Jump to content

Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2017

J.K. Rowling married Jorge Arantes in 1992, and divorced him in 1993. Please change this. I am a person who cringes when information is incorrect and nobody bothers to change it. 173.54.205.146 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC) 173.54.205.146 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Currently cited sources in the article state they separated in 1993 but did not file for divorce until late 1994 Cannolis (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

a Church of Scotland congregation while writing Harry Potter.

CHANGE TO

a Scottish Episcopalian congregation while writing Harry Potter. AmySandridge (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

AmySandridge (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 01:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I attended the Scottish Episcopalian congregation with J K Rowling while she was writing Harry Potter. How do I cite this? I have the Church weekly magazine, Movement. What else is needed? AmySandridge (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Her brother in law, Roger Moore?

"Marriage, divorce, and single parenthood" includes this: "She wrote in many cafés, especially Nicolson's Café (owned by her brother-in-law, Roger Moore)..."
I haven't found any indication that she is related by marriage to the notable late [Roger Moore], his widow Kristina Tholstrup, or any of the other Roger Moores fortunate enough to have their own WP articles. Unless it's someone notable it is superfluous and a little confusing.
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but "her brother in law" or "sister's husband" (or whatever he is) is sufficient and his name should be removed.2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:64B3:6653:FE1F:D4C4 (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done I couldn't find evidence of relationsip, so have removed the comment. It can be replaced if a reliable source is found to support it. Apuldram (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The claim was inserted in this edit. Of course, it didn't state that the Roger Moore named was the Roger Moore. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed that because the reference was changed. All the same, I agree with the user above that the name is superfluous. Unless her brother-in-law was indeed the Roger Moore. Apuldram (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Middle name and 'Robert Galbraith'.

Does the 'K.' in her initials stand for anything? Why did she choose a male name as her pseudonym? Seems so wrong. Because she's female, of course.--193.163.223.192 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your first question is answered in the article. Your second question is also answered in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
18 October 2017? Weird glitch.--193.163.223.192 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Not a glitch but a typo - you changed it yourself here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are right Febin shibu (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. K. Rowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Unclear to me

I don't know what this means: and read for a B.A. in French and Classics at the University of Exeter. Do you mean she studied a bachelor of arts in French and Classics at the university of exeter? Then why not just say that instead of saying 'she read for'. What does that even mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.136.77 (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Reading" is a posh way of saying "studying" Vince Calegon (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. I changed it to "earned a B.A. in French and Classics". Other sources confirm that she earned the degree, not just "read for" it. RexxiA —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it English and you don't have to be rude about it Lonewolf2019 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it English and you don't have to be rude about it Lonewolf2019 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018

change "Joanne Rowling" to Joanne Kathleen Rowling Death Spectre31 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No, because that is not her name. There's an entire section about it. Serendipodous 14:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Publications

Are the Harry Potter books something that you would call children's books? I don't know, if this was discussed before, but isn't Young adult fiction the correct description? ZeR0101MiNt (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe.I’m not sure either. But children’s books seem right. It’s what they say in our country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColeCole714 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018

Gjh bfjsm m (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

she just had here birthday can i change it from 52 on 53

 Not done The article lists her birthday as 31/7/65. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018

In the first paragraph of the article, it states that she has sold over 400 million copies worldwide. This is an outdated figure from 2008; she has recently surpassed 500 million total sales for the Harry Potter series, and the article should reflect this. Here is the most reliable source I could find: https://www.thebookseller.com/news/harry-potter-books-sales-reach-500-million-worldwide-723556. That source says they received their figure from the publishing house. I could not find the figure stated directly from the publishing house themselves.

Thank you. Nomadben (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Stickee (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018

Weirdoperso (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


she's dead

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Add philanthropist to occupation

Her occupation should include "philanthropist." I'm sure it was just an oversight given that her Lumos foundation is referenced in the article. Here is another famous living person who happens to be a male whose occupation also includes "philanthropist".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

This is my first time submitting a talk topic so I hope I did it correctly. Thank you, Aus512 2018-08-13 (UTC) ````

Added . :-) Serendipodous 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

"Rowling had gained some creative control on the films, reviewing all the scripts[103] as well as acting as a producer on the final two-part instalment, Deathly Hallows.[104]"

"instalment" is spelled incorrectly. 74.85.95.74 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

See the "common comments" box above. Serendipodous 20:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: As mentioned, "instalment" is correct in British English. Those silly Brits. Saucy[talk – contribs] 04:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Small correction under 'remarriage and family'

Rowling visited Sarah Brown in hospital when her son John, not Fraser, was born in 2003. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jane_Brown#Marriage_to_Gordon_Brown and the footnote with this statement (which is about the baptism of John). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.172.41 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2018

Would it be possible to update the image of J.K. Rowling on her wiki page? This photograph is about 20 years old. I have a recent photo that we have permission to use specifically for this page. Tbp2018 (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Upload the photo and get consensus on this talk page to replace the current one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please be aware of WP:IUPC - the copyright holder must have released the image under an acceptable free license. Permission to use the photo only on Wikipedia or on a specific page is insufficient. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Is WikiProject Literature should be covered in this article's talk page?

I checked the scope of this Wikiproject and found that this Wikiproject discourages put the banner into writers' talk page. I would ask if it should be moved.Mariogoods (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The photo

Why is this a "horrible photo"? How is it inferior to this photo, where she is facing away and squinting? Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's too dark, her hand and glass obscure part of her face being unnecessarily intrusive, and it's lower res than the original. The original has none of those issues - nor is she "facing away" - and also has the added benefit of context - she was reading from Philospher's Stone when the photo was taken. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Chaheel Riens' objections. Moreover, it looks inappropriate for the lead portrait on an encyclopedia article. The vibes it is sending, with the prominent glass of wine, it seems it would be more fitting in a profile on a seedy dating website. (Admittedly, that is just personal taste). The previous/current photograph is adequate and it doesn't need replacing; I think her face is clearly visible and she is smiling, not squinting. --Hazhk (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That sounds a bit prudish, but I see your point :D Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2019

in the Childhood part, can you change it from 23 months to 1 year and 11 months 185.39.202.226 (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - it's common practice to list anything less than two years as combined months. Changing to years and months breaks the flow of the sentence and adds unnecessary complexity. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019

Charlton Athletic fan. 213.106.89.77 (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2019

Please can you change the key image to this image? I have permission to use the attached image, the credit should be: Photography Debra Hurford Brown © J.K. Rowling 2018

File:Photography Debra Hurford Brown © J.K. Rowling 2018.jpg
Photography Debra Hurford Brown © J.K. Rowling 2018

Tbp2018 (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Not done: That photo does not exist. NiciVampireHeart 12:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
More to the point the photo has not been uploaded with the correct permissions. I suspect you were trying to link to an offline image, or one that is somewhere on the web - but not hosted either by Wikipedia or on Commons.
I suggest you upload the image first, apply the necessary permissions for what seems to be an image with specific copyright details, and then try again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this the one? Esowteric+Talk 13:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
If it is, I'd be willing to bet that the licensing info is incorrect and needs changing/correcting before it can be considered. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WorldCat data in error for Pegasus article?

The data for an article mentioned in the section on Rowling's education is wrong. It says the year of Rowling's article "What was the Name of that Nymph Again?" from Pegasus, the journal of the University of Exeter's Classics department is 1988. However, I found a PDF of that article which clearly dates it as 1998. Not to mention that Rowling mentions Professor Binns in the article; the Potterverse wasn't even a gleam in her eye in 1988.

I think whoever wrote the citation got the date from WorldCat. 1988 is written in the Publisher field, but I don't know that necessarily means the article should be dated 1988.

A Princeton library has the correct date for it online. I suppose I could just change the citation to the Princeton library instead of WorldCat, but I find that untidy.

Should I try to change the WorldCat data? It seems like you have to be affiliated with some library in order to request changes. Quickfoot (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Education section

The Education section notes J.K. Rowling's "What was the Name of that Nymph Again? or Greek and Roman Studies Recalled" as being published in 1988, but it appears to have been published in 1998 as found within the Journal of the University of Exeter Department of Classics And Ancient History on a University website at: https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf

[1]

AndrewHeagle (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Andrew Heagle

References

  1. ^ https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf

Why add the the maya forsater situation and TERF accusations with biased sources

This is clearly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFF and also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Reasoning has been explained several times with no change to the OP's attitude. This will clearly go nowhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is it because wikipedia editors are now toxics SJWs .

I mean, brie larson gets a free pass with her man hating views on wikipedia but Jk Rowling is accused without proof . People cant add man hating to brie Larson article because wikipedia isnt a gossip rag but TERF can be added to Jk Rowling ? With one tweet and biased sources ? Talk about hypocrisy. This should apply to brie as well- if you add Terf to JKR you should be able to add Man hating to Brie . Gossip rag argument is moot point if your willing to vilify one person on the bases of poor gossip sources but not the other.

People can't make edits to articles of other celebs like brie Larson because of poor sources and wikipedia not being a gossip rag YET here we are with gossip sources for Jk Rowling. Even if people change the maya situation, it will be reverted by some SJW editor . Don't get me started on Johnny Depp being abused by amber heard and online tapes being released - someone on wiki said these tapes were doctored. Anything to believe woman as if woman cant do harm. Their are woman criminals.

Hypocrisy 101 is showing and it must end . Social justice doesn't equal to equality but reverse revenge . Hpdh4 12:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on this talk page should be limited to this article. A tangentially related situation on an unrelated article cannot be addressed by assuming they are somehow related or should be handled in a way that you deem to be "fair".
Comments attacking editors (individually or as a group) are neither productive nor acceptable.
If you feel there are sources used which are not reliable sources, please specify which sources and in what way(s) you feel they do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS. You are very unlikely to find support for arguments that CBS News, The New York Times, Vox, and Forbes are "poor" or "gossip sources".
If you feel the coverage of that material is beyond its coverage in the sources, such that it is a WP:WEIGHT issue, please explain. Note it is two sentences, citing four very reliable sources.
Please note that the article does not say Rowling is a TERF. Instead, the two sentences say she "faced criticism for supporting Maya Forstater" (which is certainly true), "after a court ruled that Forstater's anti-transgender views were not protected beliefs" (again, true and verifiable), "Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident," (it is inarguably true that the media outlets made those statements) "with some describing her as a trans-exclusionary feminist whose views are transphobic" (again, it is true that some described her that way). - SummerPhDv2.0 18:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Theirs something called consistency and fairness. Even if you and others like you feel otherwise . If things like this can be added to Rowling, then it can be done for anyone that's controversial.
I'm not going to add contrevercial things said or done by people like brie Larson or Amber heard or delete the terf accusations . I know my contributions will be reverted. It appears as if The truth only matters when its factual in its support for specific agendas.
Hpdh4 13:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
This article is about Rowling. If you feel something in another article is contrary to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, discuss THAT issue THERE. If you feel you have similar quality sources about another issue on another subject, you will need to take the issue up there: Provide the sources, show they are reliable (most of the sources here have been covered in WP:RS/P) and provide a neutral summary of what they say.
The TERF accusations in THIS article are very well sourced. If you feel any of the sources are not reliable you will need to be specific as to which source and how it fails WP:IRS.
What our article says is -- unless those sources are lying (for some reason) -- true: Rowling faced criticism, outlets said she had been controversial in the past and some described her as a TERF with trans-phobic views. Which of those statements do you feel are not verifiable? If you feel Rowling was not criticized, was not accused and was not described, you will need to explain. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother doing shit.
You and the rest of the Toxic SJW editors can keep on using wikipedia T&C to pretend it's all about adhering to the rules. We all know what it is : an agenda. Anything controversial said or done by any living person should be added to their respective articles irrespective of weather the sources are verifiable or not - that's what controversy is- generally unproven rumors . Isn't it strange sources deemed "appropriate" by some editors spew the same rhetoric yet with some ( I say some ) sources "not appropriate" actually have the truth .
I'm done . You lot win
Just trying to point out fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles.
Hpdh4 23:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
No, controversial claims about living people require high quality sources. If you don't like it, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
No , controversy requires clickbait journalism. The kind of thing people like you prefer to support. When she actually starts supporting hate groups and saying negative things like Trump then I will believe that shes a Terf .
How can clickbait journalism be supported over actual speech like in the case of Brie Larson and the Johnny Depp tapes of amber's abusive behavior. Actual spoken proof matters more then your agenda based sources .
Hpdh4 09:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
A specific BLP article is not the place to discuss general claims about "fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles". Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Should Transgender Essay be Included in Non-Fiction?

I vote yes; it is a much talked about piece, and seems to have been written more as a true essay, rather than simply as a blog post. Inspector Semenych (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In my view, no, it should not be listed in the "non-fiction" section at this time; it's better handled in the "views"/"gender identity" section. If it gets continuing coverage, and/or coverage as a significant non-fiction work rather than just a(nother) expression of her views on gender identity, then I would re-evaluate it at that time. ... Frankly, the fact that we're listing even some individual Guardian articles also seems questionable; I did not think these sections were intended to be comprehensive lists of everything a person had ever written, but only of notable/important works, but I may be mistaken there... -sche (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

mermaids

Is the uk times a reliable enough source to label mermaids as controversial? From my understanding it's up there with the daily mail in terms of manufacturing fake controversies. EDIT: see also the wikipedia page about mermaids itself which does not refer to them as such.--Licks-rocks (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

to expand on this further: should we call a charity controversial if the subject it raises money for is already controversial? I feel the current wording implies that there is something nefarious going on with this charity beyond it dealing with potentially controversial subject matter, which, going by the charity's wikipedia page and my knowledge of it, doesn't seem to be the case--Licks-rocks (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britmax: pinging you since you reverted my edit on this --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Support for Rowling on Trans issues

Support of Rowling's stance on Transgender issues should be included as much as critique is included. Excluding support for her comments is indicative of an obvious bias in support of the gender narrative and isn't conducive to wikipedias main purpose. Some would debate adding any information is controversial and that adding support that doesn't come from Potter cast isn't proper. Support is support no matter who it comes from as in the case of Transgender pop singer Dana International who spoke in support of Rowling. I will add the supporters to counteract the detractors who are motivated by publicity reasons . Hpdh4 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that would apply to an article on the controversy surrounding Rowling's tweets, should we decide we need one. Serendipodous 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Positions should be represented proportional to their weight in RS. Including Dana when HP stars only get brief mentions would be WP:FALSEBALANCE.Rab V (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Mermaids, an LGBTQ+ charity, gets a single sentence, and the CEO of GLAAD doesn't get a mention, despite her not insignificant response to Rowling's essay. With all due respect to Dana, her opinion doesn't matter for the purposes of this article. YuvalNehemia (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dana's opinions matter more then Radcliffe,Glaad,Mermaids, Watson,Lynch,Redmayne,Wright . Dana is actually transgender. Opinions of the person from the actual group matters more then that of controversial organizations like mermaids or PR driven actors . Plus it's a situation of Us vs Them . Having only Rowlings detractors is bias as it assumes Rowling is entirely wrong when people like Dana agrees with her to an extent. Support as much as critique should be included . Even a neutral sentence should be included like : Rowling's claims have garnered some support and then have the Reuters/dana article used as a citation. Hpdh4 19:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Mermaids is a major nonprofit transgender advocacy organisation, and therefore carries much more weight than that of a single random trans person. Furthermore, you seem to still be misunderstanding what a neutral point of view means in relation to Wikipedia and transphobia. Transphobia is a fringe position, and therefore should be given less weight on this website than the opposite. Licks-rocks (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No I am starting to understand one thing from this: theirs a bias against Rowlings comments. I still stand by my original position; Both CRITIQUE and SUPPORT should be included to avoid being seen as giving creditability to one side only. It isn't neutral if theirs only critique from PR driven actors and a controversial transRIGHTS organization. Neutral is this : Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues have generated controversy and have garnered both criticism and support from an assortment of celebrities and organizations. Hpdh4 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

please consider undue weight--Licks-rocks (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hpdh4, can you please sign your posts with 4x ~ so we can find our way to your talk page? As you were asked to do here Britmax (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there likely is a bias against Rowling's comments in the real world - LGBT rights issues have included the 'T' since - well, Stonewall, actually and literally, if not before. They're pretty key. To have someone who wrote the HP books apparently miss the point of her own writing by such a distance, and to have her punch down on trans women, women who've had hysterectomies, and post-menopausal women, was shocking for many. Radcliffe's response explains why far better than I can. So it is entirely due to feature the response of GLAAD, The Trevor Project, and Mermaids, all significant organisations, plus the reaction of the actors synonymous with the HP films. Dana International is relevant to JK Rowling how, exactly? You're new here - please read WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You prove my point Batsun. This site is supposed to be neutral and report things as is. Agendas are left at the table . Fairness demands both criticism and support exist in the same article section. Dont play the new card when your blatantly against Rowling. I'm neither against her and nor am I with her. I just want both criticism and and support to be included. Information should not be excluded on the basis of whose relavent or not and definitely not be excluded on the basis of a editors personal agenda. Somebody else will include Dana's support and I can't wait for the blow up . Hpdh4 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The proper point of comparison is with the comments of the Harry Potter actors. Including those, and not those of a notable transgender woman, whose comments were treated as noteworthy by Reuters (and elsewhere), and creating the impression that all celebrities condemned Rowling, is what creates WP:FALSEBALANCE. Simply having played a character in the Harry Potter movies does not give one special authority in this matter. It takes some sort of intellectual gerrymandering to say that their opinions need to be included, but those of an actual transgender woman do not. It's still clear that many other trans people do not feel the way Dana International does because we have comments from groups like GLAAD. Crossroads -talk- 03:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
That's one sentence only in the Reuters source suggests this isn't as notable in RS as the other actors, especially those with many RS dedicated to their opinions. Rab V (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, in theory I have no problem with the inclusion of Dana International's opinions, it's just that there are quite a few trans people's opinions that disagree with her, and there's no reason to give her more weight over them. So if Dana's opinion gets included, it is only fitting that we include quite a lot more of trans opinions, making this chapter the longest in the article. Also, there is no need to defend Rowling more than her own defence if several professional organisations (the Trevor Project, GLAAD, Mermaids) condemn her entire behaviour in this controversy. YuvalNehemia (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's Bastun, not Batsun. My point, person whose username is about Harry Potter and wants to include an additional defence of Rowling but is neutral and doesn't stand with her, is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Organisations working with, by and for trans people, amongst others, including GLAAD, Memaids and The Trevor Project have all criticised Rowling's comments, but if you look at the page history here, their criticisms were all removed at one point or another. We still have nothing in the article about the criticism she received for equating sex with menstruation (apparently you stop being a woman after menopause or hysterectomy; and keep being a woman even if you're a trans man?). I have no objection whatsoever to including support for Rowling, if its relevant and satisfies WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE. The HP-associated actors satisfy that. A random singer, not so much. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The post above says that: "We still have nothing in the article about the criticism she received for equating sex with menstruation (apparently you stop being a woman after menopause or hysterectomy; and keep being a woman even if you're a trans man?)."
That's not what Rowling said; regardless of what one thinks of her views, let's not put things into her mouth that she never said, that's a WP:BLP issue. Saying that "only women menstruate" does not equate with "only the persons who menstruate are women" (ie. what she says is that men don't menstruate, not that women who don't menstruate aren't real women). What she means is: "Not all women menstruate, but only women menstruate." The part on transmen may be indeed her view, but not the bolded part about menopause/hysterectomy.2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Cool, so you support the addition of criticism about her implicit claim that trans men are women, and her saying that those who say otherwise are trying to erase the concept of sex? YuvalNehemia (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what is a BLP issue? I haven't implied that she said anything that she didn't write. She wrote what she wrote. What she wrote about menstruation offended a lot of women and men, and it's on the record. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Jacobs / Sun paragraph

The paragraph about the Sun publishing, and being reprimanded for publishing, her husband saying her slapped her ... is currently in the "Views"→"Transgender issues" section, but does not ever mention or relate itself to transgender issues. So, it seems like it should be moved. Perhaps the sentence which says "Biographers have suggested that Rowling suffered domestic abuse during her marriage," which was recently expanded with "which was later confirmed by Rowling herself", should be further expanded with "...and by her first husband" + whatever additional details are actually DUE here (and we might want to discuss whether someone who is not the article subject reprimandng a paper for publishing something by someone else who is not the article subject is DUE here as opposed to in the article on e.g. the newspaper which was reprimanded). -sche (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree on moving the Sun paragraph. Rab V (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It was me who created this paragraph, I am not necessarily against moving it, but where do we move it to? Although your last sentence was very convoluted, not sure I followed it, sche. PatGallacher (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, I moved the paragraph up, into the part of the article that talks about the marriage and about the domestic abuse. For now, I left in the sentence about Jacobs reprimanding the Sun, although it's kind of ... straying off of the topic of this article? (But I don't feel strongly enough to remove it. Another idea for consideration is to make it a {{efn}}, though.) -sche (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I added the bit about Jacobs and believe it should stay as context pivotal to a full understanding of the outcry against The Sun. Without that statement from Jacobs, it's not in itself clear why The Sun's publishing choices have been formally found to be reprehensible (the quote from the ex-husband is not enough... "he slapped her and he's not sorry" does not in itself adequately convey that his actions are domestic violence and therefore criminal). Thoughts welcome. Zedembee (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"who lost her employment tribunal against (x)"

@-sche: to answer your question in Contrib comments... "tribunal" (no need to follow with "case") is correct in British English. Her loss in the tribunal inspired Ms. Doe to advocate for better protections for pregnant women. Zedembee (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
"Her loss in the tribunal" is grammatically very different from "who lost her tribunal against [X]", though, are you sure the latter phrase is also grammatical? One can also say "her loss in court inspired Ms Doe", but not "she lost her court against X". I see all of eight(!) google hits for the phrase "lost her tribunal against", and while I know WP:GHITS aren't an argument for titling or deleting an article, it does make be wonder if the phrase is standard English. -sche (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Similar controversies

I recently edited this article to remove the line Similar controversies have arisen with regards to her liking tweets which some considered to be transphobic. This line was initially supported by a PinkNews source, which I removed per WP:RSP, and by articles from Vox and LGBTQ Nation, both of which can be considered reliable sources. However, neither article would appear to effectively support that sentence. The Vox source was in fact previously used to support this sentence Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident, with some describing her as transphobic which I removed in this edit [1] as it appeared to be a generalisation, not supported as per WP:3REFS. Retrospectively, this source does not adequately support the remaining sentence, as it principally covers the Forstater case, with the rest of the article being social media speculation, making it WP:UNDUE as a source for the sentence. The LGBTQ Nation source relies entirely on speculation regarding social media. I do not believe that there is enough reliable coverage to support the sentence, per WP:3REFS and that to include it based on the sources given would be WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP. I would therefore propose to revert to the edit here [2]. AutumnKing (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. It won't be hard to find additional Rowling's opinions on transgender issues, and I'll happily add them over the next couple of days. Minimising coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues and activism seems to be a particular interest of yours, but coverage of such opinions does seem to be on the increase. Note that social media such as Twitter can be used as a reliable source. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC) --- Huh. Timely tweets tonight. She and Gl*nner seem to do this a lot! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bastun: References to news coverage of the tweets and subsequent commentary will be better than linking to WP:PRIMARY tweets and snippets. Should wait before expanding on the recent controversy, though the previous Forstater controversy needs some better expansion itself. Gotitbro (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Clearly current events have overtaken things here, hence my strike through. From a Wikipedia perspective, Rowling's latest comments, and the subsequent coverage they have generated, should prove helpful to editors. I would suggest that editors refrain from throwing aspersions at other Wiki editors, as has been done on this talk page. My aim, as I would hope is the aim of most editing here, is to edit Wikipedia and particularly BLP's fairly, keeping balance and context in mind, and attempting to avoid personal bias/agendas. Passing judgement on others supposed motivations is neither helpful, in the spirit of collaboration or general politeness. AutumnKing (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I stand by my comment. Your contributions speak for themselves and appear to be aimed at minimising, specifically, coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues. That is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. You could of course prove me wrong by supporting the inclusion of coverage "the subsequent coverage they have generated", which you say above that you support. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is far from reliable unless it comes from proven sources making use of Twitter like for example a journalist. When your information comes from multiple tweeters its incorrect. Hate to see wikipedia fall to tabloid standards over unproven allegations and virtue signaling. Hpdh4 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, especially WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and keeping in mind the reasoning at WP:RECENTISM, we should not include every single flash-in-the-pan piece of commentary. As of right now, regarding her June tweets, we have what the tweets were about, their criticism, and, for WP:NPOV, the WP:BLP subject's response, all covered by WP:Secondary sources. This is more than enough coverage of this extremely recent incident. Crossroads -talk- 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we should not include every flash in the pan response. I added some criticism of Rowling's most recent anti-trans tweets yesterday, made by several notable people not directly associated with her, which were subsequently removed, and on balance, that's probably the correct decision. Keeping in mind WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BALANCE, WP:TENYEARRULE, however, the criticism of her tweets by Daniel Radcliffe which was reported today most certainly is proper to include. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Why? Because he's Harry Potter? What about Evanna Lynch's response? Should we include it too? Serendipodous 23:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
No, because he's responding via the Trevor Project after years of collaboration with them, making it pretty much their official comment, even if his name is on the open letter. Why is GLAAD okay but The Trevor Project not? YuvalNehemia (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
We don't need two advocacy groups' detailed comments. Remember, this is a flash in the pan source-wise. It should be kept brief. Crossroads -talk- 04:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
So why does her reply belong here? Just state the outline of the controversy and link to Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights. Why is her reply significant enough for the main article, but The Trevor Project's is not? Especially if the latter got more media attention? YuvalNehemia (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Because: [3] and [4] Crossroads -talk- 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
That explains quite well why we shouldn't include stuff like Mara Wilson's brilliant reply, and also why we probably shouldn't include Rowling's reply (to your notice). But not why we shouldn't have The Trevor Project. I mean, GLAAD's response is quite clearly not news, and therefore is included. Same for the Trevor Project. YuvalNehemia (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
That explains nothing. :-) No valid reason for excluding Radcliffe's response on behalf of the Trevor Project has been presented. Given the inextricable links between Radcliffe and Rowling, excluding any mention of his response - especially given the coverage it has received - would actually seem perverse. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I added a mention of Radcliffe's comments before seeing this conversation. Sorry, I would've discussed the issue first if I had known it was controversial. Radcliffe's and Redmayne's comments are included in more than enough RS to show they are notable. I believe it also belongs according to WP:NOTNEWS as well since this seems to be more than a routine reporting and are not overemphasized in the article. Rab V (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, and looking at the coverage now, if editors want to mention commentary from Radcliffe via The Trevor Project, then I suppose that makes sense. Still, I think the June 2020 material that is critical of Rowling should be kept short enough to be a single paragraph that is not unusually long, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. I also don't think we necessarily need to mention Eddie Redmayne and Evanna Lynch's responses, as they are individuals who say basically the same things as GLAAD and The Trevor Project. But my main issue is watching out for excessive length or detail. Rab V, your version of it was summarized well. But let's see what others say on including the mention of the Lynch and Redmayne comments. Crossroads -talk- 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree about how long it should be. I'd also say the current version is too long when discussing her blog post per WP:NOTNEWS and seems to be written with a bit of a slant. Right now it's seeming like Redmayne's comments are getting a lot of traction in RS but not Lynch so I think a brief mention of Redmayne may be due though it is similar to other comments. Rab V (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
My main concern is also keeping things brief. I would probably cut things down to two paragraphs, one about Rowling's views and one about the backlash. That is roughly how this AP article organizes things, focusing largely on Rowling's views in the first half then the backlash in the second. Regarding the criticism from Harry Potter actors: I think it's worth including, as long as it's kept as brief as possible. Radcliffe's, Lynch's, Watson's, and Redmayne's criticism have all gotten headline coverage. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the current ordering, which is the same as the Reuters piece.
Regarding Rab V's tweaks to the summary I wrote of the Reuters piece:
1. The bit about some of which [criticism] had been in the form of abusive language and threats of violence should be mentioned. Reuters, as a news service, is a superior source to various entertainment magazines, and they saw fit to mention this. It gives context to what she goes on to say about having suffered violence, and is part of the background complexity of the situation.
2. It was claimed that She expressed concern that some young women were being persuaded to escape womanhood via gender transition, noting her own struggles as a teenager. was confusing and not in source. I don't feel too strongly about including this sentence, even though Reuters emphasizes this point, but I need to address the claim it was not in the source. Here is the supporting text: Rowling, 54, explained in detail her research and beliefs on trans issues, and the concerns she has about how women’s rights and some young people’s lives were being impacted by some forms of trans activism....“I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition,” she wrote. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.” She said that as a teenager she had struggled with severe Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and that she now believes that had she found community and sympathy online, she could have been persuaded to turn herself into the boy her father said he would have preferred. I'm not sure where the confusion lay, but adjustments can be made of course.
3. She never stated didn't just say that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces [was] dangerous. Note the Reuters source carefully: she did not want girls and women to be less safe, and she gave some examples of where she thought demands by trans people were dangerous to women. “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.” (Emphasis added.) She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons who are not trans women and do not actually identify as women to gain access for other reasons ("any and all"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held.
4. On She stated that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning, comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women., the comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women. portion was cut off. I think this should stay because so much of the recent commentary revolves around the "people who menstruate" phrase, which we already quote, we should mention why specifically she objected to it beyond vaguely calling it "demeaning". Crossroads -talk- 07:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC) correcting Crossroads -talk- 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with keeping this brief, to two to three paragraphs. Expanding as necessary when there is another such controversy (the current controversy did not exist when this talk page section was started). Re Crossroads' comments, (3), her quote not only misgenders trans women but absolutely does imply that allowing trans women are dangerous. Re (4), I do know for a fact that those remarks insulted and demeaned post-menopausal women and women and those who have had hysterectomies. That should also be covered. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I see the Radcliffe/Trevor Project material was removed again. Consensus now seems to favour inclusion. I propose including a sentence about the criticism from Radcliffe, Watson and other HP stars, including reference to the Trevor Project. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
If there is ever another such controversy, I don't support adding another paragraph, per NOTNEWS. Since the topic is politically charged and entertainment sources cover every little thing celebrities say (both Rowling and each person reacting), we get a bunch of different flashes in the pan that say nothing new substantive. I'd say this section should max out at three reasonably sized paragraphs, one of which is about her response(s), rather than adding another paragraph in August and another in January and so on. If new incidents occur, we can make it less about specific incidents and more about comments that sources have made about the overall pattern of statements. Regarding point #3, she does do that, but it also is about men as I explained. Regarding #4, you can't know that for a fact as that is an opinion. That opinion is not of any note - it's just some random person on Twitter who never even said they were a post-menopausal woman or a woman with a hysterectomy. Crossroads -talk- 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, re-working the section next time there's a controversy works too. As long as it's not "there can never be more than we have now", obviously. Looking at other biographies, when you stop being notable for your former field and are now mainly known for your new area of interest, that latter topic will be covered in increasing depth. That's only proper, per WP:DUE. Re 4, I can't know what for a fact? NME covered one tweet out of dozens or more that replied in exactly the same fashion to Rowling's tirade - many, many cancer survivors, menopausal women, etc., responded. It's not hard to find those tweets. I suspect you're aware of them, though, and your removal of that response was disingenuous. Reuters is not the gold standard as sources go, and NME is a perfectly valid source, by the way. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Responding to the comments Crossrads made about my edits: They are mainly done since the paragraph was overlong considering NOTNEWS. (1) The phrase from the source "At times, the criticism has taken the form of abusive language and threats of violence" is incredibly vauge. What is abusive language, when was it used, who is saying it, was this why she wrote the essay? Later in the source it goes on to describe her being compared to Voldemort as abuse. Also Reuters is not a superior source necessarily, we have to decide which parts of this story are featured prominently across RS in general to figure out what is appropriate to share and what isn't WP:DUE. (2) The source talks about her worry about how trans activism imapcts her life and whether she might've transitioned. It doesn't explicitly state young people now are transitioning now who shouldn't. The phrase "escaping womanhood" is an unusual and confusing wording for transition to male and calling people who transition to male "women" goes against wikipedia policy. (3) 'A man who believes or feels he is a woman' is a charged way to refer to a trans woman. I don't think the article or the preponderance of RS support that she isn't talking about fears around trans women. (4) Sentence was overlong for NOTNEWS, not sure the removed material signigicantly to readers' understanding of Rowling's position. Rab V (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

X-posted from Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling and directed at Crossroads: "Let's see what develops" apparently means just cutting out the material. This article is specifically about Rowling's politics, but you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. 1.6 million ghits right now. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reply there was to a days-old comment. I stopped objecting to an addition about Radcliffe and the Trevor Project. Other editors, though, also have a say. You need to actually read WP:NOTNEWS. Once you do, you'll see that "It's literally news" is a very poor argument for inclusion. Don't forget WP:IDONTLIKEIT's twin, WP:ILIKEIT. And you are hereby warned to stop attacking me. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." - WP:NPA. Crossroads -talk- 04:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask, what's your obsession with Reuters? It's no more or less reliable than any other reliable source, such as Variety, Entertainment Weekly, or The Guardian. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
See WP:RSP. Obviously, outlets that are mainstream journalism are more reliable than entertainment magazines. Crossroads -talk- 16:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm very aware of WP:RSP. It quite often makes subtle distinctions for specific outlets, but y'know what? It's perfectly valid to use sources other than Reuters, especially when they're listed on WP:RSP as reliable. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abbyjjjj96: the reasoning behind giving weight to Radcliffe's response is overlayed here. YuvalNehemia (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Rowling's lack of enthusiasm for the English language bending in until-recently-strange ways, and making it clear that having lived as a woman in the entire biological sense has shaped who she is and what she does, while also repeatedly making it very clear she's supportive of trans rights and was way ahead of the curve on that – this is not "transphobic". Even some trans activists are saying it is not and that labeling her that way will hurt their own cause. It's just extremist noise and is not encyclopedic material. Every time someone somewhere gets mad at some tweet, we do not need to write about it in the encyclopedia. This is not EmpheralMessagesAndEmotionsPedia.

Activism organizations and publication may be reliable sources for certain things, but they are absolutely not for their activistic messages and labeling; that is pure primar-source material, by definition. That Variety published everything I just summarized, yet still put "transphobic" in their headline, unqualified, as if this were a world-wide consensus instead of a minority and extreme and self-defeatist opinion, simply means that the magazine needs a better editor. Entertainment magazines (which is most of the sources for this stuff) are not reliable sources for socio-political matters, anyway; they're reliable for things like whether so-and-so celebrity got divorced from thus-and-such other celebrity, and for what whatshername was seen wearing at her movie premiere last week, and how unhappy whatshisname says he is with his album being a flop because the pandemic killed his promo tour. As for the spousal-abuse thing, there has been a little bit of press about this, but it's more using her as an example, not making an example of her, as it were. The incident is not central to Rowling as a public figure, as an encyclopedia subject; rather, people are using her celebrity to draw attention to the overall social problem of domestic violence. It's not our job to dwell on the old private-life matters of bio subjects (especially living ones), even if some other publishers are doing so. If we mention this at all, it should be in-context, in the material about her marriage and divorce; not in some "controversies" section that is getting more and more like a drama-mongering trivia section.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Rowling claimed trans people are trying to erase the concept of biological sex, which is false and a TERf dogwhistle. She claimed trans women are a threat to cis (or as she said in another TERf dogwhistle, natal) women, which is super transphobic. She claimed most trans men are just confused girls, which is both wrong and transphobic. She claimed trans people are trying to "convert" gay men into trans women, which is again wrong and transphobic. When I read the essay I counted at least 8 falsehoods and 19 direct quotations of TERf rhetoric, and similar breakdowns by medical and psychological professionals found even more. If Rowling decided to stop working on her book to write this 3600 word transphobic manifesto, I believe it's only just that we include a single sentence about how she was criticised for that. YuvalNehemia (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of falsehoods... Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a biographical article

If this controversy is important enough to include alternate views, then it probably needs an article of its own. Serendipodous 09:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This could be taken as an argument for keeping the section as short as it is. Per WP:NOTNEWS, and the fact that most of the sources on this are low-quality entertainment sources that are usually about flash-in-the-pan things like what so and so wore to such and such premiere, a new article is not warranted. Such an article would be a WP:POVFORK and would not survive AfD. Crossroads -talk- 16:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It may scare you but there are plenty of sources that are certainly not 'low-quality entertainment sources' which Wikipedia considers very reliable that have reported on this issue, or maybe the Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Forbes, Variety etc should be treated as unreliable on the WP:RSP. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't scare me at all. Note that per RSP, though, "As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field." (Emphasis added.) And in any case, just because several outlets cover something at the same time does not mean it warrants its own article. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia". Tweets are trivia. Crossroads -talk- 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Firstly I should say I actually do share your concerns regards article forks, I prefer for the event to be treated properly and accurately here.
Most peoples Tweets are indeed total trivia, but these tweets are by a high profile sociopolitical commentator which have been reported in the serious press, so they have become elevated to more than just tweets. Tweets can be notable in themselves, (our great world leader is well known for using them and there is an article on his tweets).
I do think the notable reactions against her tweet AND the lengthy essay with which she released to the world as a famous social-political commentator (which contained several additional erroneous fallacies regards transgendered people), should not be dismissed away as some loopy trans activists with their knickers in a twist in the low-quality entertainment press, it deserves to be treated with accurately neutrally respectfully, with full knowledge about the words and topics she chose to use. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm: But FWIW I don't think we have nearly enough material to justify a new article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I do support going into further detail in Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender issues, but you can't really shorten what's written in the main article without making things worse. I mean, three paragraphs isn't much for quite a big controversy. YuvalNehemia (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. It is after all (deservedly or not) a topic commonly seen as political in nature. Politics of JKR seems like a good place for expanding on this. Licks-rocks (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS applies to the entire encyclopedia. Since we are in June 2020 and this has mostly happened in June 2020, we are not in a position to judge how "big" a controversy this is in the sense that there would be lasting significance. We should not write about every tweet back the gossip press reports on. Any expansion at that fork article would tend to have different WP:WEIGHT and thus makes it into a WP:POVFORK, which is not allowed. Crossroads -talk- 21:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, where exactly did I claim the intention to "create (or use) a different article to be developed according to a particular point of view."?? Al I am saying is that if we're going to spend more words on this, it should be in the article specifically about her politics, as it's a political topic. Please keep your outrage at the appropriate level per WP:CALM. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Request for Comment

Editors should be aware that a Request for Comment (RfC) about aspects of the J.K Rowling and Politics of J. K. Rowling articles has been posted on the BLP Noticeboard, here. Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of J. K. Rowling's essay on transgender issues

The section Transgender issues reads like this:

Rowling later published an essay on her website in response to the criticism.[251] She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women, while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. She also wrote that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning.[252]

This is such a poor summary of Rowling's essay that it's almost a caricature of that essay. For some reason, the summary focuses on single-sex spaces access of transwomen although that is only a minor part of that essay (and as somebody else pointed it's not even clear if Rowling has a problem with access of transwomen as such, rather than with broad regulations which would allow any man to enter such spaces). There are so many other issues she addresses in that essay, including medical concerns re MS (she is involved in MS activism), concerns regarding huge increases in teenage girls transitioning in recent years, inability of women to define themselves as a class; Rowling sees these, as well as many other issues, as problems. If we choose to summarize Rowling's essay we should do it properly, without misrepresenting what she says; if we can't do that, than we shouldn't comment at all on the essay, instead we should simply say that she wrote an essay in response which sought to clarify her positions on trans issues, with a link to the essay so that readers see for themselves what the essay contains and make their own minds.2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with something along the lines of "Rowling later published an essay... In which she opposed several transgender rights, such as changing the gender marker on IDs and letting trans people enter the same toilets as their gender." Which includes more of what she said there. You may also add that "she claimed trans women in women's toilets are a threat to women, an that the transgender community is trying to erase the concept of biological sex, forcing doctors to ignore it when treating them." All of these are claims in that essay, all of them are false. YuvalNehemia (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Also let's not forget that she claimed trans men are confused women and that trans people are trying to "convert" cis gay men. You wanna include that too? YuvalNehemia (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Why would we include your false claims? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:TRIFECTA keeping your cool, assume good faith and no personal attacks. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:DNTL. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Have you read Rowling's manifesto, or are you just calling me a liar to defend her? YuvalNehemia (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Bias against Rowling is showing This site is full of SJW editors. Pity , wikipedia is regressive not progressive. Both points of view should be included. Arguments of the things Rowling is right about Arguments of the things Rowling is wrong about But you editors won't allow that just to fit the gender narrative. Wonder if she could sue - I would if I could . Indeed this site is misrepresenting Rowlings ideas by not including some support for her or the points shes right about and their are people who support her . Hpdh4 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a SJW. I am a Level 12 Social Justice Warlock. And my house is Ravenclaw. We will not have a section or points on what Rowling is right about or wrong about because that is not our call to make. We report on what reliable sources say, and we include those bearing in mind various policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:DUE. I think Rowling's lawyers would tell her "No, you can't sue Wikipedia just because an editor there wrote that Daniel Radcliffe responded to your tweets by writing 'Trans women are women'", but then nor do I think Rowling would be stupid enough to ask her lawyer to look into it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out though that it seems only people that disagreed with Rowling are mentioned under her views, not the tons of ppl that agreed with her. That is a sign of bias if anything. Why are even these peoples views listed under JK Rowlings views? Chronicler87 (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Reactions (criticism and support) to J. K. Rowling's views on transgender issues

I see there has been a lot of controversy regarding whose reactions on Rowling's views on transgender issues should be included here, but the question is should any reactions be included at all in this article? There's a section Views with four subsections: Politics, Religion, Press, Transgender issues. For some reason, the first three subsections just explain Rowling's views on those issues without giving any reactions or response from other people or organizations, although many of those issues are highly controversial; whereas the Transgender issues is almost half about response/reactions from others. We already have the Politics of J. K. Rowling page where we can (and should) detail how her views were received.

On the other hand, if we do include reactions from others, we should only include those people/organizations who had commented explicitly on Rowling. Some of the actors cited as "criticizing her views" didn't actually say anything on Rowling. They have only posted support for trans rights in general, without any mention of Rowling. Of course, given the timing of such postings, it can be inferred that they were indirectly criticizing Rowling, but we are not allowed to engage in WP:OR here. 2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This section is justifyingly long, because it's the biggest controversy Rowling has been part of (just as a way of measurement, the only thing Rowling tweeted since that stream of tweets on 7 July was the link to that 3600 word essay). Rowling's claims were denounced by several major LGBTQ+ organisations and by the entire main cast of Harry Potter. You can't ignore that. The actors other than Radcliffe (who's special in this case) were only mentioned in a single sentence, so that this chapter doesn't become too text heavy.
I understand why you are concerned, but the current status of this chapter is entirely justified. YuvalNehemia (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
You're right, there has been a lot of controversy. We're discussing how it should be covered in a couple of sections above, already. Starting a new one implies you probably haven't read the talk page, where your points have already been addressed. Can we keep discussion to the sections that are already open, please? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
yep it is confusing and repetive... I do apologise for replying when someone starts a new thread and I felt the need to reply. This talk page has become very messy. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

But why should only people and organizations that disagreed with Rowling be listed? Tons of individuals are listed, why not list some individuals that defended Rowling? There are even some high profile lgbt people (including trans) that defended her right to have a view, or part of that view (like transgender athletes). Chronicler87 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chronicler87: In my opinion, the article accurately reflects the ratio of support-opposition that she received: a lot of condemnation and almost zero support from prominent figures. Giving equal mention to JK supporters could give the false impression that they are comparable in number to her critics. Anyway, could you name some of those "high profile" LGBT ppl who supported her? (Please don't tell me that you are referring to "Dana International" or "Blair White") daveout 👾 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, is there a single mention of a person or organization that agreed with Rowling? If you just want examples, one could be that I watched the news where India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson made comments, they both defended Rowling, or at least things Rowling claimed, such as being against self-identification, against transgender athletes etc. There is also no mention of psychologists or other ppl that agreed with Rowling. Also, let's remember that it's a small clique of people that disagree with Rowling, if you look at newspapers and likes and dislikes, it's clear the support for Rowling is overwhelming. Most people think the entire dispute is just silly. And should we really take serious ppl that just tweeted "Transgender women are women", like that is a serious input in the discussion, while we completely disregard people that made long statements? Chronicler87 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Chronicler87, there is a request for comment here that concerns this very topic that you are welcome to participate in; after a month of discussion, it will be closed with the consensus determined and the decision implemented here. Crossroads -talk- 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Chronicler87 Her comments were condemned by the majority of LGBT campaign groups and most of the the reliable new media was negative about her essay. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well Bodney. There is another way to look at things, like for example when Sopranos started running, all the Italian-American organizations opposed it, but basically all the Italian-Americans loved it. It seems similar with the JK Rowling situation. Lots of transgender women think the whole transgender athlete thing is silly btw. These are just organizations, they say nothing about the people on the ground. Tons of transwomen have come out in favour of Rowling, those I mentioned like Nicole and India, but then many others. It has mostly been the "gay transmen" that she specicially mentioned (young women with autism) that have been reacting badly. I disagree with most news media being negative btw. Chronicler87 (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Transwomen and transmen are as variable in their politics and beliefs as the rest of humanity, it is pointless waving mysterious unknown and imaginary tons of unnotable people into the argument, you need to back it up with with actual notable people preferably with some experience or organisations working in the area, so far I see the known friend of Rawlings and a couple of YouTube z list celebrities who represent only themselves. But in the end listing minor figures is pointless. I read about 26 News articles, from reliable sources, none were positive. ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chronicler87: Please refrain from using potentially insensitive remarks while making your point. There's no need to suggest that JK critics are autistic. This support-opposition thing is nuanced indeed. People who are expressing support\opposition are not necessarily supporting\opposing everything she says. For instance, India Willoughby thinks that JK is transphobic, but agrees with her on the specific issue of "trans self-identification". Dana International, on the other hand, doesn't consider her transphobic and defended her right to speak, Dana said that the topics JK was addressing were "worthy of discussion". In Dana's case, it's not clear whether she supports JK opinions, or simply her right to express and discuss them.
When I google ´´J.K. Rowling´´ at Google News, these are the headlines:
  • Harry Potter Stars And Fan Community Reject J.K. Rowling’s Statement On ‘Trans Activism’ And Gender Identity (Forbes)
  • Trans activists call J.K. Rowling essay 'devastating' (CNN)
  • GOP senator quotes J.K. Rowling while blocking vote on LGBTQ bill (NBC)
When I google ´´SUPPORT FOR J.K. Rowling´´ at Google News, the results are basically the same. Almost unanimous condemnation.daveout 👾 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey dave (I'm sorry I don't know how to "reply" like you do). And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive, it was a reference (which also Rowling stated) about the increase in young women seeking transition, there being studies showing for example 90% of gay transmen having autism, and there being a theory that it's the body dysmorphia of young women with autism and bpd that makes them go for transition, if you need the studies I can try to find them, but basically the point of many psychologists is that the same girls that used to self-harm and have eating disorders are now transitioning, here in Sweden the entire staff of a certain department of health care (dealing with trans) quit their jobs because they didn't think these girls should get that kind of treatment (and they couldn't refuse it), due to the high chance of later (sex-change) regret and it not dealing with their underlying issues. But yeah, I didn't mean to be offensive to anyone. It's crazy how many detransition videos there are on youtube right now from young women that regret changing into gay men and talking about their other issues. But yeah it's a big issue right now overall, and why so many are involving themself in this debate. But yeah, I didn't mean to offend sorry. I don't think I suggested that Rowlings critics were autists, but maybe I phrased my sentence badly. For that I'm sorry. Chronicler87 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep it was Rowlings who was being offensive, her attack on young transmen is as bad as it was against women, she repeatedly purposefully missgenders them both. Rowling forgets to mention that most of the young folks who change their mind regards transitioning are just on puberty blockers, which are totally reversible with no long term effect. A 2018 survey of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) surgeons found that approximately 0.3% of patients who underwent transition-related surgery later requested detransition-related surgical care. I thought the figure was about 2.5% of all transpeople had regrets, still a tiny figure exaggerated by Rowlings and I am afraid yourself. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I gave a figure. Also statistics can be read in many ways, if we say the number is 2.5%, that doesn't say anything about how many are gay transmen, or how many are male to female or female to male. Like for example there are many more male to female than there are female to male, if then of those 2.5%, like 80% would be gay transmen (made up number) then that would be significant. I am more interested of what kind of people that 2.5% is made up, and who is most likely to detransition, and right now it seems that gay transmen are most likely to detransition. Also, a lot of those that de-transed had been on opposite sex hormones and had breasts removed (at least those in the news). Chronicler87 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chronicler87: You do understand we are talking about *just* 2.5% of all transsexual people, who them selves are a tiny minority. What is written in Wikipedia articles is not about our individual interests or opinions (though they of course play *may* apart in which article you choose to edit) but what is reported in reliable secondary sources. ALSo something basic Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. (unsigned from: ~ BOD ~ )
@Chronicler87: That's alright. That's why I said "potentially insensitive". Sometimes we may be insensitive without noticing\intending. All the concerns you are bringing here are valid (although there might be some unintentional exaggeration and conflation going on). In your argument, you say that most ppl criticizing JK are young transmen with autism, that is clearly false. As for ppl who regret transitioning, well... we all regret some life choices that we've made, don't we? Some ppl regret spending their lives pursuing lucrative careers instead of their dreams. Some regret undergoing plastic surgery. Some regret having children. Some regret becoming priests. That's normal. Why should that be some sort of taboo when it comes to trans ppl? Specially when the number of ppl who regret transitioning is comparatively insignificant. I'm certain that the vast majority of ppl who transition do not regret it. In fact, many of them say that transitioning saved their lives. daveout 👾 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Well daveout, for me it's partially personal. Let me explain. I know a girl, well, just imagine a girl so autistic she can't even look people in the eye (she also has bpd), she has scars over her entire arms (wear long sweaters with hoods), and has an eating disorder. She got the idea she was a gay man (based on her idea that her discomfort with her body was the same as the discomfort a transgender person feels with their body), and started hormones and had her breasts removed, she now regrets it, and is back to being a girl (with a darker voice) and even more miserable than before. There was no-one stopping her from getting that treatment (parents warnings were ignored), and this kind of story is repeated every day. And as I wrote above, sure, there might be a low number of detransitions overall, but how many of that low number are gay transmen (It's a huge problem that all these populations are just put together in most studies)? Most transppl are male to female (also my point earlier was only about transppl, which it seems to me that most have come out in support of many of Rowlings views, but maybe not Rowling herself). Anyhow, there is no logical biological explanation that can explain a "gay transman", we have to remember there are two schools of sexology, one that pretends sexual orientation, sex and gender (as in biological differences rather than cultural) are things that are separate and separately developed, but hard science show a completely different picture. I mean the latest antibody studies on the fraternal birth order effect show great promise in explaining how a male fetus is "prevented" (as in the testosterone surges in utero being disrupted) from masculinizing properly for example, therefore resulting in a person with a "female" sexual orientation (attraction towards men), engaging in "female" social behaviour and so on (brain failing to "masculinize"). But as stated, there is no biological explanation for "gay transmen". There are more male to female than female to male transgender for the same reason there are more gay men than lesbian women, that is, the brain being female by default in utero, and doesn't change for boys until the testosterone surges start. As someone that works with autistic young women I am deeply concerned. EDIT: Oh yeah, and I'm sorry, I realize this is massively off-topic, but then I didn't start it =P. My point was just that Rowlings article has 0% nuance and my experience from the news was massive support for Rowling in most quarters, especially transppl. Chronicler87 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

So are we then saying India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson are not notable? What transgender people are the most notable? Laverne Cox? I mean India is media person. Most the HP actors just tweeted in support of transwomen (Transwomen are women). Is Dana International notable? I mean if we are talking transpersons specifically, is this not as notable as it gets? And man, it might depend on what you read, and how you experience those articles, I've seen tons of articles and columnists supporting Rowling, and finding the misrepresentation of her views as silly. Chronicler87 (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies about India Willoughby, can you point to a reliable source that shows her support, not the metro or daily mail. Personally I can find almost nothing on Nicole Gibson. But these people only represent themselves. Of course some folks support her, just the main leading support organisations don't. I am interested in balance it would be good to see some of these supportive articles as my search engine keeps failing to pick them up. But we are going down a silly hole, none of this is relevant. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, here for example is a news discussion including both India and Nicole Gibson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXKSVWnyOSM&t=152s Now if I remember right for example Nicole Gibson states she agrees with Rowling on transgender athletes and some other things, and India says that she agrees on self-identification and other things, but if I remember right she states she considers JK Rowling transphobic (despite agreeing with her major points). I also read some newspaper articles in which she talks about the self-identification thing. My point was that they seem to agree with some or most of Rowlings views, maybe not just everything (but then there is generally no person that 100% agrees with another person overall, especially not when Rowling covered so much in her essay). Chronicler87 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid YouTube is not considered a reliable source for wikipedia. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, let me please just restate my point. My point was that her page was completely biased in favour of her critics, with no nuance or stating that there was extensive agreement with Rowling on a lot of issues. Chronicler87 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It simply reflects the overwhelming majority of the coverage of the essay in the reliable sources, if you want to know what wikipedia considers a reliable source click here ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, obviously, the source isn't youtube, it's Good Morning Britain, but I got no access to their website/that channel (location), so I linked from good morning britains youtube channel, of a panel which India is on, it's the same clip that was in their news episode. But obviously someone British or that has no location lock could find it on their website. Chronicler87 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Good Morning Britain is the TV equivalent of a cross between the Daily Mail and a trashy celebrity magazine, its presenter Eamonn Holmes was publically criticised for supporting the Covid-19 5G conspiracy theory. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
My understanding was that ITV was a pretty big channel in Britain, anyhow, it's clear it's India Willoughby in that video, stating her own opinions. I am feeling this is just your bias showing here. (The platform she uses for stating her opinions shouldn't matter in a free debate). Chronicler87 (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The Sun, Daily Mail, the Daily Star, Hello Magazine are all big sellers in the Uk, but they are not used in Wikipedia. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
And ITVnews is not any of those publications. Anyhow, I would have to look at the rule itself. Chronicler87 (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

HP fansites' statement on Rowling's anti-transgender activism

I inserted the following:

In July 2020, the MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron Harry Potter fansites jointly announced that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about achievements outside her Harry Potter fiction, as her views are "out of step with the message of acceptance and empowerment we find in her books and celebrated by the Harry Potter community," and describing them as "harmful and disproven beliefs about what it means to be a transgender person."[1][2]

It was immediately reverted by Crossroads, stating "Removing excessive material per WP:NOTNEWS. The RfC at BLPN is addressing the length of this section and most such comments favir brevity. The WP:ONUS to get consensus is on those who wish to add material".

I contend that two of the biggest HP fansites jointly taking this action is notable and is certainly worthy of coverage; that the now moribund RFC was not called to discuss length; and that the excision of anything from this and related articles that could in any be viewed as critical of TERF positions, with a cry of "WP:ONUS!" is now bordering on tendentious editing - Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! Yet, here we are. Line up, usual sides... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights". The Guardian. 3 July 2020. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
  2. ^ Chilton, Louis (3 July 2020). "Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender comments". Independent. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
  • I obviously oppose this material for the reason I said in the edit summary. WP:NOTNEWS states, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of...events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia. And yes, the RfC has 6 editors besides myself saying the section should be brief, with some of those even favoring removal (which I do not). It is being addressed there (and it is not "moribund"; it will be officially closed like all RfCs). Excessive length on this matter on Rowling's biography is WP:Undue and WP:Recentism. The section is not going to be a POV repository of each and every condemnatory opinion that got mentioned somewhere in the gossip press. And no, the opinion of some Harry Potter fans on the internet is in no way significant. Crossroads -talk- 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads -talk- 00:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The RFC wasn't about this latest addition, which happened after the rfc, nor was it about the lenght of the text. NOTNEWS doesn't apply either, since these fansites are large enough to be notable and this is a permanent development. So crossroad's point is completely moot. If you guys want to improve the flow of the text by moving it around do that, and don't just revert because me no likey. I favour inclusion of the fact that this happened and you guys are free to figure out a way to better include it if you feel inclined to do so. Just keep in mind that there's nothing counterfactual, grammatically incorrect, or unencyclopedic about what is currently written in that alinea. Crossroad's personal preference is not an argument for reverting a change.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this needs its own lengthy paragraph at this time, but IMO it would be appropriate/due to expand the current sentence Several actors known for portraying Rowling's characters criticised her views or spoke in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leung to add [...Leung], as did the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron. -sche (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a good way to do it.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
-sche, agreed there is no need for a lengthy paragraph. One sentence would seem resaonable? Crossroads, if the RFC has drifted off=topic that's unfortunate, but if you want it to be discussing something other than the particular questions which have already been put, then maybe you should point that out there, openly? The fact is, the whole topic of Rowling's attitude to transgender people and issues is now very notable and is not going away. There are additional related issues that should probably also be included. Whatever whitewashing or censorship mission you're on - stop? Expecting a talk page section for every new addition simply is not on and is not how wikipedia works. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I would OPPOSE the inclusion of the paragraph per WP:NOTNEWS.I also think it's entirely reasonable to propose major additions to an article on its talk page prior to adding them as per WP:ONUS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I oppose the addition of that paragraph too. It gives undue weight to recent events; and you end up with the section "Transgender issues" being mostly about the reactions of other people/organizations, rather than describing Rowling's views. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean, yes? that's how that works? if someone says something controversial, people's reactions to it are a good way (and the only acceptable way) to illustrate that without violating wiki policy--Licks-rocks (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC).
Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences. It doesn't make those consequences irrelevant to the article. YuvalNehemia (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't really think that "Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences" is an appropriate tone to have a productive discussion here. And the "consequences" that Rowling faces are not all negative (there's more on this at the RfC). With regard to the reactions to her essay, there were very many of them, and we must choose carefully and give due weight to what we add here, both with regard of whose opinions we add and with regard to how much the discussion on others' opinion can take from that section. Just because these things are now all over the news, that doesn't mean we must throw everything here indiscriminately because WP:NOTNEWS. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I mean, it's not even about consequences or anything as arcane as that, it's a basic principle of wikipedia. If you don't want OR in your articles, which we don't, citing other sources' reactions to something is the only legitimate way to actually include the fact that something happened on wikipedia. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Batsun. Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets or that she deleted a tweet praising Stephen King after he showed support for trans women may fall under WP:NOTNEWS. But these are two significant websites (combined they are about as popular as Pottermore), significant enough to have Warner Bros. send them movie materials before release. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unencyclopedic. YuvalNehemia (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You should really have in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Your claim "Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets" is deeply misleading because it implies that Rowling supports conversion therapy (in its original meaning, that is practices trying to change a person's sexual orientation). That tweet was about a Canadian law that dealt with children's biological sex and how it related to a child's gender identity and what can therapists say to that child about biological sex. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
That's what's being reported. Would you care to log in, 2A92:ipv6? You appear to have forgotten to. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's clear there's a consensus for inclusion. I would prefer a distinct sentence (single - it doesn't need a paragraph), but including it as part of the other reactions is fine. Of equal import, though, is the seeming marker bring drawn by Crossroads, which seems to be saying nothing gets included without them removing it and forcing a discussion, per WP:ONUS (which is a subsection, let us remember, of the Verifiability policy, not the notability policy!). To my mind, that is gaming the system; and equally, the reference above to the RfC, which apparently is now also about the length of this section, even though that's not addressed in any resolution in that RfC. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Again. Bastun has done the right thing. I disagree that consensus is clear. I suggest proposing an edit here and we'll see if we can find sth we're happy with.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
That already happened. Considering the fact that you don't acknowledge this I am starting to feel that you are acting in bad faith by suggesting we go through the process again. Do you even know what the version you are reverting says? --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, the user did something similar on Talk:Graham Linehan, participating in a discussion about making a change and even supporting the change, as enough other users also did to establish consensus, but then claiming the change had been made without discussion or support. I assume good faith, though, despite being mindful of the WP:DUCK/Sealion test. :) -sche (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
the user just way too hastily dropped a 3rr admin request on my head after triggering an edit war with me (which stopped at excactly three revisions), so make of that what you will. (so hasty in fact that nothing on the form has actually been filled in besides my name) --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Someone boldly adding something and me reverting it as not encyclopedic is not gaming the system, it is the system, per WP:BRD. Crossroads -talk- 00:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
it also says you should err on the side of caution when choosing what to revert, something you certainly aren't a shining example of. let me remind you that BRD is not an excuse for tedentious editing, nor for reverting changes you don't like. BRD is never a reason for reverting, and I quote: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." which, despite all the random WP:pages you drag into it, certainly appears to be what you are doing. I recommend you stop doing it and take a good read through what WP:BRD is NOT before you press that undo button again, because I for one am seriously getting fed up with your antics. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be inclusion of the fact the the sites did more than merely criticising her? I mean, removing pictures of her, not linking to her site and practically ignoring her existence after 2007 is quite big. YuvalNehemia (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I liked the original version better for that reason, but since there seems to be a bit of a spanish inquisition present on this page I elected to be conservative in what the consensus version was. Feel free to try to add it to the current version, but I expect we'll have to deal with another bullshit revert-and-complain cycle immediately afterwards. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

"change Transgender issues to Transgender people" JKISEVIL (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What justification is there for this change? — Czello 20:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 Already done Rummskartoffel (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

"=== Transgender people ===" to "=== Transgender issues ===", using 'Transgender people" makes no sense in the article. As these are her views, and the only reason why the said change was made was because of the transgender community taking offence to Ms. Rowling's views. Brakesahib (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - Brakesahib, this is already being discussed in the previous section. You are welcome to comment there to help us reach a consensus. Crossroads -talk- 02:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

Add (Redacted) on the External links section. It is the most complete source of all J.K. Rowling's writing, forewords, articles, and publications. 101008a (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:COPYVIOEL (and a shady-lookin' website anyway). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_7&oldid=1136830824"