The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
J. K. Rowling's ethnicity/nationality has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Current consensus is that she is British, and that whether she is also English, Scottish or Welsh has no bearing on her work or her biography, and is best not discussed.
The topic of her middle name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Her full name is simply Joanne Rowling; she contracted the first name and chose the middle initial K from her grandmother's name, Kathleen, in order to remove the gender association from her own name.
Her married name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She uses her married name, Murray, for private business, but her maiden name, "Rowling", is used here, as it is the one by which she is most widely known.
The pronunciation of her name has been discussed here, here, here, here and here. She has commented that her name is pronounced like bowling and not like howling.
Allegations that she supports communism in the series have been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She has not publicly espoused any such views; attempts to describe such views in her works have been rejected as original research of published material.
If you have a question relating to the spelling in this article (such as "instalment"/"installment") remember that this article is written in British English.
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Putting aside the misrepresentation of Rowling's issue here, and the fact that her comments on Banda are not even related to trans issues, the article does not classify Rowling as an 'anti-transgender activist', meaning it is not appropriate to put the article in such a category.Daff22 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Daff22. Arbeiten8, please have a look at a broader sampling of unbiased sources, along with the scores of times the same discussion has been had on this talk page, and in particular, the high quality sources required for a Featured article. And I believe we have the same situation with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rowling is the textbook definition of what is transphobia. She has
#Misgendered trans people
#Misgendered cis people who she perceived as the wrong gender like India Willoughby
#Authored the book Troubled Blood & The Silkworm claiming that trans women are supervillains wanting to rape women casting "trans women as a threat" according to GLAAD
Rowling, meanwhile, has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona. On Sept. 10, she posted the U.K. open casting call for the roles of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley to her 14.2 million followers on X. That was an exception: Over the next two months, Rowling posted or reposted more than 200 times (excluding replies) about trans-related issues to support her conviction, as she posted on Oct. 7, that gender identity “is defined by little more than a person’s subjective feelings, or (more accurately) their claim to feel those feelings.” Within the same time frame, she posted or reposted about Harry Potter just eight more times, [...[
The industry has never quite faced a scenario in which the sole creator of a beloved, multibillion-dollar global franchise has plunged so unabashedly into one of the culture’s most contentious social issues. She’s effectively made herself toxic to many within the core fandom, whose devotion began 25 years ago when they were children and has sustained the franchise long after the books and the film series concluded. It’s placed those fans in a vexing dilemma: How can they engage with the new show, or any other iteration of the franchise, if they vehemently disagree with Rowling’s views on gender identity?
This debate has been had a number of times now, and it has become abundantly clear that there is no consensus for adding that label. TBicks (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know we've had this discussion multiple times before and the consensus prior is that, despite Rowling's actions over the past few years, it doesn't relate much to her overall career and ongoing notability. As of yet. And the latter sentence was noted in those discussions as well. I do wonder, though, at where that line is and how long is needed of her continuing this ongoing bigotry that had been all she's gotten reporting on for years now before we can actually change or add to the article about this being a new main part of her ongoing notability. There is a time amount and line where that would be true, right? SilverserenC00:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably? Assuming reliable sources start commonly calling/alluding to her being an anti-transgender activist, I don't see why not.
The problem in past discussions seems to have boiled down not to whether she is anti-transgender (I think she's made her gender critical views clear by this point), but to if she is an activist. Few of the RSs previously discussed actually describe her that way, and there's no consensus thusfar as to if simple speech on Twitter constitutes activism (especially given the absence of campaigning elsewhere).
Anyhow, it's only been a couple of months since the last time this was discussed, and in the absence of new developments, we can't keep reigniting this every time someone wants to link some poor quality sources (LGBTQ Nation is hardly unbiased on this issue). TBicks (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rowling also indicated that Trump's 2024 electoral win is because of the triumph of transphobia (Kamala is for they/them): According to her, the only reason that she couldn't positively declare ""Trump's win was down to the gender stuff" is because she isn't an American voter
Also, would I be wrong in stating that if Rowling were a WP user engaging in this unrepentant rhetoric, then she' be banned?
We have articles like [[Nick Fuentes]] claiming that the subject is a white supremacist in spite of Fuentes's denial. On the other hand, when Rowling is accused of transphobia, she retorts that she doesn't care and is "indifferent to your disapproval."
I think people can common sense. We don't need a hundreds sources to run a headline to the effect "Rowling is the great transphobic author of all time in human history" to decide that 2+2=4 Arbeiten8 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the goalposts keep moving. We have reliable sources directly talking about it now. But they'll probably insist on peer-reviewed papers, and if those are presented, will say they're not as good as ones from 10 years ago, which don't mention her transphobia. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little more AGF, please, Adam Cuerden. At least a few of us insist on good sourcing because we believe in enforcing FA standards - please look through the FAR archives, if you believe I am doing so out of some loyalty to Rowling. I note that we last exhaustively revised the relevant section five months ago. Has Rowling done enough since then to merit another revision? I'm inclined to think not. Also: the splashiest headlines of the last few months have been ostensibly unrelated to trans people: she has criticized Imane Khelif and Barbra Banda for not appearing feminine enough, despite them being cis-women, as far as the world knows. This could arguably be worked into her views, but it would really be stretching a point to use this as justification for "anti-transgender activist". Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Adam Cuerden... although featured articles should have a higher quality requirement for sources, as long as the preponderance of reliable sources (of any variety) suggest something, there is no reason not to add it. The goalposts have remained firmly in the same place.
As already mentioned, there is little mention of her being an activist in reliable sources. I don't think people are seriously suggesting that she isn't anti-trans any more, but to label her an activist requires more than just RSs pointing out that she says mean stuff on twitter. TBicks (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like, the Variety piece says anti-trans activity is the central focus of her online persona. I don't think that's particularly ambiguous, and if the only objection is exact wording, we could literally quote theirs. "In 2024, Variety wrote that Rowling 'has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona.'" Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.15:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to adding that sentence into the relevant paragraph on her trans views.
That's different to actually labelling her an "Anti-trans Activist" in wikivoice, which is what was suggested by Arbeiten8. As I mentioned, simply quoting a single RS like Variety would be insufficient for that change - it would require much more significant usage in RSs than has been presented thusfar. TBicks (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually opposed to inserting that quote in the body, because it is summarizing what the popular press has to say about her online presence in a way that most sources don't do. It remains insufficient for the "anti-trans activist" label, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separately from not seeing consensus for this edit to the lead (there was some support for adding it to the body), it takes the transgender portion of the lead to 72 words of readable prose out of a total lead size of 450 words (16% of the lead). In an article of 8,861 words of readable prose, the transgender section is 488 words, which is less than 6% of the article. The lead is giving undue weight to the transgender content, and if that quote (which I believe to be excessive) is to be included, some trimming of the overall lead content about the transgender issue is needed. The edit also adds content to the lead that is not mentioned in the body. I have moved the quote to the body, removed content that was mentioned twice in the body (?!), and repaired the citation to respect WP:CITEVAR and WP:WIAFA 2c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it massively improves the lead. We can cut other parts of it, but compare:
The sentences that are the problem are all the other ones, because they say exeedingly little. "her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights" says basically nothing. The way it's phrased, she could be a huge trans ally. And then "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 culture sector." - again, a lot of talk, of questionable weight, (did she really "divide[] feminists", or was there an extant division she highlighted. The phrasing of "prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the culture sector." is also odd.
The whole transgender section, without the Variety quote, is written in this weird passive voice, where it's stated that Rowling said... something about transgender people, no comment whatsoever about what, and the rest of that section is solely about the reactions to it, again written in vagueness.
The Variety quote, however, makes it clear why talking about her views on transgender people is important enough to be in the lead in the first place. We can trim down the reaction to her statements sentences far more profitably. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cmon, there was no consensus for adding this to the lead. A few of us were okay with adding it to the body, but there certainly wasn't any suggestion of the lead changing in the talk page.
As for "her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights" not being clear, I think the fact that it's immediately followed by "Her comments, described as transphobic by critics" pretty much clears up which way her comments lean. TBicks (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this comment to its own section, so the substantive discussion isn't derailed, and so I can reply at length when I next get a free moment. This is standard WP:WIAFA 2c, and WP:CITEVAR; Wikipedia, like most outlets, has its own manual of style. I have a very busy day, will reply at more length over the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back to finish; sorry for the delay, my husband has been hospitalized. Like most outlets, Wikipedia has its own house style, but unlike other outlets, Wikipedia does not prescribe, rather accepts different options on some elements of its house style. As an example, MOS:DASH prescribes some uses of emdashes and endashes, but we can use either an unspaced emdash or a spaced endash in running text. And if a source uses a dash style different from that established within an article, we can alter it to reflect the established style. Similarly, MOS prescribes some uses and elements of title case versus sentence case, for example, in article titles and section headings (sentence case) and book titles (title case). Because of "anyone can edit", Wikipedia articles may then have internal inconsistencies in formatting. The criteria for Featured articles require a "professional standard of writing, presentation, and sourcing" and 2c calls for "consistently formatted inline citations", while WP:CITEVAR tells us not to change an established citation style. Before clearing FAC, articles are supposed to be checked for a consistent citation style. The established style on this article includes, among other things, journal and news articles in sentence case. Publishers are linked, authors have a certain format, page numbers are expressed a certain way, etc. The goal is internal consistency. It is usually expected that established editors will assure their additions respect CITEVAR in a Featured article and their citations are complete. I'm unaware of any FA where the established citation style is to do whatever the source does, even if that results in inconsistent citations or unprfoessional presentation -- they may exist, though. I'm sorry to take space on an FA talk page to explain a basic element of Featured articles; if there are still questions, Nikkimaria might explain further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been the subject of a lot of discussions recently, and there is no consensus for adding this label. Given the short period of time between the last discussion and now (a matter of days; see the Barbra Banda section for example), I don't think it's worth starting another one for the moment. TBicks (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, in the Views --> Transgender People section, the final paragraph contains the sentence "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."
The phrase "which left transgender people feeling betrayed" feels very out of place in this paragraph, in which her views, and the basis for them, are explained. Personally I find the phrase a little problematic (e.g. nonspecific; which trans people?), but if it is to be included, I think it would fit better in the 2nd or 4th paragraphs, which list the reactions to her statements/views.
The current phrasing doesn't allow for her opinion to be presented neutrally. It should be split up as you stated. A quick way to solve this could be to move the reaction to the end of the paragraph, or right before the assertion of Whited? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it actually fits quite well with the final sentence regarding Whited. I'd support moving it to the end of the paragraph. TBicks (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be made a bit more specific though. I can't access the source unfortunately, but the current wording could mean every trans person in the world or a small group of them. If the source says something like 'transgender fans of her books', that would be a better wording I think. TBicks (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. To present neutrally, we should first share one opinion and then include other perspectives or criticism. This applies to any topic. I see you have a strong opinion about this, but it might help to take a step back for a moment. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're considering moving a phrase to a different place in a paragraph. I have no idea what you're talking about.
For what its worth, and not that it has anything to do with paragraph organization, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:WIAE), not a place to challenge views you don't like (see WP:ADVOCACY). If you're so prejudiced in this area that you don't think wikipedia should maintain a neutral POV, it might not be the right WP topic for you? TBicks (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, i'm suggesting moving a phrase to a different place in a paragraph to better faciliate a neutral presentation of her views. I haven't even mentioned transphobia, let alone stated an opinion on its validity. TBicks (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that it's not really a neutral presentation of her views to treat them as non-controversial, then bring in criticism afterwards. It seems like a lot of newspapers have taken to including a discussion of her views in pretty much any reporting on her. Just searching J.K. Rowling news:
It feels like discussing her transphobia is becoming more and more the mainstream view of her, while this article is minimising it more and more. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.10:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Nobody is treating her views as non-controversial. The paragraph in question is preceded by several paragraphs which explain the mixed reactions to her views.
We're talking about moving a 6 word phrase to a different place in a paragraph. I have already elucidated the reasons I feel that is neccesary, none of which have to do with the content of her speech/views. It has nothing to do with "minimizing" anything - i'm not even suggesting we remove the phrase, simply move it to a more suitable position.
If you're seriously unable to WP:AGF when it comes to simple paragraph organization, I think you should consider avoiding this topic in the future. TBicks (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that it feels like it'd be awkward to realise the point later, and that it may mischaracterise the essay if it's not done very carefully. The section is a disorganised mess, but at least it doesn't first cover the whole situation from Rowling's perspective then again from the outside perspective, like a sequential WP:POVFORK. I don't like the suggested change outside of a full rework, as I think it'll make the section worse. It's also a basic rule of journalism that the higher up on the page material is introduced, the more weight is being given to it, which I suppose you may be unaware of. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.10:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence already describes the reaction to the essay and her speech on the issue, making the end of the paragraph a more natural place to put the phrase. We wouldn't be creating a POV order change, merely adding to a preexisting one.
The way it's currently written interjects other people's POV into a sentence about her POV, which is bad practice for neutral presentation. TBicks (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly -- my husband has been hospitalized for a week; I'm aware I still have to answer #Citation consistency above. (Done, 13:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC) ) I think the suggestion to combine the questioned clause somewhere around the Whited sentence would work. I also agree the section became somewhat haphazard when a few months back there was some rapid-fire nonconsensual editing; slow and steady wins the race. I'd also like to remind Adam Cuerden to aim for a collaborative approach to work on this talk page, lower the POV statements on a BLP talk page, and that sources like the Daily Mail aren't relevant here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the