Talk:J. K. Rowling

Style, and a lack thereof in the current version.

1 Rowling is known primarily as an author of fantasy and children's literature. Her writing in other genres, including literary fiction and murder mystery, has received less critical attention. Rowling's most famous work, Harry Potter, has been defined as a fairy tale, a Bildungsroman and a boarding-school story. Her other writings have been described by Pugh as gritty contemporary fiction with historical influences (The Casual Vacancy) and hardboiled detective fiction (Cormoran Strike).

---

In my opinion, this is fine enough. It's an introduction to what she wrote.

2 In Harry Potter, Rowling juxtaposes the extraordinary against the ordinary. Her narrative features two worlds – the mundane and the fantastic – but it differs from typical portal fantasy in that its magical elements stay grounded in the everyday. Paintings move and talk; books bite readers; letters shout messages; and maps show live journeys, making the wizarding world "both exotic and cosily familiar" according to the scholar Catherine Butler. This blend of realistic and romantic elements extends to Rowling's characters. Their names often include morphemes that correspond to their characteristics: Malfoy is difficult, Filch unpleasant and Lupin a werewolf. Harry is ordinary and relatable, with down-to-earth features such as wearing broken glasses; Roni Natov terms him an "everychild". These elements serve to highlight Harry when he is heroic, making him both an everyman and a fairytale hero.

---

This is where we start getting into excessive detail. This paragraph is an exact quote from Harry Potter (series). We should be summarising briefly things better described elsewhere; four lengthy paragraphs is way too much. My inclination is to say touch on key things, the moment we start to get into excessive detail, it should cut. This whole paragraph should probably be the first two or three sentences, at most.

3 Arthurian, Christian and fairytale motifs are frequently found in Rowling's writing. Harry's ability to draw the Sword of Gryffindor from the Sorting Hat resembles the Arthurian sword in the stone legend. His life with the Dursleys has been compared to Cinderella. Like C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter contains Christian symbolism and allegory. The series has been viewed as a Christian moral fable in the psychomachia tradition, in which stand-ins for good and evil fight for supremacy over a person's soul. The critic of children's literature Joy Farmer sees parallels between Harry and Jesus Christ. Comparing Rowling with Lewis, she argues that "magic is both authors' way of talking about spiritual reality". According to Maria Nikolajeva, Christian imagery is particularly strong in the final scenes of the series: she writes that Harry dies in self-sacrifice and Voldemort delivers an ecce homo speech, after which Harry is resurrected and defeats his enemy.

---

This is largely okay, but a lot of it repeats bits from J. K. Rowling#Influences. Why not mention comparisons with Lewis when talking about Lewis in #Influences? Why is this its own paragraph? Why is this article so badly written? Why are related thoughts not next to each other? Why do things get introduced, only to be promptly dropped before being reintroduced later with more detail?

Themes

4 Death is Rowling's overarching theme in Harry Potter. In the first book, when Harry looks into the Mirror of Erised, he feels both joy and "a terrible sadness" at seeing his desire: his parents, alive and with him. Confronting their loss is central to Harry's character arc and manifests in different ways through the series, such as in his struggles with Dementors. Other characters in Harry's life die; he even faces his own death in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The series has an existential perspective – Harry must grow mature enough to accept death. In Harry's world, death is not binary but mutable, a state that exists in degrees. Unlike Voldemort, who evades death by separating and hiding his soul in seven parts, Harry's soul is whole, nourished by friendship and love. Love distinguishes the two characters. Harry is a hero because he loves others, even willing to accept death to save them; Voldemort is a villain because he does not.

---

This has absolutely nothing to do with J. K. Rowling, which is weird because there's also a section J._K._Rowling#Inspiration and mother's death which fails to say anything of significance about how her mother's death affected her writing. Why is this article so bad? How was this ever accepted as a featured article?

5 While Harry Potter can be viewed as a story about good versus evil, its moral divisions are not absolute. First impressions of characters are often misleading. Harry assumes in the first book that Quirrell is good because he opposes Snape, who appears malicious; in reality, their positions are reversed. This pattern later recurs with Moody and Snape. In Rowling's world, good and evil are choices rather than inherent attributes: second chances and redemption are key themes of the series. This is reflected in Harry's self-doubts after learning his connections to Voldemort, such as the ability of both to communicate with snakes in their language of Parseltongue; and prominently in Snape's characterisation, which has been described as complex and multifaceted. In some scholars' view, while Rowling's narrative appears on the surface to be about Harry, her focus may actually be on Snape's morality and character arc.

---

Wildly off topic deep into the Harry Potter literary analysis weeds. A little of this might be appropriate, but there's way too many examples. Again, most of this should be a "See also"

This article is such a mess. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have just reverted a removal of literary analysis from the lead. As with most of this article, content that was extensively workshopped at FAR needs active consensus to remove; and I oppose the removal of most of what I added back in, as the reception of an author's work is central to their biography. As I've said before, Harry Potter made Rowling a public figure. Without it we wouldn't have an article about her, and nobody would care about her views on transgender people.
  That said I'm open to trimming some detail from the paragraphs highlighted above, if we're able to move past excoriating it and actually engaging with the substance. The premise that literary analyses are irrelevant to Rowling's biography is plain wrong, but details that cannot be understood by a reader without a detailed recollection of the novels may need trimming. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's more that it's not well-written. As I said, there's things where to understand it you need to combine two different sections no-where near each other. There's a failure to properly use subpages for more detail. It's a fundamental failure of structure.

  Further, it's one of those things where it's very narrow - pretty much entirely Harry Potter - and excessively deep. Only the first paragraph even mentions anything that isn't Harry Potter, but it dives very deep, to the point of a lot of discussion of Snape's arc (mainly only revealed in the last two books) and naming conventions in it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Adam that this is way way too much detail on Harry Potter for an article on its author.

I also think that saying content that was extensively workshopped at FAR needs active consensus to remove is a classic example of what I objected to above as the featured article status makes certain contributors way too cautious about changes. Loki (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, wrt to this specific issue (styles/themes/etc), it was explicitly discussed at FAR. I was from the outset strongly opposed to including themes, styles, etc related to Harry Potter, saying that content belonged in sub articles, and consensus was firmly against my arguments in a discussion that involved well more than the usual number of participants. So, I accepted consensus and we moved forward, with Vanamonde93 and AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel doing the bulk of that work.

Given that the content was founded on a strong consensus against my view (and IIRC I was the only one with that view, but I could be misremembering), and workshopped in a FAR that included a couple dozen other editors, I suggest that Adam Cuerden should cease making sweeping unilateral changes to the article without discussion.

I also see mention that the theme/style content is included in sub-articles; I'm fairly certain it was all first written here as a concise stand-alone summary, and later copied over to sub-articles. As one example of how some of the undiscussed unilateral edits have damaged the article, the deletion of a description of Harry Potter from the lead makes the article less intelligible to readers (like me) who have never touched a Potter book.

Adam Cuerden could you please lower the level of hyperbole here, and work collaboratively with others ? Putting things like Why is this article so bad? in bold isn't advancing collaborative efforts, and you've been around Wikipedia long enough to have seen what BAD articles look like; I suspect you'll find that improvements will proceed more quickly without the unnecessary air of personalization.

I became convinced as the article evolved that styles and themes did fit here, so I do not support removal or tagging of this content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For a featured article, this article is bad. I'm judging it on the standards of other featured articles, not by that of random terrible articles, but I will say, the coherency of this article structurally genuinely is very bad.

Look at the actual context for "Why is this so bad?": The section on death in Harry Potter feels out of place as it has no connection with Rowling. The section on the death of Rowlings' mother feels like it has an awful lot of detail for something that goes nowhere. In most sources I've seen, a path is laid out from the death of Rowling's mother to death being used as a theme in Harry Potter, but this supposedly-Featured-class article doesn't do that, instead splitting the two halves of that thought with several other sections between them, with no connection being drawn. That's what I'm referring to as bad.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 02:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your tone could be adjusted, as in, more helpful and concrete suggestions, less battleground and hyperbole. Paragraphs of complaining about things you personally don't like don't advance article improvement (in fact, they're more likely to chase off those willing and able to work on those improvements). WP:CTOP applies doubly to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind cutting a sentence or two from each subsection, but I think the overall length and depth of detail is close to where it should be. Good articles about authors should include description of their major works and the themes they write about. I glanced at a few literature bio FAs, and this seems pretty common. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have made these snips [1] to the Style and Themes sections. I am happy to discuss any of them; I am not wedded to any of those changes, but felt they were places were we could trim material that was either too specific for an overview, or so nuanced that a fuller discussion was out of scope. I am undecided about the last two sentences of "Style"; I think the first may be too general without expansion, the second, too detailed; but the christian parallels are a major topic in the sources, so I felt I'd ask first. Five paragraphs is far from excessive for an author whose works have received a lot of critical attention, and I would ask that the tags be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  No-one ever seems to pay attention to the substance of what I say. I mention the death-theme section feels awkwardly split from a section on Rowling's mother's death earlier that peters out without making a point, and I get complaints about me saying the article's bad, and some mild trimming. I mention that the discussion of Lewis is all split up, and no-one reacts. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps there's a reason for this reaction? Since I've already explained multiple times, I won't repeat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't react because I have nothing to add to that; I simply disagree, and I've made my points about article structure at great length here and at the FAR. Since you ask: I don't think material related to Lewis should be grouped ignoring how it fits with the broader structure. A lot of sources discuss death as a theme; very few make the connection to her mother's death. Ideas and influences inevitably crop up in multiple places in an author's biography. This isn't necessarily a flaw; sometimes coherent structure requires it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: The section is a summary of Harry_Potter#Themes. If you'll look at the third paragraph there, nestled between the two paragraphs of it used almost verbatim here, you'll see that the article this is summarising very strongly makes a connection to her mother's death. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  That content was written by Olivaw-Daneel, who hasn't edited since April; it was cut from here for a reason that would require some work to uncover, absent O-D. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Probably an attemptt at summary style. I meam, the rest seems taken directly from it, amd it cites a well-used source. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  The opposite. It was created in my sandbox; then AP rewrote; then OD rewrote; the Vanamonde rewrote (I was ill & no longer involved) and as #8 on the authorship list have little to no sway. At some point in Feb. 22 it was moved to Harry Potter. Can this discussion please stay in one place? Victoria (tk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Adam Cuerden: in an ideal world, we would have a thoroughly researched subsidiary article for every subtopic of this one. We don't live in such a world. This page was at FAR, and in an effort to fix the complete lack of literary analysis in it, AP, OD, Victoria, Sandy, and myself (and perhaps others I'm neglecting to name) spent considerable effort studying scholarly commentary on Rowling, and then further effort condensing. Some of the uncondensed material was later copied over to subsidiary articles, because it was lacking there. As Victoria says, the similarity is because the material here was written first, not because we did a bad job of summarizing a different page. The subsidiary articles could easily contain three times more material; but nobody has the time or inclination to write it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  This agrees with my memory. Victoriaearle's contributions are sometimes overlooked because she was in and out of the discussions for health reasons. And the appearance of me as the leading editor here is misleading; it's only because I did most of the installs of text that was written collaboratively (and I was always careful to attribute in edit summary per WP:CWW when the writing was not mine), along with all of the MOS and CITEVAR cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good very good 2001:8F8:1D5F:76FF:4930:6938:B376:EFA3 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. I wonder why? (Possibly insert "Am I so out of touch? No - it's the children who are wrong!" Principal Skinner.gif here) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources
References

Citation errors and CITEVAR

Since the rewrite of the transgender section was installed, this article has been riddled with harvref errors, and changes to WP:CITEVAR; could regular editors here please be more aware of WP:WIAFA, and the established citation style? Installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js is one way to notice the harvref errors; ctrl-f on "cite journal" will point to others. I will begin working on repair now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

1. New book sources (Whited and Henderson) were never added to Source list, resulting in HarvRef errors and short notes going nowhere: done.
2. Sources that were removed from the article were not removed from sources list. Why was this source removed; for now, I've commented it out.

   Now fixed by User:Some1,thx. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

3. Someone added Taylor without adding it to journal sources (a WP:CITEVAR change), and with a change in date style, a URL that doesn't point to free full text, and missing the page number. Victoriaearle (or anyone else with journal access), could you please provide the page number or range?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry SandyGeorgia I'm only working through notifications now. I don't have that journal, nor do I know when it was added - I unwatched here weeks ago. It may have come from the Wikipedia Library but dunno. Regardless, yes, that page number should be added. Maybe LokiTheLiar knows? Or someone else? I completely lost track as to who was working on what. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope someone will get on it; the install was pushed through prematurely, without tying up the loose ends -- just when we were so close to consensus. Thx, Victoria. Some1 I believe you did the install (I could be wrong as I stopped following closely -- are you able to complete this cittation?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Another user did the install [2], but I guess I did accidentally removed some sources in this edit [3]. I've restored them now; did that fix (some of) the errors? Some1 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanx, Some1, sorry for the mixup. User:-sche, it seems you installed a draft with an incomplete citation. Are you able to cite that content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can dig through the revisions (of this talk page and the article itself) later to see when/if the page numbers were removed, but for now I've just removed the 3 words in question (as a normal edit), because I do recall noticing when comparing revisions of the article that the 3 words were not present in the article for a good part of its history (though they were present at some points), and though they were in the draft that it was decided to implement (with the explicit note that normal editing should continue), I see no problem with removing them if there are sourcing issues. Cheers! -sche (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thx! As you can see from the historical version of Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 21#Draft 8, we've lost the bulk of that sentence, as well as new sources I offered in the discussion. Why should we lose academic freedom, cancel culture, etc? I don't think the version was ready to be installed, people lost patience when we were almost over the finish line (so we don't have a strong consensus version), but I was too busy to say so then ... and the current transgender rights section has a lot of repetition (which looks like overdriving "transphobia" into the section). Slower and steadier was doing the job; I hope we can resume that mode of editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree with you on that last bit. Slower and steadier was very much not doing the job. Going "slow and steady" meant that we had an out-of-date section left in the article for months. Loki (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

We ended up with text that says very little that is different from where we started (so any datedness wasn't urgent), but what we ended up with is less well written and had (still) citation errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I very much disagree with all of that, except the citation errors. Loki (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, we will sometimes disagree; that's OK :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden could you please read this section and consider the possibility of installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to check for harvref errors introduced by your edits ? It's edits like these, to remove the HarvRef errors that take an FA out of compliance with WP:WIAFA, that give me the highest edit count on the article -- I'm not thrilled at being the one who has to do all the cleanup, and would appreciate some help from those experienced editors who make the edits and know how to keep an FA compliant with the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Leveson op-ed, stance and weight (should be easy to clarify)

The article says In 2012, she wrote an op-ed for The Guardian in response to Cameron's decision not to implement all the inquiry's recommendations. Wouldn't it be more informative to say that she criticized his decision or said she felt duped, rather than merely wrote about it, particularly as the next sentence begins She reaffirmed her stance... but it's unclear what stance that's calling back to? (Is "her stance" that she "has a difficult relationship with the press and has tried to influence the type of coverage she receives", is "too thin-skinned", "had taken more than 50 actions against the press", and/or "dislikes the British tabloid the Daily Mail"? Genuine question; those are the only conceivably stance-ish things I spot in the preceding parts of the section.) The end of the paragraph suggests that the stance we're saying she re-affirmed might be "[safeguard] the press from political interference while also giving vital protection to the vulnerable", but I find it confusing that this mention of her "re-affirming" it is the first mention of her having it at all: it makes the section awkward to parse. Can we improve this?
I also notice that the only source currently supporting that sentence seems to be the op-ed itself. Sure, the op-ed is reliable for the statement that the op-ed exists, and one sentence is not much, but don't we want secondary sources about the op-ed to establish that this, of all the things she has written, is one which is due inclusion in this FA which should adhere most highly to best practices about writing and sourcing? (Or am I mistaken?) I expect such secondary sources do exist: here is a CNN article covering the op-ed which could be added to the references for that sentence, and better/'weightier' sources may exist.
(Given the issues that various prior and ongoing discussions have identified with various sections of the article, I decided to spot-check whether other sections had issues or not, and this was the first section I scrolled to... which suggests it might indeed be prudent to check other sections for things that could be improved...) -sche (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I would go for something like "In 2012, she criticised Cameron's decision not to implement all the inquiry's recommendations and supported the Hacked Off campaign, pushing for further media reform." It would be good to cite both the op-ed and the CNN piece. If we want to add a bit more detail, I think it'd better to focus on the content of her criticism—mainly that Cameron didn't pursue more legislative regulation—rather than the venue of her op-ed and the exact timing of the criticism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's been ten days, and no one has else has opined here; Firefangledfeathers might you have the time and inclination to take on this portion? A scholar.google.com search on "Leveson Rowling" reveals numerous scholarly sources that may prove useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably soon. I inserted my proposal for now, and I'll look into better sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent archival, as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That whole bit pre-dates the FAR, and IIRC, there was no specific discussion of that portion during the FAR, although several editors fiddled with it on copyedit (and in retrospect, it appears there was an attempt to shorten it all). Here is how it looked pre-FAR, if that's any help in the rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Content discussion fork

Discussion of article content has been forked to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Pottermore

As the paragraph on Portermore stands, it's completely off-topic. There's not even an assertion that Rowling wrote for it. If there's something relevant to a biography of Rowling to say about it, we should, otherwise, it should be cut. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 10:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If Rowling's only involvement in Pottermore was that she introduced it, then I do not think this paragraph is necessary. If she had other involvement, this should be more explicitly stated. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aye, that's my thought. The article on Pottermore says it contains/contained otherwise-unpublished writing by her... but that's completely uncited. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

AC, have you read the cited source in this article, added by AP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, AC, have you read all of Whited 2024, as it also cites JKR's Pottermore content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have this idea that if a paragraph completely fails to make an assertion of how it's notable to Rowling, that - before one raises the issue - one should research every source, including ones not available online, to see if there's anything in them, instead of asking if anyone already knows who has read the relevant sources. Little to nothing in the paragraph itself deserves to be in this article (and, worse, Pottermore itself doesn't exist anymore, which was one of the first things I noticed).The Brummitt article has nothing useful in the abstract. Given your normal insistence on scholarly sources, and given Whited is not referenced in the section, I'm not sure why you expect me to have known to check it.

The source from The Guardian might be useful to write a brief section about her writing on Pottermore (presuming it's notable, and that the site having been deleted isn't relevant. It's really hard to know how much and how significant the content on a dead site was, and how much of it was by Rowling.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Pottermore content was re- written by AleatoryPonderings, based on a scholarly source. Short of hearing from AP, it's hard to opine.

More generally, I am concerned about some of the changes being made to an FA without first checking back in archives for previous discussions that might illuminate all of us, considering that AP and O-D are no longer editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I really don't know what you expect everyone to get from old archives. I've just read the archival discussions that come up when you search "Themes". They really, really don't enlighten one in the least. It seems like, as with most articles, people didn't discuss every single change on the talk page generally. Just so we're clear, everything from archive 16 to 22 - seven archives, or nearly a third of the extant ones - are just the debate on the transgender section we just finished. So I've read about a third of the archives in full. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Outdenting to go back to the original question: The Guardian source mentions that Rowling wrote for Pottermore, so this should be added to the article. I also think some of the information in that paragraph is not needed. Here's my suggested rewrite:

Pottermore, a website with information and stories about characters in the Harry Potter universe, launched in 2011. The site described the history and backstory of various elements of the fictional universe using notes Rowling wrote when writing the novels; Rowling also wrote many of the entries on the site. Rowling filmed an introductory video for the site.

Thoughts? The same sources would be used as inline citations. This version takes out information about the 2016 revamp, as I'm not sure it is relevant anymore. It also excludes information about the site's conversion to Wizarding World, which I'm not sure if Rowling was involved with. Z1720 (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 you of all people should understand the need to consult sources, how to keep them current, (and franky, how to look at a page history for posts). Earlier today I got caught in an edit conflict trying to post the following & then just gave up, because it's really difficult to deal with the atomsphere on this page. Anyway, re Pottermore, this is what I wrote: "I'm okay for it to be deleted but a quick search in Whited 2024 shows the following J. K. Rowling plays wizard historian on her Wizarding World fan site (formerly Pottermore), revealing the context of everything from characters’ love lives to the arcane workings of magical plumbing in the fantasy realm she created through the Harry Potter novels. p. 49 and also this, A featured article titled “The Treatment of Intelligent Magical Creatures in Fantastic Beasts and Harry Potter,” originally pub- lished on the Pottermore website, suggests that American house-elves might differ culturally from those in Britain.. p. 125. FWIW." Victoria (tk) 00:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: I only consulted the sources used in the article, and didn't look for additional sources; frankly, I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of looking for sources throughout the article, and I don't think this article needs a serious search for additional sources so soon after the last FAR. Thanks for contributing the sources above, and I'll look for additional sources in various places to see how this paragraph can be rewritten later. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Z, rather than a news source, we should use the scholarly sources that we do have and that were posted to this talk page. Thanks for helping out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have no opinions here other than to suggest that since Pottermore is independently notable, the parts of its history that JKR had no involvement with can safely be spun off. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival, as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Shortening the lead

MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends a maximum of four paragraphs for the lead. Even though this article is quite long, I think the fourth and fifth paragraph can be merged without taking out any major content. A suggested edit is below, and thoughts are welcome:

Rowling has won many accolades including an OBE and a Companion of Honour. Her charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named after her mother. In politics, she has donated to Britain's Labour Party and opposed Scottish independence and Brexit. Rowling has expressed opinions on transgender people and related civil rights since 2017. Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors.

It's not perfect, and I do not like the jump from the awards to charity, but I think its a start. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, merge fourth and fifth paragraphs (separating them was a unilateral edit made in the recent bunch, without consensus).

But there is a (new and) bigger problem; when the new transgender material was installed before the process of developing consensus was final and the tidying work completed, the lead went out of sync with the body; there is now content in the lead that was excised (unnecessarily IMO) in the body. I've raised this above but it hasn't yet been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: and others: Would opening a new thread on the transgender discussion be worthwhile? I don't want to start a time-sink but happy to give thoughts if there is a willingness to discuss (and I've read the discussion at FAR and some of the threads above, so I have an idea of what some editors are concerned about). Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest holding off on that for now, only because there is so much else going on that might be more easily resolved first, while the transgender content is more frought. Feel free to ignore me, but I don't think there's anything in that content left in the lead but removed from the body that is so horrible that we have to act prontisssimo, and rewriting the lead sentences on transgender might result in an unusually long discussion, as it did last time, so my recommendation would be to first deal with other things, knowing we need to return to this side matter. I'm in agreement with your other recommendations for now (merge four and five, etc), just pointing out we need to come back to this, as just keeping up with the bookkeeping that wasn't addressed when the transgender rewrite was installed has kept me busy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not simply reducing the lead to four paragraphs, though that should be done. Rather, eliminate anything from the lead that is not particularly significant. The lead does not have to cover everything. Note, from MOS:LEAD: 'the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.' and 'It gives the basics in a nutshell' and 'The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.' and 'summarize the most important points' As well as eliminating minor points, some parts could be written more directly and I would question the need for the third paragraph at all. Jontel (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Labour

LokiTheLiar you wrote here that

"The main article says she supports Labour when the article on her political views clarifies that may no longer be true."

I am unable to find any place where this article says she "supports" Labour; it says she donated to Labour in 2008, not that she (then or now) supports it. Did I miss something? But I see also in the Bibliography section where she said she would struggle to vote for them in 2024; it doesn't seem it would be difficult to add that clause to the bit in Politics (after checking for any updated sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Now" I can't help you with, but "then" is pretty obvious if you include the rest of that sentence.

The full quote in the article is

In 2008, Rowling donated £1 million to the Labour Party, endorsed the Labour prime minister Gordon Brown over his Conservative challenger David Cameron, and commended Labour's policies on child poverty

If you endorse someone for Prime Minister, I would think it to be very obvious that you support their party. Loki (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Will this June 2024 BBC source suffice for updating? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, seems fine to me. Loki (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be out the rest of the afternoon, in case someone else wants to work on that update before I can get to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Installed, with apologies for piecemeal work. May need adjustment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Beira

LokiTheLiar you wrote here that

"There's a mention of Beira's Place in the philanthropy section that says it's for biological women cited to the Telegraph, which is both an WP:NPOV problem because it's clearly taking her side of the issue, and a sourcing issue because the Telegraph was recently agreed to be WP:MREL on trans issues."

As you know, it was only very recently that the Telegraph was found MREL on trans issues. I searched for a different source, including more recent ones, but hesitate to swap one in myself, as they all seem biased one way or another. What sources do you suggest we consider? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In an effort to avoid the issues I was complaining about in the linked comment, I have gone ahead and made an edit using sources from the Beira's Place page. Loki (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made a minor wording change to Loki's edit, to more neutral wording. I have also removed the Pink News source, as the content is already sourced to the BBC, the Guardian and the Edinburgh News, all of whom are more neutral in tone. Daff22 (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Dumbledore

Loki, you wrote here about the Legacy section that

"There's a sentence ... which seems to confuse the underlying issue when it says 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: it makes it sound like fans object to Dumbledore being gay, when the actual fan objection is that Rowling only said that Dumbledore was gay after the fact and not in the books themselves."

I don't have access to those scholarly sources, so can't suggest repairs; can you access them? If not, who can access the sources and help rectify this passage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I found this in Pugh -- will update as I find time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Added, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sections

Loki, you were concerned here about the section headings. I'm not completely following all of your concerns, but on some of them ... In terms of rectifying this, I would point out that both Kirk and Smith (the only usable bios, both of which are freely accessible at archive.org) lay out a chronology ... her Potter success --> led to fame (along with opposition from religions and legal problems) --> led to wealth --> which led to philanthropy as she realized how fortunate she had been to escape poverty considering her background (text removed from the article as "hagiography" but well conforming with both sources) --> which led to her willingness to use her wealth fame and philanthropy to further her political views, as an early and prolific user of Twitter. You can load up either of those books on archive.org and glance at the Tables of Contents to see how some of the sections evolved. In some instances, the article structure was determined by the few usable bios we have (Rowling has not authorized a bio, and many available are basically children's books). Other than that, how do you suggest rectifying your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

See, that general outline makes sense, but it's not what I see here. Almost all of that is the Life and career section, and then we jump through several apparently unrelated sections before picking that story back up in the Philanthropy section.

I mainly feel like the structure of the article is a bit disjointed. And what I mean by that is, given any two section headers in this article it would be pretty difficult to predict the next one. Compare to James Joyce, where every section header except the last two could not go in any other place but where it is.

One concrete thing I can suggest right now is that Legal disputes are events that are clearly part of her career and so should be integrated into the Life and career section. But maybe the Life and career section should be split out: the internals of that section are very well structured and it's possible the issue here is that the remaining sections are miscellaneous little bits that were difficult to fit in a timeline. Loki (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we're going to need some help from Vanamonde93 on this one; in the personal bits, I did have (at least in my head :) an outline that was chronological (as outlined above), and Smith makes a case for that's how it worked. And Kirk pretty much follows suit -- one thing led to the next. But then where to fit the Literary analysis -- I had just about no involvement on that, and am out of my element -- but maybe all of those bits need to go under one level 2 heading ? (As a not very important side note, I've heard bitter complaints that James Joyce was turned into a chronological travelogue rather than a bio, so I'm loathe to compare to it or follow it too closely. It seems to overlook his work too much ... at least that's the complaint I hear, along with it reads like a travelogue.) More ideas needed here -- I'm out all afternoon now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar have you looked at Victoriaearle's FA Ernest Hemingway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I also think it's very well structured. Loki (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival as we are still working here (apologies for my absence, I'll return here as soon as able). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Religious debates

Re these concerns, my impression from reading Kirk and Smith is that the religious debates largely ended. Eventually? Vanamonde93 I seem to recall you reviewed the sources on Religious debates; can you do anything to clarify the timing per the concerns raised by TompaDompa? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid it will be until next week before I can engage deeply with sources on this page. I suspect there will not exist a satisfactory resolution to that concern, however. Unless someone studied the religious debates retrospectively - and I don't believe they have - sources covered the phenomenon when it happened, and when the debates petered out they stopped receiving attention. As such I'm confident the debate lost steam as the later books appeared, the Christian themes got more prominent, and the lack of any promotion of witchcraft and paganism more obvious; but that's my personal opinion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a re-phrasing will suffice ... IIRC, the main objection was to the word were .. would "have been" work? Doesn't seem so urgent that we can't wait a week or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with the suggested tweak, but fundamentally I think this is a case of us needing to be okay with not tying everything off neatly; sometimes the source material doesn't allow for it, and that's okay. I just re-read some of the material we use to talk about Christian themes, and AFAICS all they do is to say that those claiming the books promoted Satanism were wrong; there isn't a history of the debates, as such. At some point I imagine a scholar will pick this up for a paper, and we can tie it off when that happens. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I've been re-reading Pugh (do you have the Introduction?) and suggest we might solve this complaint by something like this. From:

• ... Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series.

... to

• ... Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. Criticism of her writing from fundamental Christians also led to religious debates over the Harry Potter series.

That would make it not time-dependent, rather just another matter of literary analysis ... have a look at Pugh? I want to get this one off the To-Do list! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to Pugh at the moment, regrettably; TWL does not appear to include it in their collection. If you have the introduction, perhaps you'd be kind enough to email it to me? I believe you have my address. I did re-read some of the other cited sources, Gupta in particular. I'm generally fine with your change, but there is some mention of Islamic fundamentalists too; so perhaps "religious fundamentalists, particularly evangelical Christians"? I wonder a little about length, but if it would address complaints about vagueness I'm okay with it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 ... I have only that one chapter ... will send as soon as I'm home on real computer. Methinks it a good source to have, as a spate of the deletions in recent months were probably DUE content per Pugh, and I think we need to revisit a lot of what got tossed in non-consensual edits.

Your proposal seems fine, but need to make sure it's sourced in the body somewhere ... can I leave that all in your hands? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Political views on Israel

Is this Jerusalem Post source appropriate for updating JKR's views on Israel-Hamas? It references her exact words, which are included in the Political Views sub-article, but only using primary sources there. If not, what is a better source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am usually skeptical of the Jerusalem Post on Israel/Palestine because of its clear bias on this issue. It might be fine here because it's just quoting her, but I'm concerned about stating that something is her view on the issue based on two tweets from when this was a breaking news story and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza hadn't happened yet. Loki (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't find enough non-Jewish sources on this to convince myself it would be DUE to include it ... thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Without having read very much of the sourcing, my inclination is due doubt that it is due weight to include it. Rowling isn't a lawmaker, so most of her personal political positions other than the big ones that have garnered all of the media and scholarly attention aren't going to be due weight to mention in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

'cottage hospital' not 'Cottage Hospital'

The place of her birth should be given as

'the cottage hospital', etc,

not

'Cottage Hospital', etc.

A cottage hospital was a type of small, local hospital that was widely used in England for a period, not the name of a particular one (see, e.g. separate Wikipedia article, or search).

It should not be capitalized.

Thus the correct form of text is,

'Joanne Rowling was born on 31 July 1965 at the cottage hospital in Yate, Gloucestershire' 81.131.103.168 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Cottage Hospital was/is both a type of hospial and the proper name of many examples. You'd need to produce refs that it had some other name. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia link you gave to cottage hospital does not capitalise it. You made a valid point that some cottage hospitals have 'Cottage Hospital' as part of the name, and in that case it obviously should be capitalised. However, the uncapitalised, generic version is correct in both cases. Perhaps it would be better to use that neutral form unless there are specific refs that show it has the capitalised version as part of its offical name. 81.131.103.168 (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I took it out of them main body content, but have you read the footnote there? It's complicated, but we have two sources using capitalized Cottage Hospital as the name at the time, including on the birth certificate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Anti-transgender activist in the first sentence

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

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

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

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

Partial agree, many foreign language article pages include lengthy descriptors concerning her 'gender critical' activism, and it has made front-page news multiple times in the UK. Considering this effort seems to be what she has been devoting most of her public capital towards over the past six years, I see no reason to not include it at least within the first paragraph. I support keeping the "philanthropist" label though; she famously lost billionaire status for donating to charities (not limited to Doctors Without Borders and Comic Relief), including setting up her own charity that promotes the welfare of children.[4][5][6]

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

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

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

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

RE. scholarly articles, would these suffice? [7][8][9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philanthropy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC "anti-transgender activist" in the lead

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

• Oppose as discussed above,[10] there are not sources to support adding this content to the lead nor is there a preponderance of sources or high-quality sources to support adding it to the lead of a Featured article. Those indicating support above have not engaged sources, and support for this controversial and BLP-breaching addition seems to be based on opinion rather than policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  When I searched, I found one source that labeled her that way (Pink News), along with scores of sources that talk about others as anti-trans activists within the same articles where they discuss JKR without using that label on her (samples [11] [12][13] [14]), so in your searches, remember to look for the absence of the label, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for these.

  As people keep asking for more sources:

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

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

  It's more commonly cited in popular culture articles:

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

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

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

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

  Per TBicks, nothing to support the proposed addition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources
References

Covering antitrans in the lead

See also Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11

Lot's of discussion and suggestions. I understand that we are describing Rowling's stance thus:

Rowling has gender-critical views, and she opposes many proposed laws that would make it simpler for transgender people to transition. These views have attracted widespread criticism and are often described as transphobic or anti-trans, though Rowling disputes this.

Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she made anti-trans statements. Rowling wrote that transgender people should live in "peace and security" but said she opposed "forc[ing] women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal". In June 2020, Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate" and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". 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".

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.

Rowling's views have fuelled debates on freedom of speech and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. She has been the target of widespread condemnation for her comments on transgender people. This negative reaction has included insults and threats, including death threats. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books have been unaffected.

Rowling denies being transphobic. In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left transgender people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... transgender people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Writing of her own experiences with misogyny, she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and she said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class". Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".

The relevant part of the lead reads like this:

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

The latter is supposed to fairly summarise the former. As I said above, I don't think that it currently does. I'd pick on the term "critics" as being the weakest point in the current wording. Others may feel it needs a complete rewrite. I also note that the first passage tells us twice that Rowling denies being anti-trans. I feel once would be enough, or even zero times (she's hardly likely to admit to it, is she?!) So that's another thing to think about.

Thoughts? John (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that it should be expanded a bit, to more thoroughly summarize the section. I wouldn't remove her denial that she is transphobic entirely though, as that would like be skating the line with regards to WP:NPOV. TBicks (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I noted the redundancy (and others) in emphasizing anti-trans weeks ago, but that got no attention; the rewrite of the transgender section was installed before it was polished. The current lead, written during the FAR, was constrained by a very recent (then) but very well attended RFC: see Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11. I think a complete rewrite now is in order, but please be aware it may not be an easy undertaking (see the volume of commentary in the linked RFC). It would be ideal to finish cleaning up the transgender section rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a rewrite, the current consensus for the lead made sense in an attempt to characterize her that follows WP:NPOV considerations, but the increasing outspoken support definitely makes the hedged statement of the lead seem increasingly outdated. I am unsure about how important the part of dividing feminists should be, as it is is described in her article on political positions but is not mentioned at all in this section of the main page, and I wonder if it would serve to instead be a bit more explicit about the general view of that section that her views attract "widespread condemnation" and "criticism", changing her relationship with her works, that I feel is alluded to in the current lead but more through the framing of "debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture", which feels currently too narrow for the current section (of course, with special care given to NPOV) CloakedFerret (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)