefacts of past versions that new phrases and ideas have gotten latched onto them. I suspect a careful source check would find a lot of situations where the following sort of edit happened (I'll use X1 X2 X3 for text from source x, and [x] for a citation to x)

::Original:

:::A1 A2 A3[a] X1 X2 X3[x]

::Addition:

:::A1 A2 A3[a] X1 Y1 Y2[y] X2 X3[x]

::Rearrangement:

:::X1 Y1 Y2[y] A1 A2 A3[a] X2 X3[x]

::And possibly even removal:

:::X1 Y1 Y2[y] A1 A2 A3[a]

::Forgive the abstraction, but I think it's easier to understand than an actual example. The point is that fact X1 gets misattributed, possibly with source x disappearing from the article.

::And of course, you also get cases where rearrangements separate clauses in ways that change meaning, where accidental WP:SYNTH issues come up because of what once were justified links between phrases. For example, the original text reads something like "Because of X1, X2[x]" and a revision makes it into "Because of X1[x], Y1 Y2[y]. X2[x]. - where there's an accidental WP:SYNTH in the linking of the fact from x and the one from y. That "While Rowling has supported fanfiction" might be an example of this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

: Yes: found at Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_22#Dumbledore. After waiting several weeks for a response from {{u|LokiTheLiar}}, the "fix" was my mistake. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1295903067 converted the insertion to a footnote], but I'm still unsure if Loki's concern, or the others raised here, is addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Genuinely sorry for not responding there. I wanted to go through the sources before responding like you asked for and then never got around to it. Loki (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, that being said, to answer the questions directly, it still doesn't really address my concern, because my concern is more about awkward wording than poor sourcing. The issue the fans had is not the fact of Dumbledore being gay but how it was confirmed.

::Which is to say, I think it should be:

::{{tq2|While Rowling has supported fan fiction, her post-book-publication statements about characters have complicated her relationship with readers. For instance, she only announced Dumbledore's sexuality to her fans, but not in the books, thus "closeting this character for unexplained reasons" according to Pugh. According to scholars, this shows that modern readers feel a sense of ownership over the text that is independent of, and sometimes contradicts, authorial intent.}} Loki (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|LokiTheLiar}}: I'm concerned doing it that way still leaves us with the SYNTH issue raised by AC? But I wasn't involved in writing the text, and don't think I fully understand the concern, so still unsure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Olivaw-Daneel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1064716099 wrote that based mostly on Thomas]; I'll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request&diff=prev&oldid=1295920634 post a query] at WP:RX. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::All right, I have Thomas now, which quotes Tosenberger. Thomas does support that it was to fans but not in books, with:{{tq2|It should be noted that long before Rowling left Hermione's racial and ethnic identities up for reader interpretation in a tweet, she'd established a propensity toward providing details for the vast wizarding world outside the official books and movies.}} And then quotes Tosenberger on Rowling announcing that Dumbledore was gay at a Carnegie Hall appearance. And then the authorial intent bit. So while the quote from Pugh is interesting, it isn't tied to the authorial intent statement, and we can source the announcement to fans not in books to Thomas and Tosenberger without Pugh. If we still want to work in Pugh, I don't think the order of content above works, per SYNTH re the authorial intent, so some rearrangement would be needed. Also, the entire chapter is about Hermione, with only a brief foray in to Dumbledore, so I don't think the bit about Hermione should be dropped. The Pugh insertion really is more of a footnote wrt authorial intent and the entire chapter being about Hermione. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::: See also Talk:J._K._Rowling#Jk_Rowling_women's_fund

"Sex-based rights" is a very NPOV-problematic phrase here. It implies that excluding trans people is a right, for one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 06:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed. It would be better to skip that part entirely and just say "provide funding for gender critical women to pursue legal cases against employers and public services". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::That's perhaps a little too vague. E.g. pursue legal cases for what? TBicks (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Please don't start multiple sections covering the same material: Women's fund discussion above.{{pb}} This sort of problem occurs when using less-than-best sources. The [https://www.thenational.scot/news/25190054.jk-rowling-fund-gender-critical-womens-cases-employers/ headline of the article] uses "gender-critical" and the first line of the article uses "sex-based rights", but further down in the article is an image titled "what we fund", that comes from [https://jkrwf.org/ here]. Where does the source get that they will fund only "gender-critical" cases? This is why we usually wait for secondary sources to analyze the news and primary sources. {{pb}} This content is still UNDUE as there has been almost no coverage doing this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::While I don't often say this, I agree we need at least a few independent secondary sources that state clearly what the fund is funding before we can add anything about it. Loki (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1295980135 Removed UNDUE bit], and adjusted the remainder to conform to sources. (Recognizing this For Women Scotland bit is under intense discussion on this page, I didn't expand it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1295614120 this tagging] (and others):

• The article is not excessively long as claimed on the FAR; its readable prose is under 9,000 words, which is quite reasonable in general relative to WP:SIZE, and in particular for a BLP of this stature.
• The article already uses summary style.

The tag is not justified, and should be removed; individual claims on the FAR should be evaluated here on talk for their merits (as the format in which they were presented on the FAR is unwieldy). Some of the claims there clearly don't engage sources (eg statement that the father is a BLP vio, and there is excess detail on family life); {{u|Adam Cuerden}} do you have Pugh, and have you read it? It is one of our best sources, and much of the weight in this article derived from it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Said this at the FAR, but let's go into some detail here: This article has:

1. An excessive amount of trivia, suitable for a long-form book, but not so much a short article. Key sections for this include the opening paragraph of J. K. Rowling#Early life and family, which has an excessive amount of detail on her parents.
2. Way too much on Harry Potter. Much of this article should be in Harry Potter (series) with brief summaries here. Multiple articles exist for a reason, and failure to spin off the incredibly detailed analysis of Harry Potter is probably the thing most holding this article back. Getting rid of (possibly be a merge) whatever shouldn't be here will make any attempt to get this to featured article status quite a bit easier. To put this in context, eight seperate sections of the article are on Harry Potter exclusively (Publishing Harry Potter, Films, Style and allusions (barring one sentence), Themes, Gender and social division, Religious reactions, Legacy, and Legal disputes), and a couple more sections are mostly about Harry Potter (Influences, Reception; let's ignore Awards and honours, Bibliography and Filmography as being very obvious and necessary parts of an article like this) That's an awful lot of information about works that are very well documented elsewhere on Wikipedia, and none of it is in summary style, it is all pretty much complete.
3. :For the record, including the lead, but excluding Notes and references and such, the article has about 27 sections with content in them, so about a third of this article is just content that does or should appear in Harry Potter (series). .
4. Much too listy. There's a bibliography at the end, it's not necessary to list off every book in the series, as happens at the end of J. K. Rowling#Publishing Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling#Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith just to link to them.
5. A certain amount of half-set-up concepts, where the article almost, but doesn't quite discuss a topic that will appear much later. For example, why do we get the lengthy discussion of her religion in J. K. Rowling#Religion, wealth and remarriage when that depth of coverage presumably only exists at all because we later have J. K. Rowling#Religious reactions?

This article is quite bloated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

: Repeat (see section above): {{u|Adam Cuerden}} do you have access to Pugh? Some of your comments (eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4&diff=prev&oldid=1295610555 this one] and the father BLP claim on the FAR) suggest that you might not have accessed all of the sources, and the father BLP statement seems to indicate you haven't read Pugh or the other four sources for that bit. Pugh also delves in to the need to debunk the "rags to riches" story re family life and history, so there as well, your comments lend to the idea that you haven't accessed Pugh before criticizing the content. {{pb}} Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1295581943 second request, please refrain from starting duplicate sections for the same material]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sandy, you posted four minutes before me, I had hit "add new section" (which automatically adds it after any content posted while you're posting, to avoid edit conflicts), and it takes more than four minutes to type this. I wasn't aware you had posted a section. Writing takes time. The Wikipedia talk page system is not set up to do what you ask.

::It's better behaviour to let someone explain their tag first. It's not really the length of the article, it's the focus, as I explained. Now, if you're done complaining that Wikipedia software doesn't work like you think it should, think you could comment on my four points? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::As for sources, I don't see how that's relevant to summary style. We're not trying to write an indiscriminate collection of all information about Rowling; we're trying to write a focused encyclopedic article. No, I haven't read Pugh, I've read other biographies, but even if I had read Pugh, unless I had them all in a stack next to me, I couldn't begin to untangle a lot of the awkward citation mess in this article.

:::As a general rule, any time there's a linkage of the type "Because of X[source 1], then Y[source 2]", there has to be a strong assumption of WP:SYNTH. That or poor citation positioning. Because a source can't raise conclusions about material not in it. If more detail appeared in source 1, but 2 drew the conclusion and mentioned fact Y, the correct citation style is "Because of X, then Y[1][2]." Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the explanation of the duplicate.{{pb}}Third request: {{u|Adam Cuerden}} answering your claims again: do you have access to Pugh? You have made considerable commentary that indicates you may not be accounting for Pugh on the biographical detail, and it is one of our best and most comprehensive scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I answered you already, but to repeat, no. It'd be nice to have it, but I don't think you'd like what I'd do with it, because, frankly, the way to fix the structure of this article is probably just to rewrite the worst sections from scratch with two or thre sources, then see if there's anything worth keeping from the older versions that can be affirmed to be in the sources. Parts of it really need a full refresh, because they're a mess. Do you disagree with any of my structural points raised in the list?

::::It's not that's it's long per se, it's that it's disorganised, a little too off-topic. Like, I've written FAs, as you presumably know. I know how they're meant to be structured, and... this feels more of an indiscriminate mass of information on her life and works. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you already answered, I missed it or have forgotten. Ah, I see it now; I lost that in edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC) {{pb}} All right, since you don't have Pugh, I suggest you try to get hold of it -- most of the editors here do have it and someone could probably get it to you. I'll give a broad (very quick) overview next. In the absence of Pugh, I suggest that a good deal of your criticism is moot. And any rewrite from a few sources would have to use Pugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Adam, I think you should make the case here then consider adding the tag. Also, how much of this has changed since the article got GA status? If you are concerned about content that has been part of the long term stable version of the article I think you need to make a better case first. This doesn't make your concerns right or wrong, just perhaps the tag cart was placed before the talk page horse. Springee (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Springee}}, I believe essentially none of the content re literary analysis that concerns AC has been added since the FA (sic GA) version, and see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4&diff=prev&oldid=1295777638 response on FAR] from {{u|Vanamonde93}}. I was one of the editors originally arguing against literary analysis in the bio, and consensus was against me, and in hingsight I was wrong. On the personal bio bits, I've done some trimming to reflect AC's concerns; this is an intended compromise, as I believe the sources support including content about her early life as it affected her writing, but I'M not bothered by the bits I've trimmed (1 and 4 on AC list, and AC should get consensus on item 3). But on the literary bits, we need to either remove the unjustified tag (it is a mis-application to say the article doesn't follow summary style, and what is there enjoyed a broad consensus), or someone needs to launch an RFC over whether this article should include literary analysis of JKR's work (Influences, Style and themes, Reception). As most of those sections also include criticism of her work, the article could be claimed to fail comprehensiveness, 1b and to be POV if we leave them out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Tison Pugh's 2020 book is the most comprehensive scholarly source we have; we have more recent sources on the trans and other issues, but nothing more recent that I'm aware of that is a complete overview of JKR's work and life. (She has never authorized a bio AFAIK.) Adam Cuerden acknowledges above not having this source (Adam, I'm wondering what other sources you don't have, as so many of your comments on the FAR don't reflect sources).

• {{Cite book|last=Pugh|first=Tison|author-link=Tison Pugh|title=Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions|publisher=University of South Carolina Press|year=2020|isbn=978-1-64336-088-1|oclc=1142046769|doi=10.2307/j.ctvs09qwv|s2cid=225791872|ref=none}}

The first chapter is a 19-page overview and biography. {{pb}} Starting on page 2, Pugh deals with the "cinderella" "rags to riches" meme surrounding Rowling's early life. On page 3, he's on the "grinding effects of poverty" and the single parent info. Page 4 again returns to defunking the "rags to riches" meme, and talks about her estrangement from her father. Page 5–6 is philanthropy. Page 6 has awards and honours, then starts on her political views, which go through page 7. Page 8 returns to the significance of her early life as it deals with how her art imitates her life. Page 9 talks more about details of her life in relation to her fiction. Pages 10 to 13 talk about influences. And so on ... so a best source thinks it important to look at her early life, and since this is her bio, so does Wikipedia.{{pb}} An effort was made to respect due weight according to highest quality sources, and that includes exploring her early life and childhood in terms of how it influenced her writing. Pages 2 through 4 deal with early life detail. Any argument that the article contains excess detail needs to account for weighting according to sources, and opining on excess detail without looking at sources isn't productive, nor is cutting detail without accounting for why it's there. In particular, the notion that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4&oldid=1295132628 "the discussion of her father is a violation] of WP:BLP is far-fetched; it relies on Pugh as well as three other sources, and there are more. Discussion of trimming content-- in an article that is by no means overly long-- should be based on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:I mean, he's a living person, and not one in the public eye. So WP:NPF calls for a higher level of scrutiny. If it can be justified, sure, but that's a lot of nasty gossip about a non-public figure's second marriage and relationship to his children, covered in about as much detail as possible.

:But you're kind of focusing on very small points, ignoring the big picture. When we have multiple other articles on Harry Potter - literally dozens - is the amount of detailed analysis in this article a violation of summary style, e.g. using spinoff articles effectively? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm wondering if it isn't worth having an influences article for her, as we do for Tolkien for example. I think there's enough in the reliable source material there, not just in terms of general literary/mythological influences, but also from her life events (e.g. her mother's death) to make it a non-stub. It would give us leeway to slim down the main article a little too. TBicks (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::I argued early on in FAR1 that there was literary analysis in this article that could be placed elsewhere; I was overruled, rightly so I think, and I respect consensus even though I thought earlier on this article should be mostly bio, less literary analysis. On her personal life and early history, this is her only bio (not what you call a "spinoff"), and I think Pugh and other sources give us the weight we should reflect here. The article is not long, and I don't see a need for more of what you call "spinoffs". {{pb}} Re "focusing on very small points", much of the laundry list at FAR is just that, or easily fixed. For example, which bits about her father do you want to remove? Rather than arguing generalities, it might be more expedient to start a section on items you want to change so we can get to it. (For example, in terms of things that have deteriorated since the FAR version, I don't understand how we came to the inconsisteny in acronym vs. spelling out of "She has been appointed an OBE and a Member of the Companions of Honour" when the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1082873609 FAR version spelled out both] (named to the Order of the British Empire and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour). But I assume someone who understands these British-isms better than I will fix that, and I wouldn't bring a FAR over such small points -- even FAs aren't perfect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:I feel like your appeal to the existence of a source saying those things means you badly need to read WP:VNOT. Like I just said over at the FAR I don't think any of these criticisms requires familiarity with any source to evaluate them, because they're all problems with the text of the article itself. Loki (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::The question is not verifiability, but weight. How can someone who hasn't accessed our best sources -- or done a survey of sources -- evaluate weight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Because we have multiple articles. Ignoring the plot summary, probably about half or more of Harry Potter is duplicated here. That is not summary style. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Also, I've been sent Pugh; will my views on basic Wikipedia guidelines suddenly deserve respect when I'm done reading it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 13:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

(Copied from above, per request)

The sections primarily on Harry Potter are: Publishing Harry Potter, Films, Later Harry Potter works, Influences, Style and allusions, Themes, Reception (Intro), Reception (Gender and social division), Reception (Religious reactions), Legacy, Legal disputes, and Bibliography.

While there might be some minor cuts to discuss (do we need to mention who made the films' screenplays?), I think we can agree that Publishing Harry Potter, Films, Reception (Intro) and Bibliography have absolutely no controversy to be included (tweaks aside), and Later Harry Potter Works can be discussed seperately (I think we have a new section on Pottermore anyway)

.

This leaves us with two groupings: Influences, Style and allusions, Themes, and Reception (Gender and social division), are Harry Potter literary analysis, as is about half of Legacy, and the second paragraph of Reception (Religious reactions). We'll call this "HP Literary analysis" The other halves of Legacy and Reception (Religious reactions), and all of Legal disputes is... let's call it "Effects of publishing Harry Potter (but not on J. K. Rowling)", or "Effects" for short.

The question is, if we take each of these groupings together, are they excessively long? 14 paragraphs on Harry Potter literary analysis is a lot, and I'd argue ridiculously long. There is a spinoff article (Harry Potter.

The second grouping is about 6 or 7 paragraphs, some on the shorter side. It's probably more off-topic than analysis of her writing directly, so I'd say it's a little long. For example, the third paragraph of "Legal disputes" has very little relevance to Rowling herself, and my inclination is to cut it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that the Literary analysis should be shrunk to 5-7 paragraphs at most, and the second grouping (which. as I say, is less on topic) as much as it can sensibly be.

To be discussed. {{interrupted|Adam Cuerden|15:13, June 19, 2025}}

: AC, were you planning to fill in this section? I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4&curid=80191931&diff=1296380692&oldid=1296380369 responded here], after waiting several hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FJ._K._Rowling%2Farchive4&diff=1296385905&oldid=1296380692 Cross posting]. Victoria (tk) 19:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how many sections it's worth discussing at once, and this'll probably be more of a mess, since it's a lot more subjective what should be cut. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 21:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm presuming everything is duplicated to Harry Potter. I'd say these cuts are the easier ones, as they're more loosely connected to Rowling in the first place.

• The first paragraph of Legacy ("Rowling's Harry Potter series has been credited with a resurgence in crossover fiction:...") is pretty badly written, and probably could be cut way down. There's a clunky division between it and the next paragraph.
• In the second paragraph of Legacy ("The commercial success of Harry Potter in 1997 reversed this trend...") While I love Diana Wynne Jones. I'm not sure she should be mentioned here. Perhaps cut "Older works of children's fantasy, including Diana Wynne Jones's Chrestomanci series and Diane Duane's Young Wizards, were reprinted and rose in popularity; some authors re-established their careers." I'd say these two paragraphs could be a couple sentences. Something like "The publication of Harry Potter saw a rise in crossover fiction, which appeals to both children and adults, and revitalised the children's fantasy genre." and probably then a couple bits of paragraph 2 for statistics.

(Third paragraph is other grouping)

• The fourth paragraph has been discussed, including some very clunky phrasing, but not changed. I'd say the bit starting "Her statements about characters" is the only part that should definitely stay; Offhand, the bit about the Harry Potter releases should probably be shortened and added to the section J._K._Rowling#Publishing_Harry_Potter.
• The first paragraph of Reception (Religious reactions) is of dubious relevance to Rowling herself. I'd be inclined to reduce it to a sentence in Legacy.
• In Legal disputes, I'd be inclined to cut the third paragraph entirely, and possibly the first and second (unless the second gets added to the fourth paragraph of "Legacy". The third paragraph is definitely off-topic, the first paragraph is such a minor lawsuit that it seens barely worth talking about outside of detailed Harry Potter articles, and the second feels way more Harry Potter than Rowling (presuming the releases of the books are covered somewhere). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Removing criticism in Religious reactions would open the article to NPOV/comprehensive issues, and the bit from biographer Smith about how the religious controversy helped further her rise also gives it reason to be included. Ditto on Pugh; she has a reputation for being litigious, so how can we leave that out? Overall, I'm finding it hard to see any of this as actionable, having just re-read Pugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::If your reaction to everything substantial is to say that no change should or can happen, this article is going to get delisted. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Unhelpful -- I've not only advocated to get some changes moving -- I've addressed multiple issues myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Adam, give yourself 10 mins away from wikipedia, then come back and read your comment again. Not only have you just accused the person who has been most actively addressing & fixing the issues you've raised, of stonewalling, but you've also attempted to speak for all the editors at the FAR, whose consensus will ultimately decide on the status of the article.

:::Sandy didn't just "say that no change should or can happen" - she expressed policy issues with your proposed change, and quoted high quality scholarly sources to back up her points. If you disagree, explain how her policy concerns may be addressed, don't just settle on misrepresenting her motivations. TBicks (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

In a couple of places, including the lead, Rowling's views are described as begin "gender-critical" or "gender critical feminism". This is a NPOV violation, whitewashing over the criticism she receives. She should be referred to as having "anti-trans" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" views. I'm placing a POV tag. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Have you read the page for gender-critical feminism? In what way is that not a proper description of Rowling's views? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::WP:WINARS TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::: WP:GTEST SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::To expand on my previous comment, conducting two searches on Google scholar, we get the following result counts:

::* [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%28%22gender+critical%22+OR+%22GC+feminism%22+OR+%22GC+feminist%22+OR+%22GC+feminists%22%29 ("gender critical" OR "GC feminism" OR "GC feminist" OR "GC feminists")] - about 8,840 results

::* [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%28%22TERF%22+OR+%22TERFs%22+OR+%22trans-exclusionary+radical+feminist%22+OR+%22trans-exclusionary+radical+feminists%22+OR+%22trans-exclusionary+radical+feminism%22%29 ("TERF" OR "TERFs" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminism")] - about 30,800 results

::To me that clearly indicates that this article is not adhering to WP:WEIGHT. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Doing a more focused search including J. K. Rowling:

:::* [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=J.+K.+Rowling+AND+%28%22gender+critical%22+OR+%22GC+feminism%22+OR+%22GC+feminist%22+OR+%22GC+feminists%22%29&btnG= J. K. Rowling AND ("gender critical" OR "GC feminism" OR "GC feminist" OR "GC feminists")] - about 445 results

:::* [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=J.+K.+Rowling+AND+%28%22TERF%22+OR+%22TERFs%22+OR+%22trans-exclusionary+radical+feminist%22+OR+%22trans-exclusionary+radical+feminists%22+OR+%22trans-exclusionary+radical+feminism%22%29&btnG= J. K. Rowling AND ("TERF" OR "TERFs" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" OR "trans-exclusionary radical feminism")] - about 811 results

:::TarnishedPath^talk 10:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I was not citing Wikipedia on Wikipedia. I was asking you to read what we tell the reader about gender critical views, and then discuss in what way this is not a summary of her actual views. Further, having read what we tell the reader about gender critical views, in what sense is this whitewashing? As for the google-fu, there are 44,000 words on this talk page alone (not including archives) discussing the sourcing, largely around this issue. It would be unreasonable to expect you to wade through all of that, but there are very good reasons why we are not going to change the wording based on search results. This is a featured article, written in encyclopaedic summary style and not a polemic. It will require WP:BESTSOURCES. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Sirfurboy what that article states about it is irrelevant. What is more important is how do reliable sources refer to those views and more specifically JKR. The search results I cite indicate differently to how article is. Further I've just noticed a discussion at WP:NPOVN where other editors raise POV problems with the article. I've invited editors from that discussion to contribute here. Per this article being FA, it probably shouldn't be in its current state. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't think this warrants a NPOV tag and the topic should have been discussed before a tag was added. Certainly any previous discussions on the topic should have been referenced first. Also, while the scholar search is a start, those numbers aren't so imbalanced as to suggest GC is not acceptable. It would also be better to have done some level of survey of the sources to see how the terms are used in context of Rowling. None of what I said proves TERF (which I recall people said was a pejorative) is wrong, but sufficient evidence has not been presented to show that the term used in a GA is actually incorrect. Springee (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The existence of the NPOVN discussion is clear enough evidence that the POV tag is justified. I'll reference the discussion below. TarnishedPath^talk 12:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::*The issue is that it's a subject where the sources use different language; "gender-critical" is largely a self-described term by the people who use it. It does appear in sources but I don't think it's the primary term in academia. If true, this means that using it risks being like eg. describing someone as {{tq|pro-life}} - everyone knows what it means, but it is still not a neutral descriptor and therefore shouldn't be used in the article voice. Ofc this may not be the same, and {{tq|"trans-exclusionary radical feminist"}} has the same risks in the other direction, but we determine what to do in a case like that by looking at the sources overall. I don't think we should just use the search results as-is but they're a valid reason to start a proper literature review to see what sort of language the best available sources use, especially the 2:1 difference in Google Scholar results - Google Scholar absolutely does include a bunch of stuff we wouldn't consider high-quality, but there's no particular reason to think that those are lopsided in one particular direction. The only way to be sure is for people to take the time to actually read it, produce a list of the best sources (eg. high-quality, highly-cited peer-reviewed academic papers) and see how they describe things. --Aquillion (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::*:{{+1}} TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::*:So to be clear, the question for this section is whether the whole featured article be tagged with a neutrality tag because we say "gender critical feminism" rather than "anti-trans" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". It is clear that this is not enough for the neutrality tag. That should be removed now.{{pb}}After the tag is removed, there is a broader question as to which term is best. But let's note a few things:

::::*:# The link to Gender-critical feminism is not wrong. The term is used widely in the literature, and is currently the title of the wikilinked page. trans-exclusionary radical feminism and TERFism both redirect there.

::::*:# That choice is not unchallenged but there is no consensus to change it. See this very well attended move discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1205961843#Requested_move_31_January_2024]. The choice between the two options is clearly a matter of disagreement, but there is no consensus which is better.

::::*:# Sources already discussed on this talk page [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/reader/download/47e2289c-e25f-4c78-92e8-15fb3cf70300/chapter/pdf?context=ubx]describe a problem with the term TERF: {{tqb|The term TERF was first used by Australian blogger TigTog in 2008 (Smythe,2018), as a neutral term describing feminists, such as Sheila Jeffreys, who divided feminism among those who include trans women and those who do not (Stryker, 2017). Since it was first coined, the use of the term TERF has changed and nowadays is imbued with strong emotions, leading to some of those who identify with TERF values to reject the label (Hines, 2019).}}Now on this, I don't think Rowling is one of those who rejected the label. I forget where I read it, but I am reasonably certain I recall something Rowling wrote embraced the term TERF. So although I don't really have a problem with trans exclusionary radical feminism as a term, I do not see a case for it being a better term - especially as it is not clear to me that the gender critical movement are any more radical feminists than other feminists who do not share their views. It's not a neutrality issue, but we could talk more on that.

::::*:Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:GTEST - invalid search (that Rowling's name occurs in articles discussing a certain text doesn't establish that those sources use the term about her; the issue has been well examined on talk already, using actual sources). You've labeled the entire article POV because you disagree with one well-researched term, without providing a valid rational. Perhaps you're familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates, eg Template:Disputed inline? {{pb}} Please give a valid rational for the tag or remove/replace it with something appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Because this article very clearly reads like a puff piece in a way that's absolutely dissonant with the current reality, and if I was a casual reader looking at this, I'd probably think "Wow, being a billionaire even buys you a rose-tinted wikipedia page" which is a TERRIBLE look for the project to have Snokalok (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia is not a forum; please don't use talk pages as one. Specifics that justify the tag, based on sources, are needed to justify tagging an entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There was nothing forumy about anything above. WP:NOTFORUM seems irrelevant to the discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I would agree that it's valid as an impression of the article. I will also note that we as a group often delete such concerns when raised by IP editors. Personally, I think such overall impression opinions should be retained even if they are made by IP editors. Does it actually read like a puff piece? That probably depends on your perspective. To some extent this reminds me of various gun articles. A firearms enthusiast might want to read about calibers and how the action works and what guns are similar in function. Others want to focus on the crimes and harms committed with that type of gun. Because they perspective of the two groups can be so divergent we end up with very different perspectives on what is neutral. I personally prefer our articles on any subject not read like they were written to tear down the subject. Effectively we give the subject the benefit of doubt. Springee (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::So here's the thing: Rowling is an author who has faced various attacks throughout her career and, as such, the apparent posture of defensiveness on this article is understandable. Even as far back as the late-1990s when the first book was making waves, Rowling faced attacks from the religious right over the use of witchcraft and wizardry in her books. This is a key reason why I've been as careful as I have to say I believe many of the page-protectors are acting in good faith. Women in SFF have been through a lot in the intervening 28 years since the first book was published - much of it (such as the Sad Puppies movement) explicitly misogynist. The sorts of editors interested in the long-term maintenance of a page about a prominent woman in SFF may, as such, be somewhat forgiven their protectiveness even after the direction of critique pivots as significantly as it has. However this has gone much too far in the other direction now. The entire lens through which Rowling's books are interrogated has changed. Her relationship to the cast of her movies is fraught. She has been involved in lawsuits and has funded lobby activities aimed at changing laws. She used 2/3 of the name of an infamous proponent of conversion therapy as a pen name for a detective novel with a trans antagonist. At a certain point even her defenders (and I was once one of them) need to start asking the question of whether they're avoiding "tearing down" a subject and "giving them the benefit of the doubt" or whether they're fixing a rose-coloured view of who the author used to be into the encyclopedia. I think we're at the point where it is the latter rather than the former. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{u|Simonm223}} just to be sure I'm not misunderstanding, do you think the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1295868293#Reception earlier criticism (eg the religious issues and others)] is sufficiently covered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'll be honest I've not looked at the early religious attacks on Rowling on WP in a hot minute. My comment was mainly me presenting what I feel is an important context - that Rowling is an oft-attacked author. Whether prior attacks were handled appropriately is not really something I was worried about so much as that the collective weight of dealing with those prior attacks has engendered what I would describe as a protective posture among committed editors here. The fact is that, on this issue, the issue of Rowling's transphobic activism, attempts have been made both by myself at the level of single sources and by Tarnished Path above at the level of an overall use-frequency perspective and both these approaches point to the same problem: best sources are more likely to call Rowling Transphobic or a TERF than they are to call her a gender-critical feminist. And yet this remains an issue our article constantly dances around. I've asked with some hyperbole before what the bar is before we accept this is the mainstream view of Rowling at this stage in her career. Now I'm asking without hyperbole: Numerically we see the angle most articles approach the issue from. At the level of specific reviewed texts we've seen countless examples. And I'm not talking about either the often transphobic UK press nor the trans-inclusive queer press here, I'm talking about academia. The sense that, with the new perspective of the WP:NPOV/N thread highlighting this, Rowling's article has become a white-wash is heavily derived from review of sources. At this point the editors who argue against this are going to need to start providing some current RS to support the view that her reception has not changed. Because, frankly, it's inappropriate to ask those people critical of the status of the page to do a comprehensive source review before they're even allowed to indicate that there's a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'm not asking you to re-examine the religious and prior controversies, beyond noting you weren't worried about that content, but my impression is that they are accorded DUE weight here, and well covered and well sourced. Yet, the entire article is tagged as POV, while the one issue raised is confined to one section (transgender people), and not eg literary criticism. In the absence of other detail supporting the tag, it would be helpful to know if there are examples beyond the transgender content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{tq|Numerically we see the angle most articles approach the issue from.}} Do we? To take the one I cited above, [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/reader/download/47e2289c-e25f-4c78-92e8-15fb3cf70300/chapter/pdf?context=ubx], this will show up in the scholar search for TERF +Rowling but not "gender critical" + Rowling, but it does not call Rowling a TERF. Instead it cautions against use of the term, saying {{tq|Since it was first coined, the use of the term TERF has changed and nowadays is imbued with strong emotions, leading to some of those who identify with TERF values to reject the label}}. That is a source that is counted in the above for calling her a TERF that explicitly suggests to do so would not be neutral. We already have the neutral term, and the neutrality issue arises if we change it. This is a problem whenever we see google search terms analysed in this way, without reading the sources - as per SandyGeorgia's citing of WP:GTEST. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Sirfurboy, if you believe the methodology to be flawed because of a single false positive then I'd say you bear some responsibility to defend your position that academia, in aggregate, still trends toward referring to Rowling as a non-transphobic feminist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I will point out that when I provided several bestsources previously you argued they were not sufficient because of what you believed my search terms to be and then suggested that I should review every source on Rowling and gender before discussing whether or not the article was sufficiently neutral. Several people at the WP:NPOV/N thread have agreed with my description of that requirement as being unreasonable. So the situation we have here is that assessment of sources in aggregate is too vague but assessment of individual sources is insufficiently comprehensive. This really does, at this point, feel somewhat like a stalling tactic more than collaborative editing. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The methodology is flawed because we need to read the sources to see what they say. That was just a concrete example of why. A neutrality tag was placed on this page without any such reading of the sources, but a reading of that source, at least, tells us we have the more neutral term. The case is not made, and we are not going to flip the burden of proof on that.

:::::::::::::::Regarding the previous discussion, yes, you conducted a search and listed sources with a search term that guaranteed you would find a preponderance of sources that supported the view that Rowling is often described as transphobic. There was nothing wrong with that list of sources as a start, but it was clearly incomplete. You also needed to search for sources that specifically did not describe her thus. If you have bias in sample selection, then your statistical analysis will retain the bias. So to conduct a literature review, you begin with a keyword search that is designed to find relevant literature, but that omits keywords that would select for the effect you are looking for. That is "transphobic" should not be one of the keywords. Once you have found the literature, you would need to come up with selection criteria (unless you have time to read it all - seems unlikely). You may weight sources too, and duplicates will need removing. Then you can start reading them. It's a time consuming process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::No, if you believe my search had a biased sample selection then you need to demonstrate that. You can't demand people try to disprove their own assertions just to satisfy you. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I did. I listed a number of sources that you had not included, found with different search terms. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I saw one source. If you posted more I may have missed them. Can you please provide a diff? Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Sure. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJ._K._Rowling&diff=1290186893&oldid=1290178291] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJ._K._Rowling&diff=1290078421&oldid=1290073740] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|Specifics that justify the tag, based on sources, are needed to justify tagging an entire article.}}

:::::::From Template:POV#When to use

:::::::{{tq2|Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.}}

:::::::I've started a discussion identifying the specific issues. Additionally specific issues are identified in the NPOV discussion. The tag needs to stay until either the issues have been resolved or there is consensus for removal per Template:POV#When to remove. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The existence of an unconcluded NPOVN in which there is no consensus that this article is neutral, speaks volumes to the POV tag being required. TarnishedPath^talk 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, I'm reluctant to get into procedural stuff over whether the NPOV tag is needed, but I think that the overall persistent NPOV disputes on talk (not just this one specific objection) are enough that it should probably stay as long as there's active NPOV disputes on talk or noticeboards. --Aquillion (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Issues can't be fixed unless they are detailed and explained in a source-based discussion; the one issued used for placing the tag (a disagreement over one word) is unjustified, and has been discussed based on sources. TarnishedPath, what other specific content do you want addressed and what sources support your suggested changes/inclusions/etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I've detailed what specific content I think should be addressed as well, as pointing to another discussion where other editors have detailed other specific content which should be addressed and which I agree with TarnishedPath^talk 06:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1295876619 This mentions one item]; the original issue raised at the NPOVN has already been addressed and discussion of overall changes to the transgender section is underway on talk. I've suggested an RFC if consensus can't be reached. I wouldn't be asking the question if I understood what else anyone else wants addressed or what else we can do short of an RFC. Adam Cuerden has raised a new matter (Philanthropy section) which a) involves the For Women Scotland content and discussion already underway, and b) doesn't supply sources. For other editors to work on these issues, sources and specifics are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think there's sometimes a rush to remove tags, under the promise that the remaining issues will be fixed later. I think that once the Transgender section is agreed upon and the lead is agreed to be fine, that's when to remove the tag. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 05:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:While I'm definitely sympathetic to the idea that the article is overly sympathetic to her POV, this particular version of the argument seems bad to me since the name of our own article for Rowling's ideology is gender-critical feminism. I think that you should take up the name issue over there.

:I would not be opposed to calling her views anti-trans more directly, though. One thing that was very noticeable collecting the quotes above is how directly critical of her a lot of the scholarship is. I really don't think that the article gives that view sufficient WP:WEIGHT relative to its prominence in evn scholarly sources. Loki (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::FWIW a discussion to rename that article came fairly close to success not too long ago (and ultimately reached no consensus). If the term itself isn't the main one used in sources, and coverage has shifted since then in a way that makes it clear, we could consider that again and try to reach an actual consensus this time. I'd recommend spending the time to perform an actual in-depth source review first, though, both to establish that there's an actual chance of success and so there's more to discuss than just editors' opinions. Both on this article and that one, things are controversial and high-profile enough that I don't think it's going to be resolved without an in-depth source review and an RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, to be clear I participated in that discussion on the side of renaming it, and still think we should. But I think that if we're not going to rename that article, we should in general use "gender-critical" as our primary term for the topic, and also and more importantly that we definitely can't say an article is non-neutral because it uses the same term we do. Loki (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::As I recall, the rename was closed as no consensus. WP:CONLOCAL means that a consensus there wouldn't affect the terminology we use on other pages regardless, but I would certainly object to the idea that a no-consensus outcome on another page could be binding here. --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|title=Digression between editors}}

:*I think the order of events here that the tag was added and then an analysis was done in an attempt to justify it is pretty indicative in itself. Regardless of the right great wrongs concerns, I think we'd need quite a bit more than some bogus stats fishing and some historical/philosophical commentary of the evolution of Rowling's views to give this any real weight. I don't see any real need for the tag, but at worst the discussion can just go dormant and the tag can be removed. Just10A (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:@Just10A, can you describe the exact circumstances that lead you to this article's talk page? This is not the first time that you've shown up at an article, which you've never edited before, not long after me editing on it. TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*::Interesting, but that discussion belongs on user talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:::@SandyGeorgia they asked me not to post on their user talk, last time I raised them following me to an article, which they admitted to. So it belongs here for the moment. TarnishedPath^talk 02:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*::::Interesting: then it belongs at AN/I. Would you mind if we hat this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:::::@SandyGeorgia I'd like to see their response prior to deciding if ANI is warranted. After that, I would have no issue hatting the whole lot (including their incivility above). TarnishedPath^talk 02:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*::No one is following you. Or at least I'm not. (and if someone was, don't you think they would've commented when you originally started this thread, as opposed to now?) Your {{tq| "last time"}}, as already explained to you, was when I was going to your profile a single time to discuss policy with you and found you clearly editing warring another page, and told you to stop. That's totally within policy. (and @SandyGeorgia is correct, the correct place to bring this would be a user talk page, which you are allowed to post on for legitimate purposes even if you've been told to stay away. The reason you didn't, I imagine, is that the claim is so weak that it wouldn't be considered a legitimate purpose, and so you had to avoid it.) Besides that, I think it would be better if everyone WP:FOC and stick to the tag conversation. Just10A (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:::@Just10A, I entirely understood the bit where you admitted to following me around. Now please explain the exact circumstances that led you to be commenting on this page. TarnishedPath^talk 04:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*::::Again, no one is following you. I got here from the not one, not two but three different mechanisms on this page whose sole purpose is to alert other editors to this discussion. In fact, assuming that someone is hounding you when there's multiple more rational, probable ways that they got to the page is a plain violation of WP:Assume Good Faith.

:*::::We're not doing this. We're both regular editors who overlap partially in content. That doesn't give you the right to try and cross-examine/intimidate people and act like you're owed an explanation because they dared comment on something after you did on a talk page. You're not owed an explanation. Editors aren't going to live their wiki-career on eggshells because User TarnishedPath throws tantrums when he gets caught edit-warring/having disagreeable positions. I'm giving you this one explanation because I want you to go away and WP:FOC, if you continue to push this in the future it's going to be ignored. Just10A (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:::::@SandyGeorgia, feel free to hat this continued incivility. @Just10A I suggest you do walk on eggshells because you are on thin ice. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*::::::Consider me petrified. Anyway, stop editing warring and get back to focusing on content. Just10A (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:::::::Given your recent editing on COVID-19 lab leak theory, you should worry about your own behaviour instead of trying to lecture others. TarnishedPath^talk 05:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*::::::{{u|TarnishedPath}}, I'm going to leave the hatting to someone previously uninvolved in the off-topic portion of this discussion; I see your concerns that also extend beyond this page. I will next start a discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJust10A&diff=1296654947&oldid=1296627593] at User talk:Just10A. {{pb}} Will someone previously uninvolved please hat this extended discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:::::::Thanks for your response Sandy. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:::::::: Please ping me to any future dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:*:::::::::@SandyGeorgia, no worries. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{cob}}

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Promotion of anti-trans fringe theories on J. K. Rowling where the neutrality of this article is being discussed. TarnishedPath^talk 12:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath Hi, I am the user who initally made the (since-reverted) edit describing Rowling as a "gender-critical activist" in the lead sentence. Let me preface this by stating that I am a trans person myself so there is a slight conflict of interest going on here (not enough for a full-on WP:COI case however). Were this article to be on my personal blog, I personally would label her as an anti-transgender activist and trans-exclusionary radical feminist (as with Posie Parker here on Wikipedia). However, due to this being Wikipedia, some of the other things I took into consideration were the guidelines on neutrality (WP:NPOV) and not publishing "contentious content" as described at WP:CTOP and WP:CONTCLAIM. The main thing I was worried about was balancing the fact (as stated in many widespread articles and publications) that anti-transgender activism is one of her principal subjects of interest but also not treading too deeply into WP:UNDUE territory as "anti-transgender activist" is a very bold and targeted claim to make and I don't think it's the best idea to label her as "anti-transgender" as (despite the increasing frequency of her anti-transgender statements) she is still known primarily for her authorship/books written and some Wikipedians may claim a WP:BALANCE issue from making such a statement in the article's lead sentence.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If I am given the approval by several editors, I will change the description to "anti-transgender activist".

{{font|Polygenre|font=Georgia|size=20px}}(talk to me)(or check out my sandbox) | 15:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we start workshopping questions for a potential RfC to help settle some of these NPOV issues? Here are some questions we could ask:

Content copied from Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive4 and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4&oldid=1295132628 this diff]. (Will start on these later today.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

"Inspiration and mother's death", several sections above presumes familiarity with Harry, Hermione, Ron, and the Mirror of Erised and does not explain what any of them are, so why are we summarising Harry Potter now? This is either pre-exiting knowledge, or it's too late to explain it.

Quite disorganised. Why does a sentence about the claims that Harry Potter was occult appear in the first paragraph only to be instantly dismissed? (The material is covered much, much later in #Religious reactions). The whole section lacks any real structure. {{interrupted|Adam Cuerden|22:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

It's odd not to mention the Ink Black Heart controversies. This repeats the issue from #Publishing Harry Potter where it seems to need to link to every single book and list the year it came out in prose. {{interrupted|Adam Cuerden|22:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:::: See also Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 22#Pottermore

Dubious as to whether these are notable enough to fit summary style. The "throw it all in" approach is not used for other authors. {{interrupted|Adam Cuerden|22:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The Mitford material was covered already. A lot of this should be in Harry Potter (series), not here. {{interrupted|Adam Cuerden|22:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Summary style is utterly violated here. Why, at this point, are we suddenly doing a five-paragraph deep dive into Harry Potter, with one sentence on her other novels. This is ripe for culling from an excessively long article. {{interrupted|Adam Cuerden|22:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

SOME of this may deserve to be here, but it should go into the discussions of the books. We're basically making a second pass through her literary oeuvre at this point, starting over from the beginning. Most of this is on Harry Potter (series), and should be in that article, not here. #Gender and social division is particularly bloated for what's supposed to be an article on the author. #Religious reactions probably has some relevance, but is excessively bloated; the relevant material is in #Religion, wealth and remarriage. {{interrupted|Adam Cuerden|22:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Another section that's mostly on Harry Potter (series). Some of this is probably relevant, but at this point reading through a bloated, disorganised biography, it's hard to say what. I have no idea what "spawned a textual afterlife among fans and forgers" is meant to mean. {{interrupted|Adam Cuerden|22:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The description of Beira's Place is oddly (and very NPOV-problematically) written to hide its anti-trans intent, made explicit in the articles about its launch.

TP, thanks for the effort, and I appreciate the thought, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1296201522 no]. The FAR page started with an unreadable format, hard to enter responses, and unlike any I've ever seen at FAR; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4&diff=prev&oldid=1295582529] the problems on that page have gotten worse with commentary taking over that veers well off the purpose of the page and make it very hard to focus on what actual work needs to be done and what consensus there is. Fortunately, Nikkimaria has the patience of a saint, but the page has gone well off topic several times and I'd hate to be the Coord who has to read it. {{pb}} I copied relevant TO DO issues to here so we could start addressing them here on talk, in individual sections, so the FAR page could be left to its purpose (yay or nay that the article meets status, with examples given). When/If FAR moves to FARC, then people re-state what has or hasn't been addressed. {{pb}} Separately, I wish you had not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1296071419 changed the ref names], as many of those were used in sub-articles and are now out of sync, and I dislike gumming up article with unnecessary quote marks and special characters in ref names, but what's done is done, and I do appreciate your good faith attempts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/harry-potter-hbo-series-jk-rowling-transphobia-1236215642/ There was agreement this was an excellent source for summing up the section, and we quoted, "Rowling, meanwhile, has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona." It's now gone, with no talk page discussion.

If we're [https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/harry-potter-hbo-series-jk-rowling-transphobia-1236215642/ deciding to use this source], it could also be used to solve the dilemma about how to present those who supported Rowling: {{tq2|Rowling’s views have indeed invoked sharp words of support as well as dissent; while Radcliffe has continued to express how “deeply sad” the author’s comments on trans issues have made him, “Potter” stars Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter and Jim Broadbent have spoken out in her defense, and replies to her on X are filled with words of encouragement. }} We seem to have lost [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1082873609#Transgender_people what was in the FAR version "some performers and feminists have supported her"]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Two of the three main writers of this FA (Olivaw-Daneel and AleatoryPonderings) are no longer engaged; Vanamonde93 has engaged with the portions they wrote. The other main writer, Victoriaearle, asked long ago to not be included in pings.{{pb}} I've started down the ToDo list, working on things like trimming detail from the bio (#Copied from FAR), but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1296324879#J._K._Rowling%23Later_Harry_Potter_works in reviewing this section], I realized that the last time I tried to start down a TODO list of unaddressed laundry list items, trying to get them resolved, many of those were bot-archived before items were addressed.{{pb}} I simply am not in a position in my personal life to be taking on additional research. I may be typing as I am sleep-deprived sitting in the Emergency Department at 5 am on some days, or staring at the walls while stuck at home on others, typing as fast as I can to get through things while my husband sleeps. I don't mind summarizing what work remains to be done, and working on as much as I'm able to in sections where I have sources, but I'm not able to take on doing the research on more sections when I don't have the sources. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1296324879#End_of_Legacy_section got the sources and did this one]; I can't guarantee from day to day what my availability will be. {{pb}} I don't mind doing the kind of work I did in the 2022 FAR, copying in text after consensus was reached on drafts, and keeping track of what work remains, but unless quite a few others indicate they'll help with the TODO list, there's not a lot of point in my compiling or shepherding it. I have no interest in continuing to engage in debates that go on for weeks and weeks -- without resolution or RFCs -- over one section of the article, and continuing as the highest contributor to an article because I end up doing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1296324879#Sourcing,_talk_behavior,_other_cleanup all the CITEVAR and other cleanup, if other items are ignored]. I came to this article as most of those I watchlist; because it is an FA and I enjoyed the camaraderie of working on top content with experienced editors at FAR. I haven't seen that spirit of working towards saving stars at FAR in JKR FAR4, and at this time in my life, negativity in what is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby is the last thing I need. {{pb}} If there are more editors engaging to help maintain the rest of the article, then I am willing to continue helping out, but unless others are able to address issues in sections other than Transgender people, I can unwatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)