SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →References for above quotes: cot cob |
S Marshall (talk | contribs) TL;DR |
||
(984 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{Talk header|age= 30|bot= lowercase sigmabot III|units= days|minthreadsleft= 3}} |
{{Talk header|age= 30|bot= lowercase sigmabot III|units= days|minthreadsleft= 3}} |
||
{{British English}} |
|||
{{Article history |
{{Article history |
||
|action1=GAN |
|action1=GAN |
||
Line 39: | Line 38: | ||
|otd3date=2022-07-31|otd3oldid=1101432981 |
|otd3date=2022-07-31|otd3oldid=1101432981 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{section sizes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|class=FA|blp=yes|living=yes|listas=Rowling, J. K.|1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|class=FA|blp=yes|living=yes|listas=Rowling, J. K.|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=Mid |a&e-work-group=yes }} |
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=Mid |a&e-work-group=yes }} |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|brief}} |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|brief}} |
||
{{Talk:J. K. Rowling/FAQ}} |
{{Talk:J. K. Rowling/FAQ}} |
||
{{Press|author=Stephen Foley |date=2009-02-03 |url=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title=Is Wikipedia cracking up?|org=[[Irish Independent]] |section=February 2009 |
{{Press|author=Stephen Foley |date=2009-02-03 |url=http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html|title=Is Wikipedia cracking up?|org=[[Irish Independent]] |section=February 2009 |
||
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|||
|author2 = Hava Mendelle |
|||
|title2 = JK Rowling puts Wikipedia’s neutrality to the test |
|||
|date2 = April 22, 2024 |
|||
|org2 = [[The Spectator Australia]] |
|||
|url2 = https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/04/jk-rowling-puts-wikipedias-neutrality-to-the-test/ |
|||
|lang2 = |
|||
|quote2 = |
|||
|archiveurl2 = |
|||
|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|||
|accessdate2 = April 22, 2024 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Backwards copy |
{{Backwards copy |
||
| title = JK Rowling Net Worth |
| title = JK Rowling Net Worth |
||
Line 70: | Line 81: | ||
| monthday2 = |
| monthday2 = |
||
| id2 = --> |
| id2 = --> |
||
}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 20 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(20d) |
||
|archive = Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== Death threat == |
|||
== Recent changes to transgender people section == |
|||
A man has been sentenced for making death threats against J K Rowling and [[Rosie Duffield]]. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o ] I think this should be added to this article, but I don’t want to interfere with any redrafting, etc. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
So it seems over the last couple of days, some new content has been added to the [[J. K. Rowling#Transgender people|transgender people]] section of the article. Specifically two paragraphs have been added, {{diff2|1211988785|the first}} for a September 2020 incident of Rowling promoting an online store with transphobic merchandise according to the source, and the {{diff2|1211954388|other for}} a March 2024 incident between Rowling and [[India Willoughby]] which was {{diff2|1212413988|later reported}} to the police as a potential hate crime. |
|||
*I agree. Incorporated in draft #7, below.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Draft 7== |
|||
Thoughts on whether we should keep one or both of these additions? On the one hand, it goes back to issues raised during the FAR about content being added piecemeal over time, and an undue emphasis on [[WP:RECENTISM]]. On the other, the spate between Rowling and Willoughby does seem to be an escalation of what she's previously been heavily criticised for. I'm somewhat minded to remove the September 2020 incident, as from memory it wasn't remarked on in any of the scholarly sources we reviewed at the FAR. Not so sure about the Willoughby stuff however. |
|||
Suissa and Sullivan are out, and Glenn Mullen is in. As there's no good faith dispute at all over whether J. K. Rowling was insulted and threatened for her views, I've left that in.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
Pinging recently active FAR participants {{re|SandyGeorgia|Hog Farm|Czello|Firefangledfeathers|Bastun|Vanamonde93|Olivaw-Daneel|AleatoryPonderings|Johnbod|DrKay}} [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Draft 7.1: 403 words |
|||
:I agree about 2020. I think 2024 should go in, but perhaps without the police report, unless the police show any sign of taking the matter up. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Historical: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1202117364#Transgender_people 429 words] |
|||
:The 2020 stuff should go. Links to a store that sells stuff is a weak link and AFAICS from the source, the t-shirt said "this witch doesn't burn" and the story would be more relevant if the t-shirt was clearly transphobic. I think the 2024 stuff should remain for now and be monitored. The "reported to police" aspect appeared in the titles of stories in The Times and The Telegraph, so isn't a minor aspect of the story as far as those newspapers consider it. But I agree if the report goes nowhere then that aspect should be dropped in the coming days. If you have several newspaper headlines in the national news that a BBC TV presenter has reported your comments to the police as a "hate crime" I think people would expect Wikipedia to mention that, for now. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 08:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
|- |
|||
::Colin said it about as well as I would have. I'd support trimming the 2024 quoted material. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::However, the section seems to be growing into a running commentary of what each side said about the other, which is very much not our purpose. Can we summarise this please. The relevant aspect is a summary of what JK Rowling said (and importantly how they said it) that provoked the complaint to the police. What JK Rowling has tweeted in response to that is pretty irrelevant really. This isn't an article on why these two people hate each other. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I trimmed. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Looking good. I think [[Special:PermaLink/1212586670#Transgender_people|what's currently in]] the article strikes a reasonable balance. Gives an overview of what the incident entails, and the responses to it from each party without going into too much detail about the particulars. I'm a little uneasy over the {{tq|"a man revelling in his..."}} quotation, but I think that's more to do with my own feelings surrounding the statement in general than whether it should or should not be summarised in some way. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 18:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Good. What, at the moment, is the notable aspect to this story? Is it that it escalated to the point where an official police complaint was made? Because surely a twitter spat in this topic domain and non-professionally-legal people making legal-sounding threats or legally iffy boasts is not news never mind [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::According to a tweet from Willoughby [https://twitter.com/IndiaWilloughby/status/1766219683869450353 last night] the spat has been recorded as a [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice/non-crime-hate-incidents-code-of-practice-on-the-recording-and-retention-of-personal-data-accessible non-crime hate incident], although that has yet to be reported/confirmed by any reliable sources. If that is confirmed, I suspect this could be perceived as a shift in rhetoric from Rowling, as I don't recall her targeting an individual in this manner before, and that may be picked up in the next round of scholarly sources. |
|||
:::::::Right now though, I think the noteworthiness is that this escalated to the point where a police complaint was made. I believe, from a quick Google search anyway, that this is the first time that her own actions have been reported to the police. It's relatively weak though, and we should probably assess this again at the end of next week to see if there's any indications of enduring coverage of it. |
|||
:::::::That said, from a quick look at Rowling's twitter feed, she's still tweeting about Willoughby so this may all wind up in court one way or the other. Even if we ultimately remove the current paragraph, we should probably keep an eye out for any follow-up actions. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm the one who added the 2020 paragraph, just wanted to expand a bit and explain my reasoning. I've been following this controversy somewhat closely since the beginning, and I've felt for a while that this section puts a lot of weight (too much, in my opinion) on what she has ''publicly'' ''said'', while discounting the rest. Rowling has repeatedly engaged with people whose views on (against) trans people are much more explicit than hers, while also publicly saying stuff like "I know and love trans people", "My views have been misunderstood", "Trans people deserve peace and security", etc. Are such statements necessary in detailing her views? Absolutely. But, in my opinion, so is the rest. "Views" isn't "statements", and IMO there's more than enough evidence, even before her recent misgendering of India Willoughby, to suggest that her views don't align perfectly with her statements. An example: in 2018, a year before the Forstater case, she liked a tweet referring to trans women as "men in dresses". She later ''stated'' that she had meant to screenshot it, and her spokesperson called it a "middle-aged moment"[https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy]. The problem with that defence is that, in the following six years, while Rowling's official stance was still somewhat nuanced, she liked, retweeted, followed dozens of other outspoken transphobes. Those can't all be middle-aged moments, and their accumulation is a significant (and, IMO, an underreported) reason as to why she's been criticized and referred to as transphobic. I think they should be treated as part of her views, along with her statements, even (and especially) when the two appear to contradict one another. As it stands now, I think the article is imbalanced and misrepresents, by omission, the criticism directed at her. This isn't me specifically advocating for the return of the 2020 incident (although I do think it's a notable example of what I mentioned), but for this larger issue to be addressed. [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 20:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The thing is, if what you just wrote above was text from a reliable source, we could cite this, but we can't just cite random events to build a case to the reader. The t-shirt thing is very week. She's bought a t-shirt and said where she got it from and that isn't the same as saying she agrees with 100% of all the merchandise and a long step from saying that because the shop is run by someone who is the founding member of something many view as transphobic Rowling actually secretly shares all their views. I've probably bought underpants from a shop run by people who make large donations to the Conservative party in the hope of future knighthoods but it doesn't mean I secretly love Sunak. Your complaint that these accumulated links is "underreported" is a classic [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] argument. We have to have reliable secondary sources joining these dots and if they don't then we can't just go pushing the dots onto the page in hope a pattern is clear to our reader.. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 18:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with Colin here. A stronger argument could, in the future if it's covered by higher quality sources, be made on her recent [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b £70,000 donation] to a legal challenge by [[For Women Scotland]] seeking to exclude trans women with gender recognition certificates from being considered as women under the Equality Act when applying the EA to women only shortlists for jobs. To me, that seems like a much stronger example of supporting a cause that many perceive to be transphobic. |
|||
:::However, I think we should wait for this to be covered by higher quality academic sources, as I'm fairly certain that this is the sort of thing that would be covered in an academic source about the change in her expressed viewpoints and actions over time. There have already been several papers published on the controversy surrounding her earlier words and actions on this issue, so this donation seems like the sort of thing that would be covered in a future paper. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oh yes, definitely agree that this is more notable than what I added. [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 23:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::As I said myself, sure, her "middle-aged moments" can all be given benefit of the doubt in a vacuum, it's their accumulation that makes them notable. She [https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline follows transphobes, liked transphobic tweets], and none of that made it into this section, even though that type of stuff formed the beginning of her whole controversy (as Rowling [https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ describes herself]). I agree with the need for quality secondary sources, but let's also not forget that this section should accurately summarize her views. Again, my concern is that, as it stands right now, this section only uses her own statements to reflect those views. |
|||
:::[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132366/ This source], which is of good quality and is already used in the section, partly documents this accumulated smaller stuff that I'm referring to. Would be a worthy addition, IMO. [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 23:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Is this the right article for that level of detail though? [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]] seems like a more ideal target for that deep a summary. That's not to say there's not room for some sort of updated summary here, if the sourcing allows for that. The sourcing we have for that at the moment is circa 2022/23, so there is another 1 to 2 years of newer sourcing in theory. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In the context of better documenting the progression of her views, I think that stuff would only be a detail if it wasn't what started the whole thing. Rowling herself writes about it at the start of [https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ "TERF Wars"] : "All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’." [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 22:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Cool, these are points to eventually make in the [[#Second_paragraph_of_Transgender_people_section|discussion below]] on re-writing that part of the transgender people section. For now though, let's focus on finding all of the high quality sourcing that we could potentially use when re-writing that content. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 00:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Seems we've got another new addition, after Rowling's commentary has moved from the Willoughby stuff to what [[The Forward]] ([https://forward.com/culture/592580/j-k-rowling-holocaust-denial-trans/ source]) [https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/03/jk-rowling-denies-transgender-persecution-during-the-holocaust/ LGBTQ Nation], and a few other sources are describing as holocaust denial. At this point, I'm thinking we remove the Willoughby stuff, as from a quick search further sourcing on it hasn't developed, and cautiously look at what sourcing develops for the holocaust denial commentary over the coming days. |
|||
:I'm concerned that the addition of each of these [[WP:RSBREAKING|breaking news]] is slowly bringing us back to the state the article was in, at least in part, prior to the FAR in 2022. There's also the question of, is this really the best article to put this exact content in? [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]] is a better place for that level of detail in the long run per [[WP:SUMMARY|summary style]]. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] @[[User:Victoria|Victoria]] I really don't get how her explicit denial of someone's transgender identity could be considered accessory in the context of a "Rowling's views on transgender identity" section. I understand that there might not be further sourcing yet, but some things are just inherently relevant, aren't they? It seems like they are, because there's a near full paragraph in the same section detailing the content of her "TERF Wars" essay and its content is exclusively backed by breaking news sources. No one demands further sourcing from that paragraph because it is, of course, inherently relevant to the section, so why are different standards applied elsewhere? [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 19:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The problem is that these are each individual incidents. They tell us nothing about how Rowling's views on transgender issues have developed over time. When we wrote that section [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_5#Workshopping_the_transgender_section|during the 2022 FAR]] we didn't [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_3#Transgender_people_section|really have the sources]] to give an overview of how her views had changed over time. So we did the best with what we had available, and that resulted in us highlighting two instances that multiple high quality sources drew attention to. |
|||
:::We're in a different place now, a lot has happened over the last two years, and there seems to be sourcing now available that would potentially let us do what we couldn't do before. As such, I've started a [[#Second_paragraph_of_Transgender_people_section|new discussion below]], with the end goal of re-writing the second paragraph of the transgender people section to one that more fully covers the shift in her views, from that [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/style/jk-rowling-transgender-fans.html middle-aged moment] in 2018, to what we see today. We likely won't be able to cover the most recent demonstration of her views (ie, Willoughby and the Holocaust denial) because those are too recent to have been covered by the highest quality sources, but my instinct is that we will be able to give a broader overview of how her views and expressions have become more extreme over time. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::''They tell us nothing about how Rowling's views on transgender issues have developed over time.'' Neither does "TERF Wars", doesn't it? As rich a source as it is in the context of this section, it has a specific date on it, just like the Willoughby tweets. And yes, those tweets are an individual incident, but so is, for example, Rowling returning that humanitarian award. That event is backed by a single ''Guardian'' article — no secondary/scholarly source — therefore some editors at some point had to determine that it was relevant to this section. Why can't the same be done for the Willoughby incident, which I would argue is considerably more notable? |
|||
::::Great initiative on the new discussion. I'll just say I think restructuring the whole section, at least a bit, might be necessary when trying to better represent her shift in views. [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 22:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{tq|Neither does "TERF Wars", doesn't it?}} I defer back to what I said earlier, we wrote that section with the sources we had available in 2022. I believe there is better sourcing available now, and finding and assessing those sources is where we should focus our effort for now. Once we have collated them, we can look at the full scope of the changes that are warranted. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::''we wrote that section with the sources we had available'' |
|||
::::::If it was fine to cover other (less significant) topics with even a single reference from a news article, as pointed out, why is the following true? |
|||
::::::''We likely won't be able to cover the most recent demonstration of her views (ie, Willoughby and the Holocaust denial) because those are too recent to have been covered by the highest quality sources'' |
|||
::::::Her comments on Willoughby have been covered by numerous reputable news outlets. Sources covering them have a quality at least as high as those used in several other parts of the article. Surely if the sourcing was good enough to include those other topics, which have been discussed, the sourcing is also good enough to include Rowling's comments on Willoughby too. |
|||
::::::I think you want to use the highest quality sources available as references for new content in the article, and to use academic sources for this reason but also to enable broader coverage and context (including, on trans people, how her comments have changed over time) than would be available from individual news outlets. I completely understand your motivations in this regard. However, lots of the contents of the article at present - including in this section - fail to meet these criteria. It's inherently unfair to require new topics to meet them before being added without them also applying to topics already in the article. |
|||
::::::I think it's good that we're discussing the matter and hearing different views. I think further dialogue on exactly what should be included on this topic and future drafts will help us find a consensus to close the issue. Thanks again for your thoughts! [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 23:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{tq|It's inherently unfair to require new topics to meet them before being added without them also applying to topics already in the article.}} No. This is the [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_3#Best_sources_for_Transgender_people_section|exact same process]] we went through in January 2022 when building the content for that section. Every piece of content in that paragraph was driven primarily by a scholarly source. The citations to news sources, like The New York Times, or magazines like Vanity Fair, are used to augment the information from the scholarly sources where they are unclear, or to provide exact quotations where we felt they would be helpful. |
|||
:::::::If you review the [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_3#Best_sources_for_Transgender_people_section|January 2022 discussion in Archive 3]] you'll see that one of the first things we did was construct a list of all of the sources that would be helpful in writing that section. We then analysed and refined that list, eliminating some sources from consideration as part of that process. I'll quote now from the editor who lead the 2022 FAR {{tq|Since the article should/must employ [[Wikipedia:SS|summary style]], and there is a sub-article at [[Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people]] where detail can be explored, we should not be using tweets or primary sources on this (main) article}}. |
|||
:::::::Now the sources you're discussing on the tweets involving Willoughby and the Holocaust are typically considered primary sources per [[WP:RSBREAKING]]. This is to be expected as the tweets themselves are a few days to a couple of weeks old. We don't know yet how either of those two incidents will be viewed in [[WP:10YT|5 to 10 years time]]. Maybe Rowling will continue on her current trajectory, and make more extreme comments over time. Maybe she'll change her mind, and apologise for these comments. We just don't know. This is why when we add content to an article, we rely on high quality secondary sources, as they typically provide an analysis and help put these events into a broader context. |
|||
:::::::These two incidents are too recent for ''any'' high quality source to have analysed them and put them into a broader context. With scholarly sources there is typically a lag time between when something happens, when an academic can write about it, and when that writing is published. That lag time can vary, I've seen it be as short as 3 months, or as long as 18. The exact duration depends on how long it takes the author to write, and how long it takes the paper to go through the peer-review process. I would not expect any high quality sources on either the Willoughby or Holocaust tweets until at least July-September, if not the end of the year. |
|||
:::::::And this is fine, [[WP:NOTNEWS|Wikipedia is not a breaking news service]]. Though we often have articles about current events, that's not typically what we're here for. |
|||
:::::::The reason why I keep referring back to the 2022 FAR is because, this is a [[WP:FA|featured article]]. That means it is written to a much higher and stricter standard than most of our other content, and that means we're much stricter on what sources can and cannot be used in the article. In 2022 we needed the intensive FAR because, in the [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/J._K._Rowling|15 years]] from when the article was first promoted, not only had the FA standards changed but so too had the quality of the content in the article. Countless good faith editors had made significant additions and changes to the article over that time period, and a lot of them weren't written to the FA standard. The quality of the content on Rowling's views on transgender people in particular was quite low, because it inevitably followed the same cycle we're seeing right now. Rowling would say something highly controversial, and editors in good faith would rush to add that to the article based on whatever [[WP:RSBREAKING|breaking news coverage]] was available at the time. |
|||
:::::::The reason why you're seeing resistance on immediate changes from myself and other editors who participated in the 2022 FAR is because, we frankly don't want to have to go through that process again. I was only directly involved with that process for one section, the transgender people section, because LGBT+ issues are where my primary editing focus lies, and that process was exhausting. It took 4 months for the article to be re-written from top to bottom, based on the highest quality sourcing available. We have an interest in keeping the article as a FA, and that means taking a slow, methodical approach when discussing content additions and changes. That's why I've started the various draft discussions, because I'm familiar with that process and know what's involved in keeping this content to a reasonably high quality. |
|||
:::::::Now I realise this may seem frustrating or confusing to newer editors, and those unfamiliar with writing content for featured articles. I went through that confusion myself when I saw the start of the 2022 FAR, and asked myself more than a few times why the standards for inclusion of content and sourcing were suddenly so much higher. Writing FAs is tough, and the reason for all of this is lain out at [[WP:FACR]]. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 00:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Hey @[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]], thank you for the continued dialogue. |
|||
::::::::''Every piece of content in that paragraph was driven primarily by a scholarly source.'' |
|||
::::::::I think these are the points I didn't understand until now (please correct me if I'm wrong): you think that Rowling's comments on Willoughby should be added, if anywhere, to the second paragraph in the section on her views on transgender people, which is currently foremost supported by academic sources (maybe except "Rowling responded... sex is real"?), and you don't want that point to change because academia can give a broader perspective. You also don't want to change it now, only to have to rewrite it again later? |
|||
::::::::I certainly agree that academia would be preferable and that it would allow broader perspective and deeper analysis than news articles. I've been looking more widely at the article (and section) as a whole, in which news articles are used as the foremost - and sometimes only - source. It seems somewhat artificial to me, however, to hold this particular paragraph to requiring references from academia (maybe except "Rowling responded... sex is real"?) but not the rest of the article. I suppose you think this because you think that paragraph is the natural place for these comments, and you would want to re-write it later to return to academic sourcing, and you don't want to repeat that work? Assuming I'm right there, I think I know understand your position, which is progress. |
|||
::::::::I think my position on this would be that because Wikipedia is [[WP:IMPERFECT]] and a [[WP:Work in progress]], further relevant topics should be added (with consensus) before full re-writes are made. I do, however, recognise the value of a re-write of the type you are proposing, to give the change over time in her comments, up to and including her most recent ones, and give a broader perspective when they're discussed in academia. I also believe, conversely, we shouldn't wait until a topic is discussed in academia, which as has been mentioned will take months, to include if it can already be referenced from other reliable sources. |
|||
::::::::You pointed me to section 1.c of [[WP:FACR]] before while explaining references should come from academia, but it does not say this. It certainly doesn't say (or imply) that articles from reputable news outlets cannot be used. Is this a convention or written somewhere else? News articles are used as the only references in other parts of the same section and article, as I've discussed, and maybe even in this paragraph in "Rowling responded... sex is real". Therefore, I don't think a lack of sources covering this topic from academia are a reason to exclude it from this article, even though it is a featured article. |
|||
::::::::''we should not be using tweets or primary sources on this (main) article. Now the sources you're discussing on the tweets involving Willoughby and the Holocaust are typically considered primary sources per WP:RSBREAKING.'' |
|||
::::::::None of the sources I provided as examples were tweets. They are all news articles. I agree that it makes sense to use secondary sources on her comments to help us provide broader context. I had a look at [[WP:RSBREAKING]], which says: |
|||
::::::::"All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources" and "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies...It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements." |
|||
::::::::The implication here is that news reports released within a day or two of an event are considered primary sources on that event. Secondary sources would include news reports released after this amount of time, when the facts will have become clear, and articles written beforehand which journalists have had time to review and correct as required. I think this policy makes sense for the reasons described, and I also think it makes sense that featured articles are stricter about requiring sources to be secondary or tertiary in this manner. |
|||
::::::::JK Rowling's first tweets in which she misgendered Willoughby were made on {{Date|4 March 2024}}, {{time interval|4 March 2024|abbr=off|show=d}} ago. This is comfortably past the timescale [[WP:RSBREAKING]] sets out to define breaking news and the time needed to review facts. I think, therefore, that news articles covering these comments have now had ample time for review and correction, so should not be considered breaking news (and therefore a primary source). We should also consider that this topic is not an event passed by word of mouth (which could lead to inaccuracies): Rowling's statements were publicly available for every journalist to review personally. This contrasts with some of the examples set out in [[WP:RSBREAKING]]. Moreover, [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-reported-to-police-for-misgendering-trans-tv-newsreader-6bzj0llwb The Times covered Rowling's comments after this two-day threshold], so, per [[WP:RSBREAKING]], their article(s) wouldn't be considered breaking news so wouldn't be considered a primary source. Therefore, we do have sources that are both reliable and secondary to use as references for her comments on Willoughby. |
|||
::::::::''Now the sources you're discussing on the tweets involving Willoughby and the Holocaust'' |
|||
::::::::I'm not discussing her comments on trans people in Nazi Germany. As I've said elsewhere, although I think they are significant, they haven't received sufficient coverage to warrant their inclusion here. All the articles I have shown here as examples cover her comments on Willoughby. |
|||
::::::::''The reason why you're seeing resistance on immediate changes from myself and other editors who participated in the 2022 FAR is because, we frankly don't want to have to go through that process again.'' |
|||
::::::::That makes sense. I just see a contrast between news articles being accepted to substantiate other topics currently in the article, no strict requirement or even preference for academic sources in [[WP:FACR]], that there are now secondary and reliable sources available per [[WP:RSBREAKING]], and that changes should be made when this is the case per [[WP:IMPERFECT]] and a [[WP:Work in progress]] rather than waiting for a paragraph/section re-write to make any update to the article. I hope you understand my position and my reasoning behind it, and apologies if I'm misunderstanding or ignorant of the guidelines. |
|||
::::::::Thanks again for your thoughts! [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 16:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::''I defer back to what I said earlier, we wrote that section with the sources we had available in 2022.'' I also want to insist on that point: if this is a good explanation for using those sources then, why can't it also be used now? And I don't advocate using these sources lightly, at all: my view is that the Willoughby stuff is particular because it's inherently notable, just like "TERF Wars" is. That series of comments is objectively transphobic in a way that no prior Rowling statement was. How could it possibly be omitted? |
|||
::::::As a fairly new editor, I genuinely feel a lot of admiration for all the hard work that goes into writing FAs. At the same time, I think valuing meeting the FA criteria over the completeness of the article is mistaking the finger for the moon. At the end of the day it should come down to: if a reader comes to Wikipedia for information on a given topic, what do they need to know about said topic? You must have asked yourselves some version of that question when you determined that the "TERF Wars" stuff had to be included in the section, right? Why are the standards now different? [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 06:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
I've removed everything about March in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1213767308&oldid=1213765386 this edit]. The purpose of this article is to present a biography of Rowling's ''entire'' life and body of work, complete with literary analysis of her work, all within a reasonable number of words. Because this is a [[WP:Featured article]] it needs to adhere to strict secondary sourcing requirements - in other words limited to scholarly commentary. Furthermore, because it's a top level biography with many sub- or daughter articles, it needs to be written in [[WP:Summary style]]. Finally it must adhere to [[WP:Biography of living persons]] policies and care must be taken because it falls within [[WP:Contentious topics]]. We have to avoid [[WP:Recentism]] and [[WP:Undue]]. If and when better quality sources are available to replace the material I removed, then we can use those and present it in a couple of sentences written in summary style. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 01:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
:Thanks, and I agree. After some thinking, what I think would be most useful here is if we can find a source that documents and summarises the progression of Rowling's views over the last few years. How they've moved from that mistakenly favourited tweet, through to her current misgendering of Willoughby and what some sources are describing as holocaust denial. We don't need to document every instance, and summarising the progression of her views is more encyclopaedic. |
|||
Rowling has ''[some contributors want to add a qualifier here]'' [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical]] views.{{sfn|Whited|2024|loc= p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'."}}{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|loc= pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs"}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|loc= pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)"}} She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} She opposes gender self-recognition{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} and suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} In April 2024, responding to [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021|Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act]], she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".<ref name=Brooks2024>{{cite news |last1=Brooks |first1=Libby |title=JK Rowling’s posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/03/jk-rowling-comments-scotland-non-crime-hate-incident |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 April 2024 |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> |
|||
:We have some of that already, the sources for the Forstater stuff through to the June 2020 "people who menstruate" tweet. We likely won't be able to find anything particularly high quality on the stuff that's happened this month for a short while, but replicating that summary with the more recent developments should be the end goal. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I think we should wait until all the recent stuff is picked up by a better source. I've not seen it mentioned in the New York Times (which I usually read daily - though I could have missed it). We're only half way through March and there's a new entry every day. This article is not a digest or compendium of her X/Twitter posts. Ideally some of the mentions from earlier years can all trimmed down too, the more recent ones added, and it all be presented in a succinct summary. But it's really best to wait until a good secondary source exists. In the meantime there's [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]], and I've noticed that the Willoughby post/s is/are linked in that article to here, which is appropriate. I think basically we agree. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 01:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the article should include a summary of Rowling's comments on Willoughby because they [https://ground.news/article/jk-rowling-trans-newsreader-india-willoughby-calls-comments-by-harry-potter-author-grotesque-transphobia_16d089 received significant coverage in the media], including from many reliable sources, and are a clear escalation of her comments on trans people. The article gives the same amount of detail to topics on which the media gave less coverage and are less significant. For example, her prior comments saying people's "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real" [https://ground.news/article/4df8d93d-a760-4d91-a2b8-0abaf37fd2ea received less coverage] and aren't as overtly combative as publicly misgendering and insulting a trans woman, but this article does include them. Furthermore, her donating money to help lawyers flee the Taliban [https://ground.news/article/harry-potter-author-jk-rowling-helped-afghan-lawyers-flee-the-taliban hardly received any news coverage], but that too is still included without dispute. Quite a few people don't want to bloat the article, so they're opposed to adding anything to it on this particular topic. But, by the standards currently being set to add it, much of the present contents of the article should be removed. |
|||
:Therefore, I propose we include (only) the following summary of her comments on Willoughby in the article. It is a short, well-referenced summary of events and only covers the main point. We won't go into any follow-on events; they can stay in [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]]. In so doing, we'll avoid commentating on further developments. A few people have said they are worried about this happening. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this proposed edit: |
|||
:In March 2024, Rowling faced criticism after posting several [[Tweet (social media)|tweets]] in which she deliberately [[misgender|misgendered]] the broadcaster [[India Willoughby]], a [[transgender woman]]. Rowling called her "a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks 'woman' means".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Murray |first1=Tom |title=JK Rowling deliberately misgenders trans activist India Willoughby |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-twitter-india-willoughby-trans-b2506793.html |website=[[The Independent]] |access-date=4 March 2024 |archive-url=http://archive.today/HLlTw |archive-date=4 March 2024 |language=en |date=4 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="sky-news-india-willoughby-misgendering">{{cite web |title=JK Rowling: Trans newsreader India Willoughby calls comments by Harry Potter author 'grotesque transphobia' |url=https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-trans-newsreader-india-willoughby-calls-comments-by-harry-potter-author-grotesque-transphobia-13087709 |website=[[Sky News]] |access-date=5 March 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.is/9JoDb |archive-date=5 March 2024 |language=en |date=5 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="pink-news-india-willoughby-misgendering">{{cite web |last1=Baska |first1=Maggie |title=JK Rowling misgenders trans journalist India Willoughby in 'grotesque' post |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/03/05/jk-rowling-misgenders-india-willoughby-anti-trans-comments-online/ |website=[[PinkNews]] |access-date=5 March 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.is/Hna2M |archive-date=5 March 2024 |language=en |date=5 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
:@[[User:Victoriaearle|Victoriaearle]] Hi, I hope you're doing well. Judging from your reply in this thread and comments in your previous edit, your objections to adding this topic to the article seem to be: |
|||
:* adhere to the edit notice |
|||
:** The edit notices for this article refer to [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:CTOP]], and [[WP:FA]]. These are all discussed below. |
|||
:* use reliable sources |
|||
:** The sources I used ([[The Independent]], [[Sky News]], and [[PinkNews]]) are all listed at [[WP:RSPSOURCES]], where they are all rated as being reliable. |
|||
:* write in [[WP:Summary style]] |
|||
:** My proposed edit is a trimmed-down, two-sentence version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1213740415#Transgender_people the prior content] on Rowling's comments on Willoughby that only covers the main point. It does not go into further details, even though reliable sources also covered them, which are in the spin-off [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]] article. |
|||
:* Because this is a [[WP:Featured article]] it needs to adhere to strict secondary sourcing requirements - in other words limited to scholarly commentary |
|||
:** As well as being reliable, the sources in my proposed edit are secondary. The primary source was Twitter/Rowling's tweets. These news articles discuss the tweets, so they are secondary sources. There is no mention of sources needing to be scholarly in [[WP:FACR]]. Nor are all the other points in the article supported by scholarly commentary. For example, her comments on Israel/Netanyahu were referenced from articles in reliable news sources. My proposed edit is referenced in the same manner. |
|||
:* adhere to [[WP:Biography of living persons]] policies |
|||
:** Every point in my proposed edit is verifiable from its references to reliable sources. Per [[WP:PSTS]], and as previously discussed, these reliable sources are secondary sources. Therefore, it is not original research. My proposed edit factually describes what Rowling said and its significance. It does not opine, for example, about whether Rowling is a transphobe. Therefore, as far as possible with disputes, which Wikipedia aims to describe, it adheres to [[WP:NPOV]]. |
|||
:* fall within [[WP:Contentious topics]] |
|||
:** There aren't really any specific guidelines here. |
|||
:* avoid [[WP:Recentism]] |
|||
:** I am not arguing that the article should cover Rowling's comments on Willoughby because they are recent. If that was true, I would be arguing for the inclusion of her comments on transgender people in Nazi Germany, which are more recent. Rowling's comments on Willoughby should be in the article because they received significant coverage and represent an important development and escalation in her public statements on trans people. As I highlighted, they received more coverage in the news than several other topics that are in this article without dispute, including (but not limited to) other comments on trans people. |
|||
:* avoid [[WP:Undue]] |
|||
:** Although my proposed edit doesn't criticise Rowling, it mentions she was criticised for her comments. Coverage in reliable sources includes this fact. Therefore, my proposed edit doesn't give a fringe view disproportionately large coverage. My proposed edit above is short and only covers the main point, which received significant coverage. Therefore, it doesn't give undue weight through a disproportionately large depth of detail or quantity of text. My proposed edit is not prominently placed, juxtaposed with any other statement, nor uses any imagery to gain undue weight. Therefore, it adheres to [[WP:WEIGHT]]. |
|||
:[[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 16:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The amount of text you're proposing for this one, brief incident is disproportionate to the scope of the section. You're proposing what amounts to a short paragraph for one incident. That level of detail you're proposing is likely due for the [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]] sub-article, because that dedicated articles is where you can go into that level detail about single key instances, but for this article it seems like overkill. |
|||
::If we're to include even the briefest summary of the spat between Rowling and Willoughby, and by that I mean a few words total, I think we need to put that into context of how her views have shifted since 2017. Rather than highlight individual incidents in isolation, what we should be doing here is describing how her views have developed over time, and in the eyes of many become more extreme. Now within that, there would likely be scope for highlighting a couple of key instances or milestones. Moments where the highest quality sources available recognise them as tonal shifts. When we wrote the [[J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people|transgender people]] section during the FAR in 2022, the sourcing didn't really exist at that time to give an adequate summary of the tonal shifts in her commentary. But I think it might now, at least for events up to 2023. |
|||
::I think what we should be doing now is to identify the highest quality sourcing available, ideally scholarship, that'll allow us to replace the second paragraph of the transgender people section with one that'll more accurately document the shift in Rowling's views over time. Sources that remark on how she's gone from the [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/style/jk-rowling-transgender-fans.html "middle-aged moment"] in 2018, to (eventually) what some sources are describing today as Holocaust denial. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 17:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hey @[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]], thanks for your thoughts. |
|||
:::''The amount of text you're proposing for this one, brief incident is disproportionate to the scope of the section. You're proposing what amounts to a short paragraph for one incident. That level of detail you're proposing is likely due for the Political views of J. K. Rowling sub-article, because that dedicated articles is where you can go into that level detail about single key instances, but for this article it seems like overkill.'' |
|||
:::I don't think it's disproportionate at all. The edit I proposed above is two lines long (42 articles: 2 lines). Other topics present in the article such as [https://ground.news/article/d91744c8-e37a-42ea-b1bd-b5dc0e9c8974 her essay] (35 articles: ~1.5 lines) have a similar ratio of press coverage to their text in the article. |
|||
:::''If we're to include even the briefest summary of the spat between Rowling and Willoughby, and by that I mean a few words total, I think we need to put that into context of how her views have shifted since 2017. Rather than highlight individual incidents in isolation, what we should be doing here is describing how her views have developed over time, and in the eyes of many become more extreme. Now within that, there would likely be scope for highlighting a couple of key instances or milestones. Moments where the highest quality sources available recognise them as tonal shifts. When we wrote the transgender people section during the FAR in 2022, the sourcing didn't really exist at that time to give an adequate summary of the tonal shifts in her commentary. But I think it might now, at least for events up to 2023.'' |
|||
:::Yeah, including only a couple of key instances in her main article makes sense. Part of my reasoning for including this instance in particular is because it's such a clear escalation. I don't think we need a commentary on how her stance has slowly shifted over time; to be honest her comments do that for themselves and everything is supposed to be concise anyway. What do you mean "the FAR in 2022"? |
|||
:::''I think what we should be doing now is to identify the highest quality sourcing available, ideally scholarship, that'll allow us to replace the second paragraph of the transgender people section with one that'll more accurately document the shift in Rowling's views over time. Sources that remark on how she's gone from the "middle-aged moment" in 2018, to (eventually) what some sources are describing today as Holocaust denial.'' |
|||
:::I agree. I think that it would probably be best to re-write and summarise the section entirely when new articles come out summarising the change in her views, from her initial likes to her more recent statements. Thanks again. [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 18:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|What do you mean "the FAR in 2022"?}} The [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1|Featured Article Review]] from December 2021-April 2022. During that four month period, the article content was extensively reworked to bring it back up to the standard of a [[WP:FA|featured article]]. There were five ([[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_1|archive 1]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_2|archive 2]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_3|archive 3]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_4|archive 4]], [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_5|archive 5]]) separate sub-pages to the review where every paragraph and sentence was reviewed in some way. Where changes were needed, they were extensively workshopped prior to being installed in the article and subject to a strong consensus. |
|||
::::The current text of the second paragraph of the transgender people represents what sourcing was available at the time of the review. It's imperfect because the sourcing at the time was imperfect, and there wasn't really any timelines within high quality sources (ie scholarship level) to summarise the shift in her expressions over time. It's possible we might have some now, though given the lag time it takes for scholarship to pass peer-review and get published, we won't be able to cover the most recent stuff. But if the sourcing does exist, we would be able to summarise what reliable sources consider to be the important moments, rather than whatever the current controversy of the week/month is. |
|||
::::The text on Willoughby that you've proposed represents last week's controversy of the week. This week it's been the comments that have been described as Holocaust denial. We don't know yet how those comments are going to be assessed in the broader context of her expressed views on this topic. Maybe they are important, maybe not. We won't know for some time until it's covered by high quality sourcing, instead of the more [[WP:RSBREAKING|breaking news]] style sources we have at the moment. They have their place in the ''political views'' sub-article, but it is unclear whether or not they have their place here. |
|||
::::I think the best thing that anyone here can do right now is to start looking at research papers that were published within the last year, and try to identify any that describe a tonal shift in her views over time. Once we have those sources, we can look at potentially re-writing the second paragraph of the transgender people section, to give a broader overview of how her views have changed over time. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks for your reply. |
|||
:::::''What do you mean "the FAR in 2022"? The Featured Article Review from December 2021-April 2022. During that four month period, the article content was extensively reworked to bring it back up to the standard of a featured article. There were five (archive 1, archive 2, archive 3, archive 4, archive 5) separate sub-pages to the review where every paragraph and sentence was reviewed in some way. Where changes were needed, they were extensively workshopped prior to being installed in the article and subject to a strong consensus.'' |
|||
:::::Thank you for clarifying. |
|||
:::::''The current text of the second paragraph of the transgender people represents what sourcing was available at the time of the review. It's imperfect because the sourcing at the time was imperfect, and there wasn't really any timelines within high quality sources (ie scholarship level) to summarise the shift in her expressions over time. It's possible we might have some now, though given the lag time it takes for scholarship to pass peer-review and get published, we won't be able to cover the most recent stuff. But if the sourcing does exist, we would be able to summarise what reliable sources consider to be the important moments, rather than whatever the current controversy of the week/month is.'' |
|||
:::::That makes sense. It'll of course be better sourced when someone publishes an article about all this, up to and including her most recent comments. I think the news has been carried by outlets which would be accepted in peer-review. [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-reported-to-police-for-misgendering-trans-tv-newsreader-6bzj0llwb The Times], [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-india-willoughby-twitter-gender-b2507309.html The Independent], and [https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/transgender-broadcaster-reports-jk-rowling-police-over-social-media-comments-2024-03-07/ Reuters] are all scrupulous enough that they'd be accepted as factual sources in research, and they all carried the story. Realistically, [https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-trans-newsreader-india-willoughby-calls-comments-by-harry-potter-author-grotesque-transphobia-13087709 Sky News] and [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/07/jk-rowling-reported-police-trans-india-willoughby/ The Telegraph] would also be accepted as a source in plenty of articles too. Regardless, other parts of the article are supported by similar sources that are reliable but not scholarly or "high-quality" (though the latter term is vague and seems subjective). In fact, all the outlets I listed are already used in references in the article. It wouldn't be fair to exclude this topic from inclusion because of a lack of such better sources without also removing the content in the article supported by these outlets. |
|||
:::::''The text on Willoughby that you've proposed represents last week's controversy of the week. This week it's been the comments that have been described as Holocaust denial. We don't know yet how those comments are going to be assessed in the broader context of her expressed views on this topic. Maybe they are important, maybe not. We won't know for some time until it's covered by high quality sourcing, instead of the more breaking news style sources we have at the moment. They have their place in the political views sub-article, but it is unclear whether or not they have their place here.'' |
|||
:::::I don't disagree that Rowling has had her share of controversies, including on trans people. I think that these two instances are distinguished from others by the fact they're clearly an escalation of her anti-trans stance. Unless she goes even further, this should make them distinct from her other trans commentary for a while. I think her comments on Willoughby are different from those on trans people in Nazi Germany because they also had significant coverage in the media. Her comments on trans people in Nazi Germany didn't, so aren't notable enough to warrant their inclusion in her main article. |
|||
:::::''I think the best thing that anyone here can do right now is to start looking at research papers that were published within the last year, and try to identify any that describe a tonal shift in her views over time. Once we have those sources, we can look at potentially re-writing the second paragraph of the transgender people section, to give a broader overview of how her views have changed over time.'' |
|||
:::::That would certainly be useful to give context to the change in her views, but again I don't think it's reasonable to require new content to have references in academia or "high quality" sources when this same criterion is not met by a lot of the article at present. Thanks again though! [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 20:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{tq|I think the news has been carried by outlets which would be accepted in peer-review.}} So the thing with The Times, Independent, Reuters, and the rest, is that they're not scholarship. They're journalism and journalism can have its place in articles, but in general Wikipedia tends to [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP|prefer scholarship]] especially for featured articles. For the type of content we'd eventually be workshopping here, scholarly sources would be most helpful as they can put it into a much broader context than the readership of any one news organisation. |
|||
::::::{{tq|I think that these two instances are distinguished from others by the fact they're clearly an escalation of her anti-trans stance.}} Personally I don't disagree that her commentary over the last two weeks represents an escalation of her views, however we don't write our articles based on [[WP:NOR|editor's personal opinion]]. We write our articles based on what [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say on any given topic. We could only ever include content about it being an escalation of her views if reliable sources state it. |
|||
::::::{{tq|I don't think it's reasonable to require new content to have references in academia or "high quality" sources}} See [[WP:FACR]]#1c. What we're covering in the transgender people section of the article is highly contentious topic matter. Per [[WP:BLP]] we have to be extremely cautious with writing biographies in general, and the contentiousness of the topic matter only increases the need for caution. Currently in that section, a lot of the content is cited to academic sources first, and non-academic sources secondarily. We cite papers by [https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10583-021-09446-9 Duggan], [https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5037&context=lcp Pape], [https://doi.org/10.2307%2Fj.ctvs09qwv Pugh], [https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9752.12549 Sussa and Sullivan], and [https://doi.org/10.1108%2F978-1-80071-597-420221021 Schwirblat et al.] as the basis for a lot of the content. Where necessary we then also use lower quality journalism sources to expand briefly upon or to otherwise support the scholarly sources when clarity is needed. [[WP:BESTSOURCES|Policy tell us]] to use the highest quality and most authoritative sources when writing an article. As this is a featured article, and this is highly contentious topic matter, it is quite reasonable to require the rewrite of a section to cite and reflect the highest quality sources available. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Thanks for getting back to me again. |
|||
:::::::''I think the news has been carried by outlets which would be accepted in peer-review. So the thing with The Times, Independent, Reuters, and the rest, is that they're not scholarship. They're journalism and journalism can have its place in articles, but in general Wikipedia tends to prefer scholarship especially for featured articles. For the type of content we'd eventually be workshopping here, scholarly sources would be most helpful as they can put it into a much broader context than the readership of any one news organisation.'' |
|||
:::::::I agree that scholarship would probably have a broader analysis than any one source and would be better than news sources. I did read [[WP:FACRITERIA]], including the section you mentioned later on, and it doesn't say that scholarship is preferred. Maybe it implies it by mentioning "survey of the relevant literature" and "high-quality reliable sources", but high-quality is vague, reliable already has a meaning on Wikipedia ([[WP:RSPSOURCES]]) met by the news sources I've mentioned, and it certainly doesn't say to exclude news articles anywhere. |
|||
:::::::''I think that these two instances are distinguished from others by the fact they're clearly an escalation of her anti-trans stance. Personally I don't disagree that her commentary over the last two weeks represents an escalation of her views, however we don't write our articles based on editor's personal opinion. We write our articles based on what reliable sources say on any given topic. We could only ever include content about it being an escalation of her views if reliable sources state it.'' |
|||
:::::::That's true, but the fact her comments on Willoughby received significant coverage and were unprecedented can be objectively substantiated. |
|||
:::::::''I don't think it's reasonable to require new content to have references in academia or "high quality" sources See WP:FACR#1c. What we're covering in the transgender people section of the article is highly contentious topic matter. Per WP:BLP we have to be extremely cautious with writing biographies in general, and the contentiousness of the topic matter only increases the need for caution. Currently in that section, a lot of the content is cited to academic sources first, and non-academic sources secondarily. We cite papers by Duggan, Pape, Pugh, Sussa and Sullivan, and Schwirblat et al. as the basis for a lot of the content. Where necessary we then also use lower quality journalism sources to expand briefly upon or to otherwise support the scholarly sources when clarity is needed. Policy tell us to use the highest quality and most authoritative sources when writing an article. As this is a featured article, and this is highly contentious topic matter, it is quite reasonable to require the rewrite of a section to cite and reflect the highest quality sources available.'' |
|||
:::::::Besides what I said before, I agree that it makes sense to use sources of the highest available quality here. Again, however, news sources are already used in this contentious topic, sometimes as the only references for contents. Therefore, it wouldn't be fair to exclude new content for the same reason. Thanks again! [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 21:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
I agree that within in this article that section should be a short summary style and not being sidetrecked by recentism or various individual claim. In addition when I read holocaust comparisons above, I can only say an encyclopedic article as general guideline should stay away from the hyperbole and not everything (potentially outrageous) somebody out there claims about LGBTQ and Rowlings needs to be in the article in this article. There is only a need to include something if there is a larger reception in serious media (rather than social media bibbles). In addition for various details there is in doubt a separate article on Rowling's political views where that belongs.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 05:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]].{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6-8}} When [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|Forstater's employment contract was not renewed]] after Forstater shared gender-critical views,{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=230}} In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} According to ''Harry Potter'' scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} In June 2020,{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} Rowling mocked the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=14–15}}{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} |
|||
:Yes, agree. The mistake that's being made, is that the sourcing bar is higher on a featured article - hence statements need to be cited to ''high quality'' reliable sources or to scholarly sources. In terms of Willoughby, a few words cited to [https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/transgender-broadcaster-reports-jk-rowling-police-over-social-media-comments-2024-03-07/ this Reuters article] (it's the best quality I can find) at the end of the "Maya Forsteter" paragraph might work. The longer we wait the better chance the story is picked up by higher quality sources and it can be revisited; if it's not, then it does suffer from recentism. There's really no rush. Generally we workshop wording changes and achieve consensus, ie. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_15#Draft_proposal_to_reflect_discussion_and_new_sources_above this proposal]. This comment applies to the thread below as well. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
=== Reflist=== |
|||
Rowling's views have affected her reputation.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=8}} She has been the target of widespread condemnation,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} insults, and threats, including death threats.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}}<ref name=Burnell4June>{{Cite news|last=Burnell|first=Paul|date=4 June 2024|title= Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o |access-date= 9 June 2024}}</ref> Despite the controversy, sales of ''Harry Potter'' books grew during the [[COVID-19]] lockdown.{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=238}}<ref>{{cite news |first=Mark |last= Sweney |title= Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |work= [[The Guardian]] |date= 21 July 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/><ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref><ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
===Draft Proposal for Willoughby content=== |
|||
Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic.<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= Dismisses>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy' |date= 22 February 2023|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}}<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title=J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} |
|||
{{cot|Draft 1}} |
|||
Bringing this to a draft, to see what consensus there is to add this in the interim while we look at sources to re-work the paragraph in the future. |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref>{{efn|The UK laws and proposed changes are the [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]], the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] and the related [[Equality Act 2010]].{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} }} and her views on [[sexual identity|sex]] and [[gender identity|gender]], have provoked controversy.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} Her statements have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1165322330 Current] |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Proposed (adds 18 words) |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
|- |
|||
|| When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite web |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=BBC |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
|| When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite web |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=BBC |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> In March 2024 [[India Willoughby]] reported Rowling to the police for a hate crime based on Twitter posts.<ref>{{cite news |title=Transgender broadcaster reports J.K. Rowling to police over social media comments |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/transgender-broadcaster-reports-jk-rowling-police-over-social-media-comments-2024-03-07/ |access-date=15 March 2024 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=7 March 2024}}</ref> |
|||
|} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
====Discussion of Willoughby proposal ==== |
|||
[[LGBT]] charities and leading actors of the [[Wizarding World]] franchise condemned Rowling's comments;<ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref>{{efn| [[Daniel Radcliffe]], [[Emma Watson]], [[Rupert Grint]],<ref name= Hibberd2021/> [[Eddie Redmayne]]<ref name=Lang2020/> and others expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments;<ref>{{cite magazine |first= Maureen |last= Lenker|title= Every Harry Potter actor who's spoken out against J.K. Rowling's controversial trans comments |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 1 April 2022 |magazine= [[Entertainment Weekly]]|url=https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-potter-actor-whos-spoken-out-against-j-k-rowlings-controversial-transgender-comments/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first= Maggie |last= Baska|title= Stephen Fry defends 'friendship' with JK Rowling: 'I'm sorry that people are upset' |date= 20 May 2021 |url= https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/20/stephen-fry-jk-rowling-friend-harry-potter-jordan-b-peterson-podcast-trans/ |publisher= [[PinkNews]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> [[Helena Bonham Carter]],<ref name=Evans2022> {{cite news |first= Greg |last= Evans |url= https://deadline.com/2022/11/helena-bonham-carter-johnny-depp-j-k-rowling-1235182523/ |title= Helena Bonham Carter says Johnny Depp 'completely vindicated' in defamation trial, and J.K. Rowling 'hounded' for transgender stance |work= [[Deadline Hollywood]] |access-date= 18 December 2022}}</ref> [[Robbie Coltrane]],<ref>{{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first= Hannah |title= How the 'Harry Potter' reunion addresses author J.K. Rowling's anti-trans controversy |date= 30 December 2021|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/30/harry-potter-return-hogwarts-20th-reunion-emma-watson-jk-rowling-controversy/9042955002/ |work= [[USA Today]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> and [[Ralph Fiennes]] supported Rowling.<ref name= Hibberd2021>{{cite news |first= James |last= Hibberd |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ralph-fiennes-defends-j-k-rowling-amid-trans-controversy-says-backlash-is-disturbing-4151944/ |title= Ralph Fiennes defends J.K. rowling amid trans controversy, says backlash is 'disturbing' |date= 17 March 2021 |access-date=26 March 2022 |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]]}}</ref>}} [[GLAAD]] called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".<ref name= Yasharoff2020> {{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first=Hannah|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/07/j-k-rowling-harry-potter-author-slammed-transphobic-comments/3169833001/ |title= J.K. Rowling reveals she's a sexual assault survivor; Emma Watson reacts to trans comments |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 27 March 2022}}</ref> Rowling responded with an essay on her website<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title= J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making "anti-trans" comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Writing of her own experiences with [[sexism]] and [[misogyny]],<ref>{{cite news |first= Sian |last= Cain |date= 11 June 2020 |title= JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault |url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/10/jk-rowling-says-survivor-of-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to [[Gender transitioning|transition]] if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".<ref name=DAlessandro2020>{{cite news |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |title=J.K. Rowling defends trans statements in lengthy essay, reveals she's a sexual assault survivor & says 'trans people need and deserve protection' |url=https://deadline.com/2020/06/j-k-rowling-defends-trans-statements-essay-1202955524/ |access-date=5 January 2022 |work=[[Deadline Hollywood]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref> |
|||
This added sentence was based on {{diff2|1213903528|this edit}} by {{u|Victoriaearle}}. It's a small mention, placed into the context of some of her previous views. Thoughts on this as an interim addition, while we look at what sourcing supports a broader rewrite on the overall progression of her views over the last few years? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}<ref name= Jacobs2023>{{cite news |last= Jacobs |first= Julia |title= Hogwarts legacy can't cast aside debate over J. K. Rowling |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/arts/hogwarts-legacy-jk-rowling.html |date= 9 February 2023 |work = [[The New York Times]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name= Spangler2023>{{cite news |last= Spangler|first= Todd |title= J.K. Rowling addresses backlash to her anti-trans comments in new podcast: 'I never set out to upset anyone' |url= https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-comments-podcast-witch-trials-1235522301/ |date= 14 February 2023|work= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref> – have been called transphobic by critics<ref name= Breznican2023>{{cite news |last= Breznican |first= Anthony |title= J.K. Rowling will oversee a new streaming ''Harry Potter'' series |url= https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/04/jk-rowling-harry-potter-series|date= 12 April 2023 |work= [[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name=Rosenblatt2020>{{Cite web|last = Rosenblatt| first =Kalhan |title=J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351|date= 10 June 2020 |access-date=19 January 2022|publisher=[[NBC News]] }}</ref> and she has been referred to as a [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]].<ref name= Rosenblatt2020/>{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|pp=34–35}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–368}} She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.<ref name=RowlingReasons/><ref name= Breznican2023/><ref name= Spangler2023/> Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the ''Harry Potter'' fansites [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]];<ref name=FanSites>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights|publisher=[[Reuters]]|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200703011204/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|archive-date=3 July 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> and the charities [[Mermaids (charity)|Mermaids]],<ref name=Petter2020/> [[Stonewall (charity)|Stonewall]],<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref>{{cite news |first= Elise |last= Brisco |title=Dave Chappelle says he's 'Team TERF,' defends J.K. Rowling in new Netflix comedy special|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/10/05/dave-chappelle-terf-defends-j-k-rowling-netflix-special/6002017001/ |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 8 October 2021|access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
:I don't think there's much point in including it without explaining or showing (with a quote) why it's significant: it was the first time she publicly misgendered a trans person. This is a more important point than the subsequent police report for an alleged hate crime. Currently, news articles (The Times, The Independent, Reuters, etc) are the only available references. They'd provide sufficient verification to either approach to show why these comments were significant. However, there would have to be a consensus that the articles are OK to use in the article. However, quotes immediately above reference sources like Variety, the Independent, and the NYT, so I don't think this should be an issue. [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 21:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This article, and particularly the transgender people section is written in [[WP:SS|summary style]]. This is because we have a whole article dedicated just to Rowling's political views; [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]]. The political views article is the one where we can go into the specific detail of what was said on Twitter that you're proposing. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Here's an alternative summary with only 1 more character than the one currently proposed: "In March 2024 Rowling deliberately [[Misgender|misgendered]] broadcaster [[India Willoughby]], a [[trans woman]], on [[Twitter]]." The advantage of this summary is that it covers the main point here: Rowling misgendered Willoughby. The subsequent police report, as well as other details and further developments are less important and so are included in [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]]. Several people have said they don't wish to have the minutiae included in this article. If anything on the topic is included here, surely the main point (Rowling misgendered Willoughby) should be what is included. [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 21:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the way this is worded is fairly misleading. India Willoughby isn't reporting her to the police for anything that happened in 2020, she's reporting Joanne to the police for misgendering her by calling her "a man reveling in a misogynistic performance" and saying that she was merely "cosplaying" womanhood [https://www.advocate.com/news/jk-rowling-transphobia-journalist] [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 21:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That's a very good point. Willoughby didn't report Rowling for an alleged hate crime for what she said in 2020 (the time period of the text currently immediately before the proposed change) or for no reason (if this proposed change was moved to a separate paragraph). [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 21:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Cool, give me a few and I'll make a second draft with this feedback for consideration. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
As Rowling's views on the [[legal status of transgender people]] came under scrutiny,{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} she received insults and death threats{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|p=69}}{{sfn|Qiao|2022|p=1323}} and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}} Some performers and feminists have supported her.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}}<ref> Supporting Rowling: |
|||
=== Willoughby draft 2=== |
|||
* [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]]: {{cite news |first=Katie |last=Law |date= 15 October 2020|title= JK Rowling and the bitter battle of the book world |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/books/trans-battle-book-world-jk-rowling-a4571221.html |work= [[Evening Standard]] |access-date=27 March 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Allison Bailey]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |title= Maya Forstater: who is woman in employment tribunal over transgender comments? |first= Sam |last= Hancock |date= 27 April 2021 |work= [[The Independent]] |access-date= 27 March 2022|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210427131430/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |archive-date= 27 April 2021 |quote= criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey – known for launching legal action against LGBT+ rights charity Stonewall over its attempt to have her investigated for setting up the anti-trans rights group LGB Alliance – has also been a vocal supporter of Ms Forstater.|ref=none}} |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
* [[Julie Bindel]]: {{cite news |last1=Thorpe |first1=Vanessa |title=JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=14 June 2020 |quote=Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend |access-date=6 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200704200412/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |archive-date=4 July 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1165322330 Current] |
|||
* [[Dave Chappelle]]: {{Cite news |first= Maya |last=Yang|date=7 October 2021|title='I'm team Terf': Dave Chappelle under fire over pro-JK Rowling trans stance|url=https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/oct/07/dave-chappelle-transgender-netflix-special-backlash|access-date=27 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]]|ref=none}} |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Proposed (adds 25 words) |
|||
* [[Dana International]]: {{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}} |
|||
|- |
|||
* [[Eddie Izzard]]: {{cite news |title='I don't think JK Rowling is transphobic,' says gender-fluid comedian Eddie Izzard |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=27 November 2021 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=1 January 2021|ref=none}}{{cbignore}} |
|||
|| When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite web |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=BBC |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
* [[Kathleen Stock]], [[Alison Moyet]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".<ref name= Flockhart2020>{{cite news |last= Flockhart |first= Gary |date= 28 September 2020 |access-date= 2 April 2022 |work = [[The Scotsman]] |title= JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row|url= https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-receives-support-from-ian-mcewan-and-frances-barber-amid-transphobia-row-2986268|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
|| When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite web |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=BBC |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> In March 2024 [[India Willoughby]] reported Rowling to the police for an alleged hate crime based on a series of Tweets where Rowling misgendered Willoughby.<ref>{{cite news |title=Transgender broadcaster reports J.K. Rowling to police over social media comments |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/transgender-broadcaster-reports-jk-rowling-police-over-social-media-comments-2024-03-07/ |access-date=15 March 2024 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=7 March 2024}}</ref> |
|||
|} |
|} |
||
'''Sources''' |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
{{cot|Sources}} |
||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
Line 260: | Line 147: | ||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
===Discussion=== |
|||
:Is that meant to be titled as Draft 6.3, or is it a mistake? [[User:Alpha2 5232|Alpha2 5232]] ([[User talk:Alpha2 5232|talk]]) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Okay, draft 2. Based on the feedback above, I've made it clearer why Willoughby reported Rowling. I'm hesitant to use the world deliberately here however, as Reuters does not say that directly, they only include that as part of a quotation from Willoughby. I've also kept it as alleged, as it remains to be seen what (if anything) will happen with this going forward. Thoughts? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Fixed.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Busy for the rest of today, but I should be able to enter my commentary (as promised weeks ago), by tomorrow. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::PS, [https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/constable-to-publish-essays-on-scottish-womens-campaign-featuring-j-k-rowling this might provide an updated source] to replace her website essay. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|S Marshall}}, thanks for doing this & huge apologies for being awol (there's another article where I'm in over my head & my time for Wikipedia keeps shrinking). A couple of comments to get started: |
|||
:That's certainly better. It hits the main point now, and the police report isn't seemingly in a vaccum. You can substantiate the misgendering being deliberate.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Murray |first1=Tom |title=JK Rowling deliberately misgenders trans activist India Willoughby |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-twitter-india-willoughby-trans-b2506793.html |website=[[The Independent]] |access-date=4 March 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240304210900/https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-twitter-india-willoughby-trans-b2506793.html |archive-date=4 March 2024 |language=en |date=4 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bradley |first1=Sian |title=JK Rowling reported to police for ‘misgendering’ trans TV newsreader |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-reported-to-police-for-misgendering-trans-tv-newsreader-6bzj0llwb |website=[[The Times]] |access-date=7 March 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240307164905/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-reported-to-police-for-misgendering-trans-tv-newsreader-6bzj0llwb |archive-date=7 March 2024 |language=en |date=7 March 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref> Is there a particular reason why you are citing Reuters and not other sources? Since the whole argument against including this topic was to avoid extraneous detail, should the fact Rowling was reported to the police be included? If so, should it not be the minor point, with the misgendering being the main one? The misgendering itself is the most prominent and widely-reported part of this topic. I think explaining Willoughby is a trans woman and linking to relevant articles, like I did when proposing an alternative to the first proposal, helps people understand when they might not otherwise. The police won't be taking the report any further.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bradley |first1=Sian |title=JK Rowling’s misgendering of India Willoughby was no crime, say police |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowlings-misgendering-of-india-willoughby-was-no-crime-say-police-tfmj5g00v |website=[[The Times]] |access-date=15 March 2024 |archive-url=http://archive.today/bIgr1 |archive-date=2024-03-15 |language=en |date=15 March 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref> [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 22:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*I have some as-yet-very-muddy-thoughts about the first sentence & the phrase [[Gender-critical feminism|gender-critical]] so I'll try to flesh those out later. |
|||
::@[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] please could you let me know what you think of this alternative version? I left out the police report because I think it's less important than her comments themselves, and it didn't go anywhere. I've included a few different sources that cover the topic so that those deemed most suitable could be selected for use in the article. Thanks! |
|||
:*Minor point, but there's some repetition of "She, she, she" in the first para that needs wordsmithing. |
|||
::In March 2024, Rowling faced criticism after [[misgendering]] the broadcaster [[India Willoughby]], a [[transgender woman]], several times on [[Twitter]]. Rowling called her "a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks 'woman' means".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Murray |first1=Tom |title=JK Rowling deliberately misgenders trans activist India Willoughby |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-twitter-india-willoughby-trans-b2506793.html |website=[[The Independent]] |access-date=4 March 2024 |archive-url=http://archive.today/HLlTw |archive-date=4 March 2024 |language=en |date=4 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bradley |first1=Sian |title=JK Rowling reported to police for ‘misgendering’ trans TV newsreader |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-reported-to-police-for-misgendering-trans-tv-newsreader-6bzj0llwb |website=[[The Times]] |access-date=16 March 2024 |archive-url=http://archive.today/Di8K6 |archive-date=2024-03-07 |language=en |date=16 March 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Tait |first1=Albert |last2=Sanderson |first2=Daniel |title=JK Rowling reported to police by trans activist India Willoughby for misgendering |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/07/jk-rowling-reported-police-trans-india-willoughby/ |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |archive-url=http://archive.today/s7fBc |archive-date=2024-03-08 |language=en |date=7 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="sky-news-india-willoughby-misgendering">{{cite web |title=JK Rowling: Trans newsreader India Willoughby calls comments by Harry Potter author 'grotesque transphobia' |url=https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-trans-newsreader-india-willoughby-calls-comments-by-harry-potter-author-grotesque-transphobia-13087709 |website=[[Sky News]] |access-date=5 March 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.is/9JoDb |archive-date=5 March 2024 |language=en |date=5 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="pink-news-india-willoughby-misgendering">{{cite web |last1=Baska |first1=Maggie |title=JK Rowling misgenders trans journalist India Willoughby in 'grotesque' post |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/03/05/jk-rowling-misgenders-india-willoughby-anti-trans-comments-online/ |website=[[PinkNews]] |access-date=5 March 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.is/Hna2M |archive-date=5 March 2024 |language=en |date=5 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 00:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*For people with no clue, have been wondering whether we should try working in a link to [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe]] |
|||
:::Frankly, it's too long. We don't need to have that extensive, lengthy quote in this article. This article is written in [[WP:SS|summary style]], and quotes of that length have their place in [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]]. And as I said to Snokalok below in this subsection, given that the police have dropped this matter with nothing more than recording it as a non-crime hate incident, it just does not seem that notable of a single event in the broader topic of Rowling's views on trans people. |
|||
:*"affected her reputation" should be cited to Whited page 8 |
|||
:::Given that we're looking at re-writing that entire paragraph anyway in [[#Second_paragraph_of_Transgender_people_section|the discussion below]] to better summarise the progression of Rowling's views over time, instead of just highlighting three events, I don't really see that much of a reason to put this much effort into something that we're very likely going to replace anyway. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 00:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*Good to see the draft less wordy; I'm wondering how others feel about putting back the sentence "Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." that's in the historical draft? The end of that sentence mentions includes " "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real", which is another way of saying sex is immutable. Should that be clarified? |
|||
::::Hey @[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]], thanks again for your feedback. |
|||
:That's it for now. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::''Frankly, it's too long.'' |
|||
::::Here's a shorter version we might be able to agree on. Please let me know what you think. |
|||
::::In March 2024, Rowling faced criticism after repeatedly [[misgendering]] the broadcaster [[India Willoughby]], a [[transgender woman]], on [[Twitter]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Murray |first1=Tom |title=JK Rowling deliberately misgenders trans activist India Willoughby |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-twitter-india-willoughby-trans-b2506793.html |website=[[The Independent]] |access-date=4 March 2024 |archive-url=http://archive.today/HLlTw |archive-date=4 March 2024 |language=en |date=4 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bradley |first1=Sian |title=JK Rowling reported to police for ‘misgendering’ trans TV newsreader |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-reported-to-police-for-misgendering-trans-tv-newsreader-6bzj0llwb |website=[[The Times]] |access-date=16 March 2024 |archive-url=http://archive.today/Di8K6 |archive-date=2024-03-07 |language=en |date=16 March 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Tait |first1=Albert |last2=Sanderson |first2=Daniel |title=JK Rowling reported to police by trans activist India Willoughby for misgendering |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/07/jk-rowling-reported-police-trans-india-willoughby/ |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |archive-url=http://archive.today/s7fBc |archive-date=2024-03-08 |language=en |date=7 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="sky-news-india-willoughby-misgendering">{{cite web |title=JK Rowling: Trans newsreader India Willoughby calls comments by Harry Potter author 'grotesque transphobia' |url=https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-trans-newsreader-india-willoughby-calls-comments-by-harry-potter-author-grotesque-transphobia-13087709 |website=[[Sky News]] |access-date=5 March 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.is/9JoDb |archive-date=5 March 2024 |language=en |date=5 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="pink-news-india-willoughby-misgendering">{{cite web |last1=Baska |first1=Maggie |title=JK Rowling misgenders trans journalist India Willoughby in 'grotesque' post |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/03/05/jk-rowling-misgenders-india-willoughby-anti-trans-comments-online/ |website=[[PinkNews]] |access-date=5 March 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.is/Hna2M |archive-date=5 March 2024 |language=en |date=5 March 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
::::''We don't need to have that extensive, lengthy quote in this article. This article is written in summary style, and quotes of that length have their place in Political views of J. K. Rowling.'' |
|||
::::Well, the quote I included is 79 characters long. The quote "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", used in the same section, is 142 characters long. The quote "[safeguard] the press from political interference while also giving vital protection to the vulnerable" is 104 characters long and can be found in the Views -> Press section. Quotes longer than this one are used in the article, so it's not fair to say this one is too long in and of itself. |
|||
::::''And as I said to Snokalok below in this subsection, given that the police have dropped this matter with nothing more than recording it as a non-crime hate incident, it just does not seem that notable of a single event in the broader topic of Rowling's views on trans people.'' |
|||
::::That's fair. I think it's subjective, and we just disagree on the matter. I think it's such a clear escalation of her rhetoric that its inclusion is warranted. We probably just need to vote on whether it's important/significant enough to warrant inclusion. Maybe it makes sense to make a most agreeable draft for inclusion, then put it down to a vote? |
|||
::::''Given that we're looking at re-writing that entire paragraph anyway in the discussion below to better summarise the progression of Rowling's views over time, instead of just highlighting three events, I don't really see that much of a reason to put this much effort into something that we're very likely going to replace anyway.'' |
|||
::::That makes sense. I understand not wanting to redo work when the second paragraph is re-written, assuming that, were Rowling's comments on Willoughby to be included in the article, that they would be in that paragraph. However, since Wikipedia is [[WP:IMPERFECT]] and a [[WP:Work in progress]], I still think that (barring any other reason) this topic should be included before then. We shouldn't wait to include a topic because reliable but not yet ideal/academic (as seems to be the desire) sources are available to support it. I think the same reasoning was used in the past, as you've said: |
|||
::::''The current text of the second paragraph of the transgender people represents what sourcing was available at the time of the review. It's imperfect because the sourcing at the time was imperfect'' |
|||
::::Thanks again for your thoughts! [[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 13:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:This is much better, though I'm also wondering - if we're time-skipping from 2024 to now, is the Willoughby misgendering the most notable thing in those four years? I mean personally I think the slightly more recent event regarding the Hirschfeld Institute would be a stronger contender,[https://www.themarysue.com/j-k-rowling-holocaust-denial-nazi-transphobic/] but I recognize that the media sourcing isn't as strong right now, so with that in mind I'd ask whether we should be looking at events from 2022 and 2023. Because while Joanne misgendering a trans newscaster is not un-notable, I wonder if there aren't more notable and equally well covered events. For that matter, I'm wondering to some degree why we are - with such a strong number of incidents, singling out a bare few and not instead rewriting it as "Since then, Rowling has consistently advocated X, Y, Z". There are after all, as we saw from the post below, plenty of RSP sources that present it as a longstanding pattern rather than a few isolated events. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 23:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tq|if we're time-skipping from 2024 to now, is the Willoughby misgendering the most notable thing in those four years?}} See my comment opening the discussion for draft 1. This is an interim proposal, while we try to identify sourcing for a broader rewrite of that paragraph. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Fair. In that case, regarding Willoughby alone, I'd like to put forth the possibility of removing or reducing the space given to police involvement and replacing it with a quote of the misgendering. Because, as @[[User:13tez|13tez]] said, the police aren't going any further with this, it doesn't seem like a major detail in the grand scheme of things, but the nature in which the misgendering was done I believe moreso is. This wasn't simply a case of deliberately using the wrong pronouns, this was calling her "a man reveling in a misogynistic performance", which is a significantly more intense statement than just "I refuse to acknowledge this person as a woman"; and I worry that simply reducing it to "misgendering" might mislead a reader to some degree. What are your thoughts? [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 23:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|the police aren't going any further with this, it doesn't seem like a major detail in the grand scheme of things}} If that's the case, then none of this is really notable, and I don't see a particularly compelling reason for us to highlight what she's said in this manner. The police recording it as a non-crime hate incident per [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowlings-misgendering-of-india-willoughby-was-no-crime-say-police-tfmj5g00v The Times] article from a couple of hours ago is more notable for the purposes of this article to me than the exact words that lead to that. Reuters and other higher quality sources might pick up on that tomorrow or over the weekend, but as some low quality unreliable sources have noted that was recorded 4 days ago, so it's also possible no further sourcing on this from high quality sources will develop. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*In draft 7.1, I've attempted to address points #2, #3 and #4 that you raise, and I await further input on #1 and #5.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 21:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Any objections to modifying final sentence in lede in the following way == |
|||
**Much appreciated! Agreed that input from others is needed. <s>Just to spin my thoughts out a bit more. Re the first sentence, I've realized that one reason it's been bugging me is that the term [[Gender-critical feminism|gender-critical]] may mean something very different in the US than in the UK. Recently I read an article about someone running for congress whose opinions about women are, shall we say, a bit archaic. Beyond that this person claims the LGBQT+ movement was created by radical feminists. So we need to be clear in terms of where links are going & what exactly we mean for a global audience.</s>{{pb}}Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with ""Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made. Also I've not had time for a full examination of the essays in Whited ({{Project Muse|111748|type=book}}} or Konchar Farr {{{Project MUSE|99615|type=book}}), which in my view needs to be done. Anyway, let's see what the others say. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 23:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
***Yes. On the wildest, most far-flung fringes of the US right, there lurk certain characters who do indeed like to burst out of their swamps, yell things like "the LGBTQ+ movement was created by radical feminists!" and then slide back into the mire, waiting for the next gloriously unhinged thought to turn up. Like you, I'm often refreshed and challenged by their {{abbr|unique perspectives|delusions}} and their {{abbr|idiosyncratic ways of putting things|lies}}. I think my personal favourite is "blame the gun". Presumably someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to drive without a driving licence is "blaming the car".{{pb}}I don't think we can use language the way those people do, and I also don't think we should be trying. Conservapedia is thataway ----->. I feel that as encyclopaedists, it's our task to summarize things in simple and clear terms, even (especially!) when the things we're trying to summarize are complex and difficult; and we should use normal, natural language in its usual meaning; and, despite what the US right might think, it's quite possible to be supportive and tolerant of gay and lesbian people, but intolerant of trans people; and that J.K. Rowling ''is''; and that "gender-critical" is succinct, accurate, and neutral. It's not a pejorative.{{pb}}But I can see that "gender-critical" is an uncomfortable thing to say about someone. Even though it's not a pejorative, it's a pungent term. It reeks of repression and segregation and prejudice. It's scrupulously accurate, though.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 09:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****I knew I wouldn't be able to make myself clear & that's why I have trouble engaging here. Being told to go off to Conservapedia doesn't want me to engage. To try to clarify: can we not just say she's a [[Gender-critical feminism|Gender-critical feminist]] whose views align with Maya Forstater (i.e the #IStandWithMaya tweet) & then tell readers who don't know (or who do know) those views are x, y and z (including that they believe sex is immutable). I think we're close. So just ignore me. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 14:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****:[[User:Victoriaearle|@Victoriaearle]] If we call J.K. Rowling a gender-critical feminist in the article, do we need to clarify what that means? Surely the page it would link to would give people an idea of what those views are without having to reclarify here? [[User:Alpha2 5232|Alpha2 5232]] ([[User talk:Alpha2 5232|talk]]) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****::Yes, I think we should because this is her biography & the article is about her. But I need to step away to refamiliarize myself with the sources & don't have time for that at the moment. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****:::My thought is this: J.K. Rowling uses the term herself, e.g. [https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ here]. I think we can safely call her gender critical - ideally with an explanation - because it's language she seems to accept as a description of the group she belongs to anyway. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****::::Basically I was only wondering if we needed to gloss the term & failed to explain myself at all well. Stricken a bunch above. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****:::::I have been stalled by real life matters on coming back to this, but I'm concerned that the process is not engaging [[WP:WIAFA]] 1c; yes, we're updating to Whited, which is a good thing, but that's only one high quality recent source, and it's not apparent whether we're working towards a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Instead, we seem to be working towards preferences of individual editors, which won't render this in compliance with FA standards. {{pb}} I don't have easy/full journal access, so can only access that which is freely available, but that (limited) survey continues to support the most NOT-NEWSY, NOT-RECENTISM, and likely to endure statement that was once in the article, and is mentioned by Victoriaearle at 23:56 June 15: {{tq|"Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with 'Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc.' ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made." }} {{pb}} I've been hoping the other FA writers of the FAR version would find time and inclination to weigh in here so we could address the WIAFA issues, including any updates needed to the literary portions of the article based on Whited and more, but I don't feel like I should ping them again. {{pb}} I have other (more minor) concerns about the draft, but if we aren't working towards meeting WIAFA, I'm unsure what the value of time spent here is ... so I haven't yet spelled those out. Ideas ?? Most certainly, that one deleted sentence is warranted by what I can access as a survey of the relevant literature (scholarly articles restricted to 2024), and is likely the most enduring of the section, so I hope it comes back with updated citations. Regards, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****::::::With all respect, you seem to be objecting to change by holding standards that ''are not apparent in the original version of the section'', which, if anything, is far worse. If this fails WIAFA after the changes, it fails it without the changes. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****:::::::I (and others) have explained several times that the FAR was constrained by the results of a very recent, and very well attended, RFC, and that all acknowledged we would have to revisit after some time had elapsed from that RFC ... so I won't repeat all of that again. Please do reread the archives of discussions already had with you. Now that we ''are'' revisiting, we should be keeping WIAFA in mind. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
****::::::::From a high quality sourcing point-of-view, I'm not convinced there's enough yet to revisit. The search function at the top of the page of [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ The Wikipedia Library] goes to Ebscohost. If sorted by newest the first page shows results only from ''Daily Mail'', ''Daily Telegraph'', ''Hollywood Reporter'', ''Business Wire'', ''USA Today'', and so forth. Sorting by "peer reviewed" does show much and nothing I'm seeing that can be used, on a quick perusal. That said, anyone can search there. Whited is a start, but not much of a start & only published a few months ago. Waiting is not the worst option; agree that the understanding was that the section would be rewritten when high quality sources come available. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I believe the draft as written constitutes a considerable improvement on the current text. I'm certain it can be improved further, but we ought not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I do think the sentence beginning "Rowling rejects these characterizations..." needs some reworking specifically because we've lost the reader on what those characterizations might be. I'm also not certain the statement is broadly true; she denies being transphobic, and rejects the "TERF" label (though nobody really embraces it, do they?), but if there's evidence she rejects "gender critical", I've yet to see it. I'm also noting I don't have time to engage deeply here. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 01:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Her statements have divided feminists...==== |
|||
I don't know if we need a formal RfC for this change but here we go: |
|||
This sentence was cut because: |
|||
*It's not about J.K. Rowling's views; and |
|||
*There was pressure to cut the word count. |
|||
I don't object to restoring it if we feel the extra words are justified in the circumstances.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: The proposed word count now (400-ish) is approaching 10% less than what was in the article historically (430-ish); IIRC, any pressure to reduce the word count was when the section on transgender rights was hovering around or at times above 475 words (eg [[Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_19#Third_draft_(3.2)|here]], although I think at one point we were near 500). I propose we have room to bring back one sentence, but that if we did, it could be updated and cited to newer scholarly sources. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and '''<del>some</del>''' feminists, but have received support from other feminists'''<del> and individuals</del>'''" - I don't think "individuals" helps inform the reader of anything as for any given issue, some individuals will support/oppose it. This sentence in the lede should suggest what the major positions of involved parties to the issues are, not the thoughts of indivudals generally. Additionally, "some" should be removed as it implies that it is the minority of feminists who are critical of Ms. Rowling, while we really can't say that for certain and I suspect it might be the opposite, regardless "some" is not necessary as we already make it clear by also including "other feminists." |
|||
: {{u|Bastun}} re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1230207962 this edit], [[WP:WIAFA]] is linked in the discussion just above this one. It stands for What Is A Featured Article, also abbreviated as [[WP:FACR]], Featured Article Criteria. It is separate from [[WP:FAR|Featured Article Review]]; it is not clear to me that {{u|S Marshall}} was suggesting (yet) that we need a trip to FAR. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Given the sources for the "divided feminists" sentence are 2019 and 2020, I don't think this should be used without very explicitly putting some context as to WHEN feminists were divided. Though the sourcing then adds additional problems: |
|||
::* [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html one source] is ''explicitly'' about her comments on Maya Forstater. It'd be a great source to use in the context of Forstater, but not to use as if it applied to anything else Rowling said. It's also pretty clearly the main source for the statement; neither of the other two have "feminists divided" as a clear reading. |
|||
::* One source is [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557 just probably not very good]: A single tweet by (non-academic) blogger Claire Heuchan is literally the only evidence of feminists supporting Rowling presented. |
|||
::* The third source is... [https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-living-anti-intellectual-times honestly a great article by Judith Butler], but she explicitly says "...I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen." A source that says gender critical is [[WP:FRINGE]] is a poor source to use for a statement that presents the views as equal within feminism. |
|||
::---- |
|||
::So... aye. I'd probably say that, without modern, mainstream sources talking about a division in feminism, that sentence is dead in the water. And, let's face it: Even if we did find sources, if we kept the text exactly the same, then we wouldn't be summarising modern sources, we'd be using a summary of a source about the reaction to her commentary on Maya Forstater, treating it as if it covered all Rowling's comments since then, and retrofitting sources onto it) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 05:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, this is straightforward. Her statements haven't so much divided feminists, but rather, feminists were ''already'' divided on trans issues, and they've split on Rowling according to tribal lines. Those feminists who're gender-critical like Rowling and those who're gender-inclusive dislike her. Her statements have certainly prompted debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech, and they've certainly given rise to declarations of support for trans people from various actors and pressure groups. Nobody who's read the sources could possibly deny any of that, could they?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I mean, I'm only commenting on that one sentence (as written) and its poor sourcing. I don't disagree with what you just said, but what you just said explicitly rejects the statement I'm commenting on, and what you said, that already gender critical / TERF people supported her, is sky-is-blue stuff that probably doesn't need said. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Probably does need to be said, though, doesn't it. We're an encyclopaedia. Imagine we're writing for an intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, teenager from a village in rural India. If you want reliable/recent sources for this stuff, you don't need to look further than the BBC, which has published so many pieces about J.K. Rowling that she has her own dedicated topic page, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c50znx8v82dt.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Wikipedia Featured article criteria (WIAFA)==== |
|||
If I don't hear any objections I'll [[WP:BEBOLD]] and change it in like a week or so. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 22:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Without changes to this section the article is outdated. Without the proposed changes it represents a historical version of what J.K. Rowling is famous for, and it's consequently drawing attention from people who want to update it piecemeal. A wholesale rewrite from the best sources available is the least bad option.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think we still need to include "some" as otherwise it suggests she has been criticized by all feminists. I think we also need to include "and individuals" to make it clear that it's not just feminists who have supported her. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 22:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Then why don't we have it say "some other feminists?" I think either way it expresses a viewpoint unless you remove some from the equation, and the fact that the second part says "other feminists" is fine. And who, if not just "other feminists" have supported her? The lack of precision is what concerns me. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 22:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't see how that fixes the issues. |
|||
:::According to the article, it includes performers and figures from the art world. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 22:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::What makes those figures opinions [[WP:DUE]] to issues revolving around feminism, gender, and sexuality? Based off my reading of the citations the citation regarding [[Eddie Izzard]] is probably DUE as she is genderfluid, but I'm not sure why we should be giving weight in the lede to "figures from the art world". [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 22:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:So we've discussed that particular piece of content heavily [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_4|during the FAR]] in 2022, and some of our wording was defined by a large but poorly executed RfC from [[Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_11|November 2021-January 2022]]. At the moment we're kinda beholden to some of that phrasing, though the FAR drafting did try to work around it as best we could. For now I'd suggest reading [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_3#Another_initial_query:_status_of_the_lead|this pre-drafting discussion]] on the status of the lead, and the [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_4#Tackling_the_lead|the FAR drafting discussion for the lead]], as that'll provide a great deal of insight for why it's phrased in the way that it is. |
|||
:I'm not opposed to changing it in principle, though we do have to be careful when changing it to make sure it reflects the content in the body. It might be possible to rephrase it a little more radically based on the body content though, if we can find a consensus for changing it. We're far enough away from the RfC that in theory, we could just come to a consensus here for a change without needing to have another one. Something like {{tq|These views have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors|q=y}} might be a good starting point for a more radical of revision it, as it's far more directly supported by the article's actual content. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tq|These views have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations.|q=y}} |
|||
::I would support this version; in your version it's unclear what the subject of "divided feminists" is, while the last line seems [[WP:UNDUE]] compared to coverage in the body. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::90% of this is taken from the first paragraph of [[J. K. Rowling#Transgender people]] section which says {{tq|Her statements have divided feminists; fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom and cancel culture; and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors.}} The remaining bit at the start is a juxtaposition of that against the third paragraph of the section, which states {{tq|LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments}}, and the fourth paragraph of the section, which {{tq|Rowling's statements – beginning in 2017 – have been called transphobic by critics, and she has been referred to as a TERF.}} |
|||
:::As for the subject of "divided feminists" being unclear, some of that could be my choice of punctuation. How about {{tq|These views have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations'''. They have''' divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors|q=y}} (changes in bold)? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's better, but I would prefer to keep it in a single sentence (two, in my opinion, are [[WP:UNDUE]] emphasis on a relatively minor aspect of Rowling's life and works), and I remain unconvinced that the declarations of support are sufficiently relevant to the lede of Rowling's article. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 23:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Again, the declarations of support piece comes from the first paragraph of the transgender people section. I don't really see any issue with that minimal mention in the lead. When it was discussed during the FAR, the biggest concern with that sentence was making sure that it didn't deviate from the massively imperfect version the 2021 RfC left us with. If we now consider ourselves free of that particular burden, then re-writing it to better reflect what we actually say in the body |
|||
:::::As for the length and two sentences, 43 words from a lead that contains 400 others prior to the current version of the sentence, for a section that currently takes up 505 words doesn't really seem that undue to me. A two sentence structure more neatly addresses your concern about the subject of "divided feminists" being unclear. And I think that your one sentence version has a similar problem in that it's not directly explaining why the views have divided feminists. The division is because the majority of feminists and feminist bodies consider the views to be transphobic, and I think we kinda need say that descriptor up front before we can say that the views have divided feminists. Otherwise we leave open the question of "why have they divided feminists?" [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If I may respond to the last sentence there? It's absolutely fine not to answer that question in the lede. The point of the lede isn't to present all the relevant information contained in an article, but to give the reader an accurate representation of what the article contains. Why her statements divided feminists is explained in the relevant section of the page as a whole. [[User:Robrecht~enwiki|Robrecht]] ([[User talk:Robrecht~enwiki|talk]]) 17:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I think Sideswipe9th was objecting to the order of BilledMammal's sentence (which mentions a division before explaining that the views have been described as transphobic by..) and we may have gone a bit too deeply thinking about "why have they divided feminists" because in fact neither proposed sentence explains that at all, nor does the body. It isn't for this article to explain why some feminists are pro trans and some are trans exclusionary, why some think some attitudes are transphobic and some don't. The word we are looking for is "what". ''What'' is it that the feminists are divided about, wrt supporting or criticising Rowling. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 19:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yeah, what Colin just said. I think I just explained my thoughts on that poorly. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That is 100% better than what I proposed kudos to you for whipping up such great language in like two seconds flat. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks! Mostly I'm just [[kitbashing]] the content that's already in the article's body. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I also think Siwdeswip9th's summary is better and agree that this is actually a small number of words for something that has come to dominate any discussion of Rowling (no review of her books, films or TV programmes fails to mention this, particularly wrt young audiences). I see that it is taken/summarising the body and I would question the "academic freedom" clause. I looked at the source and although it mentions Rowling, nowhere AFAICS does it say her comments have "fuelled debate" on that matter. The academics have had plenty of their own kind fuelling debate without considering the twitter comments of a children's fantasy author. So I propose those two words are dropped from the body and this proposed lead sentence. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 08:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't have any issue dropping "academic freedom" from the body and the draft given what you've said. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed. Choosing to not update it is basically saying this article should not be an FA. If we're not going to do the best job we can with it, then it's not featurable. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 22:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Draft proposal in context=== |
|||
::As it happens, I agree with S Marshall. But I also understand the urge to swap newer sources for those the FA writers used some years ago. I wasn't one of the contributors (except maybe a little around the edges) and tapped out with Wikipedia atm. To keep the process on track, do you have any comments to make regarding S Marshall's most recent draft, {{u|Adam Cuerden}}? That's how we keep going. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm fairly happy with it. I'm just not happy with - and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is. |
|||
:::There's bits to argue. I think "She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased. But that's not the worst objection, is it? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 01:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. <small>(It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.)</small> |
|||
::::We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Re {{tq|and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is}}, yes you are misunderstanding -- I've not said (or meant) that at all. As I stated above, this process has not (yet) fully engaged 1c of [[WP:WIAFA]] by engaging in a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and as I've mentioned, there are newer and better sources for redrafting that sentence, which I believe to be one of the most FA-worthy parts of the section (that is, what is the lasting effect, beyond JKR triggering every news cycle, and editors then wanting to insert that [[WP:NOTNEWS|NEWS]] here rather than in the sub-article). My apologies for not having time to delineate them, but repeating, if we aren't engaging the FA criteria, and as most of the FA writers who did engage it originally can no longer engage, I'm [[WP:FAR|unsure where we are headed]] if we are going to keep filling the talk page discussions with NEWS and RECENTISM. {{pb}} {{u|Victoriaearle}}, when you stated yesterday that you find little new from your scholarly search to incorporate, were you referring to updating the literary portions of the article, or only the transgender rights section? When I browsed the other day (from the car, so couldn't save the sources), I found indications there is plenty for re-drafting that sentence, although I could only access those that were freely available. I'm relieved to have now heard from VM93, but remain concerned we may not be engaging in an overall way that will lead to retaining FA status. I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, but it's possible we could get more FA-knowledgeable writers to engage the criteria by in fact going back to FAR, where the off-topic RECENTISM is less likely to overtake the discussions. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: This characterization of using material from post-2020 as "off-topic RECENTISM" is disputed.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 13:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Sandy, I probably misunderstood. I wouldn't call my quick dip-stick search at Ebscohost a scholarly search. I thought you were referring to high-quality scholarly vs. news sources re the transgender section - and no, I didn't see anything that we aren't already using (but I didn't go beyond the first page). Even if you can't save, is it possible to capture links? In terms of updating the rest of the article, there's plenty, but as I mentioned Whited is new & generally lit. articles don't get updated within months of a new publication - at least not the ones I steward. It's always good to wait a bit.{{pb}}As far as the sentence in question, I'm not wedded to it. It would be better to keep the process moving, imo.{{pb}}As for as going back to FAR, don't see the need. The only immediate is need an overhaul of the transgender section & given the suggestions overnight think S Marshall's current version is fine. But ... today's article in the Times will need to get incorporated at some point because of the election.[[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Ok, so that it's clearer for everyone, here's where we're at with the proposed changes to the lead: |
|||
:::::I'm glad to be wrong. Thanks, Sandy. I think there's a major tension between recentism and outdated here. We need to include some amount of recent content as Rowling's views have pretty clearly moved to more extreme ones, but we also don't want to merely document the most recent three incidents. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
::::::RE, "the most recent three incidents", that is the tricky part of working on this article (she triggers the news cycle weekly, so how to decide which to include). Re Victoria and S Marshall, when I was browsing from the car, what I meant was that I found plenty of scholar.google sources that could be used to update that sentence and that we don't need to go to news sources -- enough so that the still-relevance of the sentence was shown, which is why I think it the most enduring. The reason I didn't save those I found is that I considered my search (without journal access) incomplete. I could find them again, subject to same constraints, if my real life issues {{em|would ever settle down}} and give me a long-enough break to refocus here (sorry :( . [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1165322330 Current] |
|||
:::::::To some extent, we don't need to be perfect, as long as we cover fairly typical and/or illuminating events. We're trying to give a flavour of her sort of activity. Ideally, analysis that makes the choices for us would be better, but in the absence of that, we have a little editorial perogative to pick and choose. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Proposed (adds 20 words) |
|||
|- |
|||
|| These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. |
|||
|| These views have been described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations. They have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech, academic freedom, and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors. |
|||
|} |
|||
====This morning's article in The Times==== |
|||
And transgender people section: |
|||
is extraordinarily timely and helpful. I propose that we suspend updating this section for the moment because Rowling's latest little rant will provoke a reaction and, hopefully, some analysis by third parties.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1165322330 Current] |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Proposed (removes 2 words) |
|||
|- |
|||
|| Her statements have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
|| Her statements have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
|} |
|||
:...could you please post a link to this article? Or at least the title? [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
====Discussion of proposal ==== |
|||
For the lead, these changes bring it more in line with the article's body text. It means we're going against the flawed 2021 RfC, but I think it's an improvement to the article and we are far enough away from that time that we can just make this change, if there's a consensus for it. For the transgender people section, this is the incorporation of {{u|Colin}}'s proposal to drop "academic freedom" from the "fuelled debates" sentence. Thoughts? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::[https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/jk-rowling-labour-has-dismissed-women-like-me-ill-struggle-to-vote-for-it-rrgbcrkd6 Sure.]—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 18:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I like the first sentence in the first proposed change, I'm uncertain about "divided feminists" however, for the simple reason that as is, it seems incredibly vague and doesn't really tell the reader, anything. What feminists, divided how? [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 19:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]], @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]: There's a summary and context at [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cndd65k06x8o this BBC article]. [[User:Bazza_7|Bazza <span style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]]) 18:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Per the body content and the sources her statements have divided feminist opinion. If you want to see how that content in the body was developed and why that phrasing was selected, I'd recommend reviewing [[Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_13#"and_she_has_been_referred_to_as_a_TERF"|this discussion from June 2022]], as well as [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_5#Workshopping_the_transgender_section|this section of the FAR]] in March 2022. We can't really go into that much detail in the article lead, as that is what the body is for. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Everyone agrees the current draft is much better, and nothing says we have to stop work on drafts once we put something up. If we're going to suspend, let's implement the current draft. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It isn't enough to put it at the end of the lead. It needs to be within the first three sentences of the article. It is one of the most notable and significant aspects of who she is in public society. |
|||
::::I agree, and would like to point out that while I haven't been a big fan of the allegations of [[WP:RECENTISM]] so far, relying heavily on breaking news about Rowling's comments about a currently happening election really ''would'' be RECENTISM. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Furthermore, as per comments in the "It's time to include anti-transgender activist in the first sentence" discussion, there is sufficient scholarly, peer-reviewed evidence to state that she is "widely known for her anti-trans views." The term "anti-trans" should be explicit--not making this explicit is whitewashing / shielding her, which would be a form of sociopolitical bias. [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 22:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Rowling is in the public eye on this matter. Coverage isn't going to miraculously stabilize at any point. It is likely that we will need to periodically revisit this, especially as scholarly sources come out. That isn't a reason not to adjust the present wording, which is sub-optimal and considerably worse than the draft above. I support implementing it, my quibbles above notwithstanding. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think the article body content supports bringing this up to being something said within the first three sentences of the lead. While it's certainly noteworthy enough for the lead overall, when looked at in the scope of the rest of the content about Rowling I just don't see that being feasible. |
|||
::As for {{tq|widely known for her anti-trans views}}, I don't think the body content nor the sourcing we currently cite supports it with that broad a qualifier (ie, widely known). That might change if we're able to do a broader rewrite of the second paragraph of the transgender people section, per [[#c-Sideswipe9th-20240315191000-13tez-20240315181600|my comment above]] suggesting that we look for sourcing that describes the changes in her expressed views over time. But for now, I don't think it's really possible. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'd argue at this point that a broader rewrite may be in order, focusing less on individual instances (which can be detailed in the separate views article), and more on the general pattern that's been established. There's certainly enough RSP sources to support that. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 00:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::You won't find me objecting to re-writing that second paragraph. Let's start a new discussion section for that, with step 1 being finding and listing here all of the highest quality sources available that would support a substantial change. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Just realised after reviewing the {{diff2|1214059799|bold implementation}} of this by {{u|LegalSmeagolian}} that while I'd removed "academic freedom" from the body in the proposal, I'd forgotten to remove it from the lead of the proposal. I've just {{diff2|1214063489|removed the words}} from both places now. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks I did not catch that. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== For easy discussion. == |
|||
==It's time to include anti-transgender activist in the first sentence== |
|||
We have other people once known for their work in other fields, who are now known for anti-transgender activism. Such as [[Graham Linehan]], described in our article as {{tq|"an Irish comedy writer and anti-transgender activist"}}. For the past half decade, most coverage of Rowling in reliable sources has been about her anti-transgender views and activism. She is far better known as an anti-transgender activist than Graham Linehan ever was; in fact many RS have described her as the most famous TERF[https://www.themarysue.com/jk-rowlings-most-controversial-moments/]. It's really all she talks about in public, and it's what RS focus on when reporting on her. If you do a Google News search every result is about her anti-transgender views in some way (I looked through the first hundred results today). And this has now been the situation for years. Also, "philanthropist", really? She donates money to anti-transgender groups. She doesn't seem to be widely known for any philanthropic efforts, to the same degree that she is known for her former work as a children's author and that she is now known as an anti-transgender activist. Any philanthropic activities (that aren't just donations to anti-trans groups) could be mentioned below instead. |
|||
I mentioned this above, but: |
|||
Hence, based on the model of [[Graham Linehan]] and comparable articles, the first sentence should be {{tq|"is a British author and anti-transgender activist"}}. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 16:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased. |
|||
:Anti-trans activist is a pretty strong label to use for any BLP, and the sourcing requirements for it are high. For Linehan, we have an array of relatively high quality sources that explicitly describe him as an anti-trans activist, and that descriptor sees pretty frequent use in sources about him and his current activities. |
|||
:For Rowling, I don't think we have any high quality sources that describe her as an anti-trans activist, or a close synonym, much less use that to the same sort of consistent degree that sources about Linehan describe his activities. Yes The Mary Sue have described her as {{tq|the world’s most famous TERF}}, but from reading the highest quality sources available I don't think that's something that's reflected elsewhere. What other sources do you have that could support this? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with this until more comprehensive sourcing can be found. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::For now, I'm interested in starting a conversation regarding the first sentence and specifically the need to revisit it. I'm open to ideas regarding the exact way to phrase it, but I believe it should include something that summarizes her anti-trans or TERF activism in some way. It's simply too prominent to ignore, considering that a majority of RS over the past half decade focus on this topic. The Mary Sue article was just an example; the sources describing Rowling as (a prominent or some variation thereof) TERF, anti-trans, or in similar terms are numerous[https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-comes-out-as-a-terf/][https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/09/what-terf-definition-trans-activists-includes-j-k-rowling/5326071002/][https://theconversation.com/witch-trials-terf-wars-and-the-voice-of-conscience-in-a-new-podcast-about-j-k-rowling-200088][https://news.yahoo.com/j-k-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-102506549.html][https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351][https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/6/06/jk-rowling-goes-full-terf-new-series-transphobic-tweets][https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy][https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism][https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline][https://www.out.com/transgender/2020/9/23/noted-terf-jk-rowling-promotes-anti-trans-store-followers][https://www.vox.com/culture/22254435/harry-potter-tv-series-hbo-jk-rowling-transphobic] ({{tq|Rowling’s name is now synonymous with “TERF”}}) [https://insidethemagic.net/2024/03/jk-rowling-denies-transgender-persecution-holocaust-jc1/] ({{tq|The controversial figurehead has dived full force into the trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) movement in recent years}}) [https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/j-k-rowling-says-shed-happily-go-to-prison-for-anti-trans-views/][https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/jk-rowling-s-drawn-backlash-anti-trans-beliefs-hits-back-putin-citing-rcna21587] [https://www.gamespot.com/articles/jk-rowlings-anti-transgender-stance-and-hogwarts-legacy/1100-6501632/] ({{tq|the [Harry Potter] franchise has, sadly, remained in the ever-present shadow of a larger conversation: creator JK Rowling's public support of anti-transgender rhetoric, as well as her support for the people and groups that spread it, all expressed on social media, her website, and in her activism. This has not been an isolated incident, but a continued stance for Rowling dating all the way back to 2018}}) [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/21/entertainment/jk-rowling-podcast-release-what-to-know-cec/index.html][https://www.vulture.com/2020/06/jk-rowling-anti-transgender-comments-blog.html]. Regarding Linehan, his anti-trans activism is relatively obscure compared to Rowling, and mostly limited to ramblings on his Youtube channel, and he doesn't receive anywhere near the kind of coverage that Rowling gets for her anti-trans views. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 18:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::More than enough reliable sources for a phrase along the lines of "she is known for expressing views that are widely considered to be anti-transgender" in the first or second sentence of the article, for sure. [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 18:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The issue isn't that Linehan's actions are more obscure or limited compared to Rowling's, it's that the anti-trans activist descriptor is more widely used in sources about him. |
|||
:::Taking the array of sources you've provided, several have to be eliminated immediately. The [https://news.yahoo.com/j-k-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-102506549.html Forbes piece] is by a contributor, so see [[WP:FORBESCON]]. The [https://news.yahoo.com/j-k-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-102506549.html Yahoo piece] is actually a republishing of the article by [https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline The Week], and I've already told you on your talk page to watch out for this exact problem. The reliability of Inside The Magic is unclear, and may not be suitable for BLPs. |
|||
:::Of what's left, [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/09/what-terf-definition-trans-activists-includes-j-k-rowling/5326071002/ USA Today] doesn't describe her as a TERF and only says that others have described her as such and she disputes the term. This is the same for [https://theconversation.com/witch-trials-terf-wars-and-the-voice-of-conscience-in-a-new-podcast-about-j-k-rowling-200088 The Conversation], the first [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351 NBC News], [https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/j-k-rowling-says-shed-happily-go-to-prison-for-anti-trans-views/ Us Magazine], the second [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/jk-rowling-s-drawn-backlash-anti-trans-beliefs-hits-back-putin-citing-rcna21587 NBC News], [https://www.gamespot.com/articles/jk-rowlings-anti-transgender-stance-and-hogwarts-legacy/1100-6501632/ Gamespot], [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/21/entertainment/jk-rowling-podcast-release-what-to-know-cec/index.html CNN], and [https://www.vulture.com/2020/06/jk-rowling-anti-transgender-comments-blog.html Vulture] all of which describe her as expressing anti-trans or transphobic views but not being an anti-trans activist. |
|||
:::[https://www.advocate.com/people/2020/6/06/jk-rowling-goes-full-terf-new-series-transphobic-tweets The Advocate] only describes her as "going full TERF" in the headline, however [[WP:RSHEADLINES|headlines aren't considered reliable]]. Otherwise it describes her as "invoking anti-trans language". The [https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy first Vox piece] is a useful timeline but only says {{tq|Rowling has been turning toward an anti-trans stance over a long period}}. The [https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism Vanity Fair article] says that {{tq|she's transphobic because everyone she reads and listens to is}}. The timeline from [https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline The Week] is useful for documenting the progression of her views, but does not describe Rowling in any way outside the headline. The [https://www.out.com/transgender/2020/9/23/noted-terf-jk-rowling-promotes-anti-trans-store-followers article by Out] has the same headline issues as The Advocate and The Week. The [https://www.vox.com/culture/22254435/harry-potter-tv-series-hbo-jk-rowling-transphobic second Vox article] does say that {{tq|Rowling’s name is now synonymous with "TERF"}}. |
|||
:::Having reviewed all of these sources, I'm sorry but I don't think this supports any change in descriptor in the article, much less promoting that descriptor to the first sentence. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::"These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals." |
|||
::::I feel that these sources are enough to change from "criticized by LGBT rights orgs and some feminists" to simply "widely criticized as transphobic" [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 19:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Please see [[#Draft_proposal_in_context|this discussion above]] where a draft to replace that sentence in the lead with one that more accurately reflects the body content is underway. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Agreed, "both sides-ing" this in the article isn't rooted in reality. It's an overtly political, biased, and--yes--anti-trans move. |
|||
:::::Additionally, there are plenty of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that characterize Rowling as anti-trans or as a TERF, as listed below. By Wikipedia's own standards, these are more reliable than the popular media sources listed above. |
|||
:::::https://www.revistageminis.ufscar.br/index.php/geminis/article/view/759/516 |
|||
:::::McNamarah, Chan Tov. “CIS-WOMAN-PROTECTIVE ARGUMENTS.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 123, no. 3, 2023, pp. 845–928. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27211377. Accessed 15 Mar. 2024. |
|||
:::::Duggan, Jennifer. “Transformative Readings: Harry Potter Fan Fiction, Trans/Queer Reader Response, and J. K. Rowling.” Children’s Literature in Education, vol. 53, no. 2, June 2022, pp. 147–68. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9. [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You'll have to forgive my not being able to directly assess Martins and Sigliano, as I don't speak Portuguese. However is there a particular quote within that article that you think supports this? If so, could you please quote it both in the original Portuguese and provide a translation of it? |
|||
::::::McNamarah only comments on Rowling once, where they say {{tq|The British media ... largely welcomed author J.K. Rowling’s view that transgender equality jeopardizes cis women’s progress.}} That doesn't describe Rowling as an anti-trans activist, or any other related term. It merely states that the British media were welcoming of her views, just as they were supportive of Forstater's tribunal. |
|||
::::::The closest that Duggan gets to describing Rowling as an anti-trans activist is {{tq|Rowling’s personal, conservative views on sex and gender have recently been made abundantly clear through her repeated and escalating anti-trans commentary, posted between 2017 and 2020}}, where it's only describing her commentary as being anti-trans. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You're moving the goalpost. Please note that my suggestion for the rewrite did not describe her as an "anti-transgender activist," but as "known for having anti-trans views." The Duggan article is evidence for that. |
|||
:::::::As for McNamarah's, believing that transgender equality jeopardizes women's progress is, factually, an incorrect and anti-trans view. The article presents her view as notable and welcomed by the British media; therefore, why you may be correct that it doesn't describe her as an anti-trans *activist* per se, it does describe her as having anti-trans views that are notable (which they are). |
|||
:::::::As for the Martins and Sigliano article, this is from the Abstract: "This paper aims to analyze the dimensions of media competence present in the content published on Twitter |
|||
:::::::by Harry Potter fans and/or J.K. Rowling fans. The tweets are part of the #RIPJKRowling indexing context, which emerged from the author's transphobic positions." [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Respectfully I'm not. You said that {{tq|there are plenty of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that characterize Rowling as anti-trans or as a TERF}} and highlighted three articles. I was able to access two of them, and quoted their content on Rowling and how they describe her. One of the sources I was unable to access due to a language barrier, and I asked if you could provide a quotation and translation that supports what you've said. The two sources I could access do not support describing Rowling as an anti-trans activist or a TERF in the article lead, in line with Amanda's suggestion that we describe Rowling as an anti-transgender activist in the first sentence of the article lead. To do that, you need to have very strong and consistent sourcing, as it's not a label we use lightly in [[WP:VOICE|wikivoice]]. Presently, it does not appear as though we have the sourcing available to make this change. |
|||
::::::::There is a rather large difference between someone who is known to hold anti-trans views, and describing them as an anti-trans activist, as has been suggested in this discussion. We currently state later in the lead that Rowling's views {{tq|have been criticised as transphobic..}}, which is a rough synonym for holding anti-trans views, however there is also a [[#Draft_proposal_in_context|proposal above]] to re-phrase that and bring it more into line with the article's body. |
|||
::::::::As for Martins and Sigiliano, I'm more interested in what the paper says outside of the abstract. A research paper's abstract is a lot like a Wikipedia article's lead. It summarises and sets the stage for everything that follows in the article's body. That paper is 20 pages long, outside of its citations, and for our purposes it would be significantly more useful use its body content, rather than the single paragraph abstract. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 21:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Respectfully, you are. Note that I did not use the term "activist" in any of my posts in this discussion until you misattributed that term to my replies. I said that there is a wealth of scholarly evidence pertaining to JK Rowling's anti-trans views and how she has become known for them. This is true, and the listed examples prove this. Whether or not they use the term "activist" is irrelevant to my point; perhaps it is relevant to Amanda's point, but not mine nor my suggested wording, and to attribute it to mine is to commit a rather blatant straw man fallacy. That is not engaging in good faith. |
|||
:::::::::Perhaps there isn't enough evidence to use the term "activist" or even "TERF." But as it stands, JK Rowling's social relevance over the last several years has revolved around her anti-trans views, and there are plenty of reliable sources to back this up. This fact should be present in the introduction of the article. [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 21:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::The original suggestion that started this discussion was to change the first sentence of the lead to read {{tq|"is a British author and anti-transgender activist"}}. Everything I've been replying to is on that point, and how the sources don't support that change. |
|||
::::::::::Now if you're suggesting that we should state that Rowling's views are anti-trans, or transphobic, or some other synonym, we are ''already'' doing that. At end of the lead, which is the introduction of the article, there is a pair of sentences that currently read {{tq|She has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights since 2017. These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.}}. The second sentence from that does not really reflect the article's body content, and there is a [[#Draft_proposal_in_context|discussion above]] on changing it to better reflect the body. That discussion is happening separately to this one, on adding the descriptor "anti-trans activist" or some other synonym to the first sentence of the lead. If you feel those changes are in some way lacking, feel free to contribute to that discussion on that point. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::More recently: |
|||
::[https://www.ft.com/content/b289c397-bece-4cf9-9cc5-9e1b4908f3e7 "Rowling, a high-profile voice in the “gender critical” movement campaign around the importance of biological sex"] - Financial Times |
|||
::[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jk-rowling-scotland-hate-crime-trans-law-b2521897.html "...JK Rowling, author and prominent anti-trans activist."] - The Independent |
|||
::[https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-government-backs-jk-rowling-scottish-hate-crime-law-challenge-2024-04-02/ "The Harry Potter author, a prominent gender critical campaigner,"] - Reuters |
|||
::When will it be enough? [[User:Umdlye|Umdlye]] ([[User talk:Umdlye|talk]]) 13:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::"When will it be enough?" My exact question. The amount of news confirming her status as an anti-trans activist proportional to the efforts of Wikipedia watchdogs to downplay it does come off more as an attempt to protect her than to avoid bias. At the very least, this discussion looks more like a strict hierarchy of ideas than one moving toward a consensus. [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 14:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Hard agree. Her identity is completely associated with her anti-transgender views in the public consciousness; they have eclipsed and overshadowed her fiction work, and it is socially and morally irresponsible to pretend that they haven't. [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 17:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree. This is why we need to revisit the first sentence. The current way of dealing with this in the lead may have been appropriate five years ago, but not today. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 18:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The article lead, along with pretty much the entire body was extensively re-written two years ago during the [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1|Featured Article Review]], to bring the article back up to the standard of a [[Wikipedia:FA|featured article]]. The way in which we're dealing with the lead is appropriate based upon the content that is currently in the article's body, because [[WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY|an article's lead follows its body]]. Nowhere in the article's body do we describe Rowling as an anti-trans activist, or any other synonym, and no proposals have been brought forward to change the body to reflect that. That doesn't really matter however, as none of the sources provided so far actually describe Rowling as an anti-trans activist, so we couldn't support it in the article's body either. |
|||
:::I would strongly urge that all of the editors present who are unfamiliar with the featured article process, and what that means for adding content to an article to review [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1|the FAR discussion]] and its five sub-archives ([[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 1|archive 1]], [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2|archive 2]], [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3|archive 3]], [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4|archive 4]], [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5|archive 5]]), to get a handle on how this content was developed two years ago and what the process involved in changing it is. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think that while few harbor any illusions about Rowling's views and her use of her platform/wealth, and while I think that it does at this point absolutely warrant mention in the summary, there's a difference between that and being able to put the words "anti-transgender activist" in there in compliance with BLP guidelines. |
|||
:If you can dig up some RSP sources calling her or describing her activities directly as "anti-trans", "terf", "gender critical", or similar, then there might be a solid case. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 18:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Wait okay I saw the sources list you posted in the other comment, yeah I'm supportive then, though I think the wording is still something that should be carefully talked over [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 18:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, the exact wording should absolutely be carefully considered. The main point was that it should be reflected in some way in the sentence. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 18:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Right, looking over your sources, we have four separate RSP sources (CNN, Vox, Forbes, and Vulture) directly calling her a terf, and four more (CNN, Vox, Vanity Fair, and NBC) describing her beliefs and statements as anti-trans. That's a solid evidence base for a wide variety of wordings. |
|||
::::Perhaps we start with something like, "JK Rowling has more recently been notable for her prominent role in the anti-transgender movement, to the point of being regarded by many as a TERF" [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 18:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm sorry but no. Please see my comment above for my overview of the sourcing, and why they're not acceptable for any change in the lead on this point. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 18:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I posted this above but repeating here: to change the wording we generally workshop the proposed text and achieve consensus from all page watchers. See for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_15#Draft_proposal_to_reflect_discussion_and_new_sources_above this proposal]. That said, {{u|Sideswipe9th}} comment from above applies - the sources don't exist for the proposed change, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1213887349 diff] [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:There is definitely a disconnect between the subject's ongoing campaigning (generating increasingly concerning news reports) and the way it is described in the lede, but I'm not sure if copying that phrase from another article is the right way to fix that. This encyclopedia very clearly describes [[gender-critical feminism]] as categorically anti-trans, and the subject of this BLP recently explicitly described her own views as "gender critical": https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1765518705859977328. I would suggest changing the current vague description to match how this encyclopedia currently describes the movement. [[User:Umdlye|Umdlye]] ([[User talk:Umdlye|talk]]) 19:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with some of your points, but Rowling is very famous for donating enough money to lose her billionaire status, so the philanthropist bit is relevant to the body of data on the author. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7081:1603:A300:8448:8888:CC8F:BC90|2603:7081:1603:A300:8448:8888:CC8F:BC90]] ([[User talk:2603:7081:1603:A300:8448:8888:CC8F:BC90|talk]]) 15:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with some of your points, but Rowling is very famous for donating enough money to lose her billionaire status, so the philanthropist bit is relevant to the body of data on the author. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7081:1603:A300:8448:8888:CC8F:BC90|2603:7081:1603:A300:8448:8888:CC8F:BC90]] ([[User talk:2603:7081:1603:A300:8448:8888:CC8F:BC90|talk]]) 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.) |
|||
"Her identity is completely associated with her anti-transgender views" - feels to me that is primarily true for people dealing with transgender issues, but much less so for the rest. So there might be a bit of perception bias.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 04:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want. |
|||
:Reliable sources overwhelmingly focus on her anti-trans views and this has been the situation for years. When I looked through the first 100 Google News results recently all results were related to her anti-trans views in some way. She may have been a children's author two decades ago, but it is completely overshadowed by her anti-trans activism, judging by RS coverage. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Footnote [a] is mispositioned, if we accept my change, put it with footnote [b], otherwise, it should be a sentence earlier. |
|||
A quick comment: whether or not we describe her as an "anti-transgender activist", can we at least agree we can describe [[Maya Forstater]] as such? We have multiple high-quality sources describing her that way including both [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-tried-make-her-work-more-inclusive-then-she-tweeted-support-an-anti-trans-researcher/ the Washington Post] and [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html the New York Times]. |
|||
These two sentences come right before a remarkably readable and clear statement of her positions (most of the rest of that paragraph). And they are in no way as clear or readable as those statements. At the least, it shouldn't come first. |
|||
I also think that we could call Rowling's tweets "anti-trans" in Wikivoice as we do have [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/21/entertainment/jk-rowling-podcast-release-what-to-know-cec/index.html several] [https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy high] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html quality] [https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/ sources] saying that as well, below. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I do think it's important to be clear about at least some of the specific bills she opposes, since she does oppose specific bills and not just the general concept of gender self-recognition. But I also agree that sentence 3 should come first: we should say the general thing first, which is that she opposes gender self-recognition and then progress to more specific things she's said, like the specific bills she's opposed. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I would concur we have sufficient sources to call Rowling an anti-trans activist. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I also concur [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 13:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Beware of [[WP:OR]]. None of those sources describe Rowling as an "anti-trans[gender] activist". Only the second (Vox) contains the term, and uses it for other persons. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Bazza_7|Bazza <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /><span class="tmp-color" style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]])</span> 14:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I know these aren't the sources you were referring to in your comment, but since you're here and are better informed on these policies: |
|||
::Yesterday, The Independent and Reuters explicitly referred to Rowling as a [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jk-rowling-scotland-hate-crime-trans-law-b2521897.html "prominent anti-trans activist"] and [https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-government-backs-jk-rowling-scottish-hate-crime-law-challenge-2024-04-02/ "prominent gender critical campaigner"] respectively. Would you consider the latter a synonym of the former given that [[gender-critical feminism]] is categorically described as anti-transgender on Wikipedia? [[User:Umdlye|Umdlye]] ([[User talk:Umdlye|talk]]) 14:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Umdlye|Umdlye]]: Yes, for the Independent: it explicitly states "JK Rowling, author and prominent anti-trans activist". No for Reuters as it does not contain the phrase; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Find two more [[WP:RS]]s like the Independent which say the same thing and then it's reasonable for the article to state that JKR has been ''described as an anti-trans activist''. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Bazza_7|Bazza <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /><span class="tmp-color" style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]])</span> 17:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Draft 8== |
|||
== Second paragraph of Transgender people section == |
|||
I'm starting to see consensus to go ahead and implement this, but it would be a pity to do so without Sandy's forthcoming commentary.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
Ok, starting a workshop for this as there seems to be a rough consensus across several of the ongoing discussions for re-writing the second paragraph of the [[J. K. Rowling#Transgender people|transgender people]] to give a broader overview of how Rowling's views on transgender people and rights have changed over the last six or so years. Before we can consider any phrasing, the first step will be to find and assess all of the highest quality sources available that could support this re-write. I would suggest that we make separate lists for scholarly and book sources, news sources, and magazine sources, so I've added three subsections below where we can start adding links to those sources. Once you find a source, add a link to it with its title in the appropriate section. Once we've got a reasonable list of sources, we can start assessing them. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Draft 8.2: 407 words |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Draft 8.3, with extra paragraph: 444 words |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Historical: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1202117364#Transgender_people 429 words] |
|||
|- |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
:(Note: I am very interested in this talk thread and wish to contribute, but am also on vacation right now, so my contributions for the next week may be sparse) [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 10:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Quick couple of notes. When you're adding sources to the sections below, just add them with the correct CS1 template (eg {{tl|cite news}}, {{tl|cite journal}}, etc) without the ref tags. And make sure when you're adding sources to the lists that they're [[WP:GENREL|generally reliable]]. You can do a quick check against the entries on [[WP:RSP]], but remember that list only has publications that have been discussed multiple times, so you may also need to check the [[WP:RSN]] archives. Oh, and keep it to their factual reports only. [[WP:RSOPINION|Opinion articles]] aren't helpful at this stage. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 22:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
===Scholarship and book sources=== |
|||
Rowling has [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical]] views.{{sfn|Whited|2024|loc= p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'."}}{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|loc= pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs"}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|loc= pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)"}} She opposes the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the [[Equality Act 2010]] in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} and suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} In April 2024, responding to [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021|Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act]], she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".<ref name=Brooks2024>{{cite news |last1=Brooks |first1=Libby |title=JK Rowling’s posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/03/jk-rowling-comments-scotland-non-crime-hate-incident |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 April 2024 |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> |
|||
* {{cite journal |last1=Ravell |first1=Hannah |title=#RIPJKRowling: A tale of a fandom, Twitter and a haunting author who refuses to die |journal=[[Sage Journals]] |date=5 June 2023 |volume=12 |issue=3 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2046147X231180501#con |access-date=17 March 2024}} |
|||
** Provocative-sounding title but this basically analyzes fan rejection of JKR through the concept of [[Death of the Author]] --[[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite journal |last1=Hobbs |first1=Mitchell John |last2=O'Keefe |first2=Sarah |title=Agonism in the arena: Analyzing cancel culture using a rhetorical model of deviance and reputational repair |journal=[[Public Relations Review]] |date=March 2024 |volume=50 |issue=1 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811123001352 |access-date=17 March 2024}} |
|||
** Analysis of cancel culture; JKR is one of four case studies --[[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite journal |last1=Gwenffrewi |first1=Gina |title=J. K. Rowling and the Echo Chamber of Secrets |journal=[[Transgender Studies Quarterly]] |date=1 August 2022 |volume=9 |issue=3 |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221106002848id_/https://watermark.silverchair.com/507gwenffrewi.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsUwggLBBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKyMIICrgIBADCCAqcGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMK3mkeQtQG7oE6yIoAgEQgIICeMfIXIz0mUVH-p9wjF8qOutgKZ71pFuqU9dWVFHpXkqctbceLs25ybRNcAtexjRVyqHJE-_aVYeQC2VdbE7i-JZhcapd4hi9e-PvykYgcW4pZ-k9QKNIntywYvDSioDTK7DIbos4hZOcSXJ8VORYq5XBkGGSmRdPikE0WT1OC2p56VrtcENIH_tqmI6UtCcKYT0J4Egi1dwvRy6KtiXYg_21yuQ_-WdH_Ym3eH_UAzN_s7-aqClTuKecOCJpYF_OIVmXcTpZqimwYeplxlLpT8BCd7VfXeC4LvC_wEXVOw1tXY48O8VEzvgh00Wpi06keDqPFRbFTTY2cty2Rgce6iyx2Gv5iCAP0-pLs4kTv3xIQVujuNO-6QUJYrFO9eEX-cyOWq-084oIaa-Rynuy51DoBI5SUOCoq5nYJ3NKv5OOSwCh9yABVljy5s8x_QQ6hPXHSbcfxkbE_UX4Mm0aM6g1LkxPSVzi-XXpJK98qY2D7ItVdXnO6Ul8UHqlCm4GWzESs5H-XOUnrxJ5TYLj7326AckNZJISyllSR-Ugibch6ovMgVR9aDdeF-yV80rYXi-pcvfES2PNRVCWShfiMaBu-dBAvjTb_4Asr_yOrZlIWoU4AbkireKaurUVXdVQjCmZavwZs-0BvkPIvrrUNSUuPyDBfiJJA5T5wP1GErfoEsVxfiQxcs1stQzK7HnPXdqHamtS7LOUsraVipK9jdFZXt8ZG_G6C8ri5WqeKQFiET429XnlsZftn4xmlCyEFI74FBG6xG1ZeZEt9cb_VlqO6nMLmyCimooiLgkU1NMOZyZx1JlcEi5rsuTDkP6nn2BQsdRtTqCC |access-date=17 March 2024}} |
|||
** Analysis of anti-trans opinion pieces, including JKR's "TERF Wars", with an autoethnographic angle --[[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 17:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite journal |last1=Duggan |first1=Jennifer |title=Transformative Readings: Harry Potter Fan Fiction, Trans/Queer Reader Response, and J. K. Rowling |journal=[[Children's Literature in Education]] |date=June 2022 |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=147–168 |doi=10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9}} |
|||
* {{cite book |last1=Pugh |first1=Tison |title=Harry Potter and beyond: on J. K. Rowling's fantasies and other fictions |date=2020 |publisher=[[The University of South Carolina Press]] |location=Columbia, South Carolina |isbn=1643360876}} |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
===News sources=== |
|||
Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]],{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6–8}} whose [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|Forstater's employment contract was not renewed]] after she shared gender-critical views.{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=230}} In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} According to ''Harry Potter'' scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} In June 2020,{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} Rowling mocked the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=14–15}}{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} |
|||
Add news sources here. Remove this comment when adding the first source. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 19:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
:'''CNN dump'''. If you have a CNN source, post it here and give it a name. Avoid opinion pieces if possible: |
|||
Rowling's views have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
:{{Cite news |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/21/entertainment/jk-rowling-podcast-release-what-to-know-cec/index.html |title=What to know about the new J.K. Rowling podcast and her history of harmful anti-trans comments |date=February 21, 2023 }} |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
:{{Cite news |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/30/entertainment/jk-rowling-harry-potter-reunion/index.html |date=August 30, 2022 |title=J.K. Rowling says it was her choice not to appear in ‘Harry Potter’ reunion}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> She has been the target of widespread condemnation,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} insults, and threats, including death threats.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}}<ref name=Burnell4June>{{Cite news|last=Burnell|first=Paul|date=4 June 2024|title= Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o |access-date= 9 June 2024}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/><ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref><ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
:{{Cite news |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |date=June 10, 2020 |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash}} |
|||
:{{Cite news |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/15/entertainment/jk-rowling-troubled-blood-book-trans-gbr-scli-intl/index.html |date=September 15, 2020 |title=JK Rowling’s new book sparks fresh transgender rights row}} |
|||
:{{Cite news |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/03/entertainment/harry-potter-sites-condemn-rowling-intl-scli-gbr/index.html |date=July 3, 2020 |title=‘Harry Potter’ fan sites distance themselves from J.K. Rowling over gender identity comments}} |
|||
:{{Cite news |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/22/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-agency-gbr-intl/index.html |date=June 22, 2020 |title=Authors at J.K. Rowling’s literary agency quit over company’s refusal to speak out on transgender rights}} |
|||
:{{Cite news |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-tweets-scli-intl-gbr/index.html |date=December 20, 2019 |title=JK Rowling under fire over transgender comments}} |
|||
:{{Cite news |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/11/uk/jk-rowling-trans-harry-potter-gbr-intl/index.html |date=June 11, 2020 |title=Trans activists call J.K. Rowling essay ‘devastating’}} |
|||
:[[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
:'''NBC Dump''' |
|||
Rowling denies being transphobic.<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= Dismisses>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy' |date= 22 February 2023|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}}<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title=J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} |
|||
:NBC1[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351] NBC2[https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/jk-rowlings-new-book-youtube-cartoonist-gets-doxxed-online-trolls-rcna45504] NBC3[https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/harry-potter-tv-series-targeted-2026-premiere-jk-rowling-recently-met-rcna140321] NBC4[https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-pop-culture/broadcaster-reported-jk-rowling-police-alleged-transphobic-social-medi-rcna142302] NBC5[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-accused-transphobia-after-mocking-people-who-menstruate-n1227071] NBC6[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-j-k-rowling-book-raises-more-allegations-transphobia-n1240057] NBC7[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/jk-rowling-s-drawn-backlash-anti-trans-beliefs-hits-back-putin-citing-rcna21587] NBC8[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/warner-bros-discovery-condemns-threats-jk-rowling-tweeting-support-sal-rcna43022] NBC9[https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/jk-rowling-slams-transgender-activists-posting-home-address-twitter-rcna6375] NBC10[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-faces-backlash-after-tweeting-support-transphobic-researcher-n1104971] NBC11[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-returns-kennedy-family-award-after-transphobic-tweets-n1238674] NBC12[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-warns-against-new-kind-conversion-therapy-n1232958] NBC13[https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/gop-senator-quotes-j-k-rowling-while-blocking-vote-lgbtq-n1231569] NBC14[https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-pop-culture/quidditch-change-name-citing-jk-rowlings-anti-trans-positions-rcna9149] [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:These should help give some context to how her comments have changed over time. |
|||
:'''Other''' |
|||
:{{cite web |title=A timeline of JK Rowling’s comments about women and transgender rights |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-trans-twitter-timeline-b2326256.html |website=[[The Independent]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |language=en |date=25 April 2023}} |
|||
:{{cite web |title=The metamorphosis of J.K. Rowling |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/03/the-metamorphosis-of-j-k-rowling-00043835 |website=[[Politico]] |date=3 July 2022}} |
|||
:{{cite web |last1=Romano |first1=Aja |title=Is J.K. Rowling transphobic? Let’s let her speak for herself. |url=https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy |website=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |language=en |date=3 March 2023}} |
|||
:{{cite web |last1=McKee |first1=Jake |title=The long and ugly history of JK Rowling and her views on trans people |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/10/what-has-jk-rowling-said-about-transgender-people/ |website=[[PinkNews]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |date=10 February 2023}} |
|||
:[[User:13tez|13tez]] ([[User talk:13tez|talk]]) 22:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite news |last1=Jacobs |first1=Julia |title=Harry Potter Fans Reimagine Their World Without Its Creator |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/style/jk-rowling-transgender-fans.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=12 June 2020}} --[[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 02:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{cite news |last1=Rao |first1=Sonia |last2=Ohlheiser |first2=Abby |title=J.K. Rowling tried to make her work more inclusive. Then she tweeted support for an anti-trans researcher. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-tried-make-her-work-more-inclusive-then-she-tweeted-support-an-anti-trans-researcher/ |work=[[Washington Post]] |date=20 December 2019}} --[[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 02:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
* Sources on misgendering India Willoughby in March 2024 |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Murray |first1=Tom |title=JK Rowling deliberately misgenders trans activist India Willoughby |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-twitter-india-willoughby-trans-b2506793.html |website=[[The Independent]] |language=en |date=4 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Bradley |first1=Sian |title=JK Rowling reported to police for ‘misgendering’ trans TV newsreader |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-reported-to-police-for-misgendering-trans-tv-newsreader-6bzj0llwb |website=[[The Times]] |language=en |date=16 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Tait |first1=Albert |last2=Sanderson |first2=Daniel |title=JK Rowling reported to police by trans activist India Willoughby for misgendering |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/07/jk-rowling-reported-police-trans-india-willoughby/ |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |language=en |date=7 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |title=JK Rowling: Trans newsreader India Willoughby calls comments by Harry Potter author 'grotesque transphobia' |url=https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-trans-newsreader-india-willoughby-calls-comments-by-harry-potter-author-grotesque-transphobia-13087709 |website=[[Sky News]] |language=en |date=5 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Baska |first1=Maggie |title=JK Rowling misgenders trans journalist India Willoughby in 'grotesque' post |url=https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/03/05/jk-rowling-misgenders-india-willoughby-anti-trans-comments-online/ |website=[[PinkNews]] |language=en |date=5 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Bradley |first1=Sian |title=JK Rowling’s misgendering of India Willoughby was no crime, say police |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowlings-misgendering-of-india-willoughby-was-no-crime-say-police-tfmj5g00v |website=[[The Times]] |language=en |date=19 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Perry |first1=Kevin E G |title=India Willoughby’s JK Rowling complaint did not meet criminal threshold, police say |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-india-willoughby-police-trans-b2509754.html |website=[[The Independent]] |language=en |date=8 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Sanderson |first1=Daniel |title=Police will not investigate JK Rowling over ‘misgendering’ trans activist |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/08/police-will-not-investigate-jk-rowling-over-misgendering/ |website=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |date=8 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |title=Transgender broadcaster reports J.K. Rowling to police over social media comments |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/transgender-broadcaster-reports-jk-rowling-police-over-social-media-comments-2024-03-07/ |website=[[Reuters]] |date=7 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Roberts |first1=Hannah |title=JK Rowling responds after being reported to police over misgendering broadcaster |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jk-rowling-india-willoughby-misgender-b2508819.html |website=[[The Independent]] |date=7 March 2024}} |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
* Sources on Rowling's comments on trans people in Nazi Germany in March 2024 |
|||
Rowling has [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical]] views.{{sfn|Whited|2024|loc= p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'."}}{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|loc= pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs"}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|loc= pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)"}} She opposes the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the [[Equality Act 2010]] in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} and suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} In April 2024, responding to [[Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021|Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act]], she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".<ref name=Brooks2024>{{cite news |last1=Brooks |first1=Libby |title=JK Rowling’s posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/03/jk-rowling-comments-scotland-non-crime-hate-incident |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=3 April 2024 |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Fox |first1=Mira |title=It wasn't just the goblins — is J.K. Rowling doing Holocaust denial now? |url=https://forward.com/culture/592580/j-k-rowling-holocaust-denial-trans/ |website=[[The Forward]] |date=13 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Hayes |first1=Britt |title=J.K. Rowling's Transphobia Hits a New Low With Holocaust Denial |url=https://www.themarysue.com/j-k-rowling-holocaust-denial-nazi-transphobic/ |website=[[The Mary Sue]] |date=13 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Romano |first1=Aja |title=Is J.K. Rowling transphobic? Let’s let her speak for herself. |url=https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy |website=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] |date=3 March 2023}} |
|||
** {{cite web |title=JK Rowling under fire for ‘transphobic’ remarks, claims Nazis never burnt books on trans health |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/jk-rowling-under-fire-for-transphobic-remarks-claims-nazis-never-burnt-books-on-trans-health-101710387965834.html |website=[[Hindustan Times]] |date=14 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Lazine |first1=Mira |title=JK Rowling accused of “Holocaust denial” over posts about transgender persecution in Nazi Germany |url=https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/03/jk-rowling-denies-transgender-persecution-during-the-holocaust/ |website=[[LGBTQ Nation]] |date=14 March 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Ring |first1=Trudy |title=Yes, J.K. Rowling, the Nazis persecuted transgender people |url=https://www.advocate.com/transgender/jk-rowling-nazis-persecuted-transgender |website=[[The Advocate (magazine)|Advocate]] |date=15 March 2024}} |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
*Sources on April Fools Twitter thread: |
|||
Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]],{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6–8}} whose [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|Forstater's employment contract was not renewed]] after she shared gender-critical views.{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref>{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=230}} In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} According to ''Harry Potter'' scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} In June 2020,{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=6}} Rowling mocked the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=14–15}}{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}} |
|||
** {{cite news |last1=Cook |first1=James |last2=Hastie |first2=Paul |title=JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over Scottish hate crime law |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o |access-date=2 April 2024 |work=[[BBC]] |date=1 April 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite news |last1=Bonar |first1=Megan |last2=Scott |first2=Katy |title=JK Rowling hate law posts not criminal, police say |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-68712471 |date=2 April 2024 |work=[[BBC]]}} |
|||
** {{cite news |last1=Evans |first1=Greg |title=J.K. Rowling Mocks Trans Women To Defy Scotland’s New Hate Crime Law: “I Look Forward To Being Arrested” |url=https://deadline.com/2024/04/jk-rowling-scotland-hate-crime-law-1235872981/ |access-date=2 April 2024 |work=[[Deadline Hollywood|Deadline]] |date=1 April 2024}} |
|||
** {{cite news |last1=Harrison |first1=Ellie |title=JK Rowling could be probed by police for misgendering trans people, minister says |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-misgender-trans-snp-b2521530.html |access-date=2 April 2024 |work=[[The Independent]] |date=1 April 2024 |language=en}} |
|||
*** Also mentions previous Willoughby incident |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
* Existing sources currently in 2nd paragraph |
|||
Rowling's views have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
** {{cite web |title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |website=[[The Independent]] |date=17 September 2020}} |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
** {{cite web |title=Daniel Radcliffe Criticizes J.K. Rowling’s Anti-Transgender Tweets |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |website=[[New York Times]] |date=7 June 2020}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> She has been the target of widespread condemnation,{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} insults, and threats, including death threats.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}}<ref name=Burnell4June>{{Cite news|last=Burnell|first=Paul|date=4 June 2024|title= Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o |access-date= 9 June 2024}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/><ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref><ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
** {{cite web |last1=Moreau |first1=Jordan |title=J.K. Rowling Gets Backlash Over Anti-Trans Tweets |url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/ |website=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] |date=6 June 2020}} |
|||
** {{cite web |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |website=[[BBC News]] |date=6 July 2022}} |
|||
** {{cite web |title=J.K. Rowling Criticized After Tweeting Support for Anti-Transgender Researcher |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html |website=[[New York Times]] |date=2019-12-20}} |
|||
<!-- Nevertheless --> |
|||
===Magazine sources=== |
|||
Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful. Sales of ''Harry Potter'' books grew during the [[COVID-19]] lockdown.{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=238}}<ref>{{cite news |first=Mark |last= Sweney |title= Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |work= [[The Guardian]] |date= 21 July 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In 2023, streaming series Max (formerly HBO) began to develop a television series<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 April 2023 |title=First ever Harry Potter television series ordered by new streaming service, Max |url=https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/first-ever-harry-potter-television-series-coming-to-max |access-date=2023-04-13 |website=Wizarding World |language=en |archive-date=12 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230412214511/https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/first-ever-harry-potter-television-series-coming-to-max |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=12 April 2023 |title=Introducing the enhanced streaming service: Max |url=https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/introducing-enhanced-streaming-service-max |access-date=2023-04-13 |website=Wizarding World |language=en |archive-date=12 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230412214510/https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/introducing-enhanced-streaming-service-max |url-status=live }}</ref> which will be released in 2026.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tapp |first=Tom |date=2024-02-23 |title='Harry Potter' TV Series Due To Hit Max In 2026: Everything We Know About The Cast, What J.K. Rowling Says & More – Update |url=https://deadline.com/2024/02/harry-potter-tv-series-max-release-date-cast-1235323284/ |access-date=2024-02-23 |website=Deadline |language=en-US}}</ref> |
|||
* {{cite news |last1=Morrow |first1=Brendan |title=J.K. Rowling's transphobia controversy: A complete timeline |url=https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline |access-date=17 March 2024 |work=[[The Week]] |date=13 February 2023 |language=en}} |
|||
** Best one of those "timeline" articles, not high quality but a good starting point --[[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* More magazine timelines for what they're worth |
|||
:{{cite web |title=The New J.K. Rowling Podcast and Her History of Transphobia |url=https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/jk-rowling-podcast-transphobia |website=[[Advocate]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |language=en |date=22 Feb 2023}} |
|||
:{{cite web |last1=Murray |first1=Conor |title=J.K. Rowling Defends Herself In Podcast: Her Controversial Comments On Transgender Issues Explained |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/02/15/jk-rowling-defends-herself-in-podcast-heres-her-controversial-comments-on-transgender-issues-explained/ |website=[[Forbes]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |language=en |date=15 Feb 2023}} |
|||
:{{cite web |title=A Complete Breakdown of the J.K. Rowling Transgender-Comments Controversy |url=https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy |website=[[Glamour]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |date=19 October 2023}} |
|||
:{{cite web |title=A breakdown of the J.K. Rowling transgender comments |url=https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-transphobia-explained |website=[[Glamour UK]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |date=27 Feb 2024}} |
|||
:{{cite web |title=A timeline of JK Rowling’s views on trans rights as she reveals ‘death threats’ from activists {{!}} indy100 |url=https://www.indy100.com/celebrities/jk-rowling-trans-twitter-timeline-transphobic-b1887157 |website=[[Indy 100]] |language=en |date=20 Jul 2021}} |
|||
:{{cite web |last1=Doyle |first1=Jack |title=J.K. Rowling Launches Yet Another Attack on Trans Women |url=https://www.themarysue.com/jk-rowling-controversy-explained/ |website=[[The Mary Sue]] |access-date=17 March 2024 |language=en |date=13 March 2024}} |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
== Is the transgender section imbalanced? == |
|||
Rowling denies being transphobic.<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= Dismisses>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy' |date= 22 February 2023|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64729304 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}} – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].{{sfn|Duggan|2021|pp=160–161)}}<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title=J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |publisher=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
Hey everyone! You might have seen me explaining my concern with the [[WP:BALANCE]] of this section at different spots on this page. I've kept reflecting on it and now, since there's an initiative to partly rework the section (thanks @[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]]!), I thought this would be the best time to propose this discussion on it. This may or may not be stuff to keep in mind while reworking the section. Tell me if you agree or disagree: |
|||
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref>{{efn|The UK laws and proposed changes are the [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]], the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] and the related [[Equality Act 2010]].{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} }} and her views on [[sexual identity|sex]] and [[gender identity|gender]], have provoked controversy.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} Her statements have divided [[Feminist views on transgender topics|feminists]];<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> debates on [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]]{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} and [[cancel culture]];{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
So, a considerable part of this section is dedicated to Rowling's public statements. Of course, this makes sense; those statements are the primary source of information we have to understand her views, and they must be included. The balance issue I see comes from how this section ''only'' relies on her statements, and which ones of those statements are prioritized : |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
When [[Maya Forstater]]'s employment contract with the London branch of the [[Center for Global Development]] was not renewed after she tweeted [[Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism|gender-critical views]],{{sfn|Pugh|2020|p=7}}<ref name=Stack2019>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|title=J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher|last=Stack|first=Liam|date=19 December 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=13 June 2020| url-access=registration|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613012737/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html|archive-date=13 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that [[transgender]] people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".<ref name=Stack2019/>{{efn|A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]].<ref name=Faulkner2021>{{cite news |first= Doug |last= Faulkner |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579 |title= Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets |publisher= [[BBC News]] |date= 10 June 2021 |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref><ref name=Siddique2021>{{cite news |first= Haroon |last= Siddique |date= 10 June 2021 |title= Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules|url= https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 26 March 2022}}</ref> In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (''[[Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe]]'') ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules|date=6 July 2022 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62061929 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |access-date=6 July 2022}}</ref>}} In another controversial tweet in June 2020,<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "[[people who menstruate]]",<ref name=Gross2020>{{Cite news|last=Gross|first=Jenny|date=7 June 2020|title=Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets|work=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607221400/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html |archive-date=7 June 2020 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|access-date=6 January 2022 }}</ref> and tweeted that [[women's rights]] and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15}}<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|title=J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets|last=Moreau|first=Jordan|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=6 June 2020|access-date=13 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607005447/https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/|archive-date=7 June 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
# First of all, there's a nuance between '''statements''' and '''views'''. While statements are the default mode of expression of one's views, they're not the only way to express those views. The case of JKR is maybe special in that sense because the controversy around her views, as she acknowledges herself in her essay [https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ "TERF Wars"], didn't start with her statements but with the scrutiny of her Twitter activity. I wondered for a while if this was just a chronically-online thing that only a couple of people remembered, but I actually found it to be mentioned as the beginning of the controversy in tons of quality secondary sources: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/style/jk-rowling-transgender-fans.html][https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2046147X231180501#con][https://web.archive.org/web/20221106002848id_/https://watermark.silverchair.com/507gwenffrewi.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsUwggLBBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKyMIICrgIBADCCAqcGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMK3mkeQtQG7oE6yIoAgEQgIICeMfIXIz0mUVH-p9wjF8qOutgKZ71pFuqU9dWVFHpXkqctbceLs25ybRNcAtexjRVyqHJE-_aVYeQC2VdbE7i-JZhcapd4hi9e-PvykYgcW4pZ-k9QKNIntywYvDSioDTK7DIbos4hZOcSXJ8VORYq5XBkGGSmRdPikE0WT1OC2p56VrtcENIH_tqmI6UtCcKYT0J4Egi1dwvRy6KtiXYg_21yuQ_-WdH_Ym3eH_UAzN_s7-aqClTuKecOCJpYF_OIVmXcTpZqimwYeplxlLpT8BCd7VfXeC4LvC_wEXVOw1tXY48O8VEzvgh00Wpi06keDqPFRbFTTY2cty2Rgce6iyx2Gv5iCAP0-pLs4kTv3xIQVujuNO-6QUJYrFO9eEX-cyOWq-084oIaa-Rynuy51DoBI5SUOCoq5nYJ3NKv5OOSwCh9yABVljy5s8x_QQ6hPXHSbcfxkbE_UX4Mm0aM6g1LkxPSVzi-XXpJK98qY2D7ItVdXnO6Ul8UHqlCm4GWzESs5H-XOUnrxJ5TYLj7326AckNZJISyllSR-Ugibch6ovMgVR9aDdeF-yV80rYXi-pcvfES2PNRVCWShfiMaBu-dBAvjTb_4Asr_yOrZlIWoU4AbkireKaurUVXdVQjCmZavwZs-0BvkPIvrrUNSUuPyDBfiJJA5T5wP1GErfoEsVxfiQxcs1stQzK7HnPXdqHamtS7LOUsraVipK9jdFZXt8ZG_G6C8ri5WqeKQFiET429XnlsZftn4xmlCyEFI74FBG6xG1ZeZEt9cb_VlqO6nMLmyCimooiLgkU1NMOZyZx1JlcEi5rsuTDkP6nn2BQsdRtTqCC][https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-accused-transphobia-after-mocking-people-who-menstruate-n1227071][https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/jk-rowling-tried-make-her-work-more-inclusive-then-she-tweeted-support-an-anti-trans-researcher/][https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/21/entertainment/jk-rowling-podcast-release-what-to-know-cec/index.html][https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/19/jk-rowling-trans-row-court-ruling-twitter-maya-forstater]. Some of these sources mention [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-accused-transphobia-after-mocking-people-who-menstruate-n1227071 a first "like" in 2017], but most of them focus on the [https://www.thepinknews.com/2018/03/22/jk-rowling-reps-blame-middle-aged-moment-for-liking-tweet-calling-trans-women-men-in-dresses/ 2018 "men in dresses" like]. In our section, the first incident mentioned is Rowling's [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-rowling-maya-forstater-transgender.html tweet in support of Maya Forstater], in 2019, a year and a half later. |
|||
# My concern with this omission is not just that a key piece of information is missing. We have to remember that this section contains the description of a '''debate''', therefore we need to uphold [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|WP:NPOV]]. Most of the statements by Rowling that are cited currently are defensive in nature, so the full context behind them is essential to the neutrality of the section. As I highlighted in my first point, newspapers, academics and Rowling herself all recognize that she has been criticized for more than her statements, and cite the role played by her Twitter activity. Therefore, the fact that only her statements — defensive statements, for the most part — are mentioned in this section goes against [[WP:BALANCE]]. |
|||
# Not only are just her statements cited, ''which'' statements are cited is also what I think makes the section imbalanced. In particular, the fact that her [https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/transgender-broadcaster-reports-jk-rowling-police-over-social-media-comments-2024-03-07/ misgendering of India Willoughby] is currently left out poses a problem. I understand waiting for the best quality sources, but most of her other statements currently cited in the section — for example, her first defensive tweet from 2019, or the near full paragraph on the content of "TERF Wars"; all supported only by breaking news — are backed by the exact same level of sourcing. And regardless of the original intention, we have to recognize that it may look biased to cite Rowling saying that trans people deserve "peace and security", while omitting that she also called a trans woman "a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks 'woman' means". To be clear, my suggestion is that the Willoughby incident be added back, not that other stuff be removed, although any effort to uphold consistent standards across the section will be an improvement. |
|||
# These inconsistent standards apply beyond her statements. If the reason for omitting Willoughby is that it's an individual incident — something I would tend to disagree with, as it's also the clear expression of an opinion — then other individual incidents, which are arguably less notable and are also backed by lesser-quality sourcing, would also need to be questioned. Examples: Ripple of Hope Award, open letter condemning "hate speech". |
|||
# This final point is maybe more trivial and unrelated, but I think the order and structure of the section should be changed, especially with the first and fourth paragraphs. Both contain information that would belong in a "general overview" paragraph, so I don't understand why they're separated. In particular, I don't see why the first paragraph mentions first and foremost that her statements have "divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people", but the fact that those same statements "have been called transphobic" is separated from the other stuff and relegated to the 4th paragraph. In any case, this would inevitably be addressed if, as some suggested, we rework the section to show the progression of her views in more of a linear way. |
|||
[[LGBT]] charities and leading actors of the [[Wizarding World]] franchise condemned Rowling's comments;<ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref>{{efn| [[Daniel Radcliffe]], [[Emma Watson]], [[Rupert Grint]],<ref name= Hibberd2021/> [[Eddie Redmayne]]<ref name=Lang2020/> and others expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments;<ref>{{cite magazine |first= Maureen |last= Lenker|title= Every Harry Potter actor who's spoken out against J.K. Rowling's controversial trans comments |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 1 April 2022 |magazine= [[Entertainment Weekly]]|url=https://ew.com/movies/every-harry-potter-actor-whos-spoken-out-against-j-k-rowlings-controversial-transgender-comments/ }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first= Maggie |last= Baska|title= Stephen Fry defends 'friendship' with JK Rowling: 'I'm sorry that people are upset' |date= 20 May 2021 |url= https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/05/20/stephen-fry-jk-rowling-friend-harry-potter-jordan-b-peterson-podcast-trans/ |publisher= [[PinkNews]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> [[Helena Bonham Carter]],<ref name=Evans2022> {{cite news |first= Greg |last= Evans |url= https://deadline.com/2022/11/helena-bonham-carter-johnny-depp-j-k-rowling-1235182523/ |title= Helena Bonham Carter says Johnny Depp 'completely vindicated' in defamation trial, and J.K. Rowling 'hounded' for transgender stance |work= [[Deadline Hollywood]] |access-date= 18 December 2022}}</ref> [[Robbie Coltrane]],<ref>{{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first= Hannah |title= How the 'Harry Potter' reunion addresses author J.K. Rowling's anti-trans controversy |date= 30 December 2021|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/30/harry-potter-return-hogwarts-20th-reunion-emma-watson-jk-rowling-controversy/9042955002/ |work= [[USA Today]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> and [[Ralph Fiennes]] supported Rowling.<ref name= Hibberd2021>{{cite news |first= James |last= Hibberd |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ralph-fiennes-defends-j-k-rowling-amid-trans-controversy-says-backlash-is-disturbing-4151944/ |title= Ralph Fiennes defends J.K. rowling amid trans controversy, says backlash is 'disturbing' |date= 17 March 2021 |access-date=26 March 2022 |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]]}}</ref>}} [[GLAAD]] called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".<ref name= Yasharoff2020> {{cite news |last= Yasharoff |first=Hannah|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/07/j-k-rowling-harry-potter-author-slammed-transphobic-comments/3169833001/ |title= J.K. Rowling reveals she's a sexual assault survivor; Emma Watson reacts to trans comments |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 10 June 2020 |access-date= 27 March 2022}}</ref> Rowling responded with an essay on her website<ref name=RowlingReasons>{{cite web|title=J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues |url=https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |publisher=JK Rowling |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=10 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200610182056/https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ |archive-date=10 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and [[sexual assault]].<ref name=Shirbon2020>{{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.<ref name= Shirbon2020/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Sandra |title=J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/10/entertainment/jk-rowling/index.html |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CNN]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Garrand |first1=Danielle |title= J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making "anti-trans" comments on Twitter |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ |access-date=16 September 2023 |work=[[CBS News]] |date=11 June 2020}}</ref> Writing of her own experiences with [[sexism]] and [[misogyny]],<ref>{{cite news |first= Sian |last= Cain |date= 11 June 2020 |title= JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault |url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/10/jk-rowling-says-survivor-of-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to [[Gender transitioning|transition]] if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".<ref name=DAlessandro2020>{{cite news |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |title=J.K. Rowling defends trans statements in lengthy essay, reveals she's a sexual assault survivor & says 'trans people need and deserve protection' |url=https://deadline.com/2020/06/j-k-rowling-defends-trans-statements-essay-1202955524/ |access-date=5 January 2022 |work=[[Deadline Hollywood]] |date=10 June 2020}}</ref> |
|||
If you've read this, thank you! If you share some of my concerns, please tell me if you'd be interested in working on improving this section. We're already starting to collect newer sources for an update, so we might as well use this opportunity now. And if you disagree, please let me know why, I'll be happy to discuss. |
|||
Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}<ref name= Jacobs2023>{{cite news |last= Jacobs |first= Julia |title= Hogwarts legacy can't cast aside debate over J. K. Rowling |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/arts/hogwarts-legacy-jk-rowling.html |date= 9 February 2023 |work = [[The New York Times]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name= Spangler2023>{{cite news |last= Spangler|first= Todd |title= J.K. Rowling addresses backlash to her anti-trans comments in new podcast: 'I never set out to upset anyone' |url= https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/jk-rowling-anti-trans-comments-podcast-witch-trials-1235522301/ |date= 14 February 2023|work= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref> – have been called transphobic by critics<ref name= Breznican2023>{{cite news |last= Breznican |first= Anthony |title= J.K. Rowling will oversee a new streaming ''Harry Potter'' series |url= https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/04/jk-rowling-harry-potter-series|date= 12 April 2023 |work= [[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |access-date= 14 July 2023}}</ref><ref name=Rosenblatt2020>{{Cite web|last = Rosenblatt| first =Kalhan |title=J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351|date= 10 June 2020 |access-date=19 January 2022|publisher=[[NBC News]] }}</ref> and she has been referred to as a [[TERF (acronym)|TERF]].<ref name= Rosenblatt2020/>{{sfn|Steinfeld|2020|pp=34–35}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–368}} She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.<ref name=RowlingReasons/><ref name= Breznican2023/><ref name= Spangler2023/> Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the ''Harry Potter'' fansites [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]];<ref name=FanSites>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights|publisher=[[Reuters]]|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200703011204/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights|archive-date=3 July 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> and the charities [[Mermaids (charity)|Mermaids]],<ref name=Petter2020/> [[Stonewall (charity)|Stonewall]],<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref>{{cite news |first= Elise |last= Brisco |title=Dave Chappelle says he's 'Team TERF,' defends J.K. Rowling in new Netflix comedy special|url= https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/10/05/dave-chappelle-terf-defends-j-k-rowling-netflix-special/6002017001/ |work= [[USA Today]] |date= 8 October 2021|access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> |
|||
[[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 04:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I am starting to seriously wonder whether she has devoted most of her recent life to picking fights, rather than working. Every time I come across a news report on her, it is about a fight or an outrageous statement. When was the last time she released a newsworthy book? At this point, we could easily have several spin-off articles about her "controversies". Plenty of sources, if an editor can stomach them. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 12:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]]: The article shows [[The Running Grave|26 Sep 2023]] as the answer to your first question. There are ''Main article'' links to more in-depth coverage of her works, as well as [[Religious debates over the Harry Potter series]], [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]], including {{Section link|Political views of J. K. Rowling|Transgender rights}} and the [[Politics of Harry Potter]]. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Bazza_7|Bazza <span class="tmp-color" style="color:grey">7</span>]] ([[User_talk:Bazza_7|talk]])</span> 12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] The answer to your question would be 2023, with a book that is shortlisted for Crime and Fiction Book of the Year by the British Book Awards.[https://publishingperspectives.com/2024/03/the-uks-nibbies-books-of-the-year-shortlists/]. Beware of confirmation bias. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:2C85:5F01:6117:98DF:6359:9333|2A00:23C8:2C85:5F01:6117:98DF:6359:9333]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C8:2C85:5F01:6117:98DF:6359:9333|talk]]) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::She has, in fact, released new, massive books in the Cormoran Strike series at a fairly rapid pace, despite devoting some of her time for online spats. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 02:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I will say the last paragraph of the section seems determined to "clear her name" using sources mainly from 4-5 years ago and ignoring everything since then (the whole section is somewhat outdated, for that matter, but here the outdatedness is definitely pushing a POV). Just as a more recent example, she's gotten a lot of press recently for denying transgender people were targeted in the Holocaust; it's unlikely she has the same support she did early on, but quote a lot of statements from four years ago or so - or, rather, ''don't'' include any nuance like that and just say a bunch of people support her and don't talk about the people who vehemently do not, and you get a very dismissive statement that appears to be encyclopedic. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 13:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== The POV-pushing last paragraph == |
|||
I mean, that's my opinion of this, but I think it's justified. I mentioned my dislike for this paragraph above, but it's bad enough that I feel comfortable pulling it here for discussion, because it's not really adding anything but bias. |
|||
{{cquote|1= |
|||
As Rowling's views on the [[legal status of transgender people]] came under scrutiny,{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} she received insults and death threats{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|p=69}}{{sfn|Qiao|2022|p=1323}} and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}} Some performers and feminists have supported her.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}}<ref> Supporting Rowling: |
As Rowling's views on the [[legal status of transgender people]] came under scrutiny,{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} she received insults and death threats{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|p=69}}{{sfn|Qiao|2022|p=1323}} and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}} Some performers and feminists have supported her.{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}}<ref> Supporting Rowling: |
||
Line 551: | Line 303: | ||
* [[Eddie Izzard]]: {{cite news |title='I don't think JK Rowling is transphobic,' says gender-fluid comedian Eddie Izzard |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=27 November 2021 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=1 January 2021|ref=none}}{{cbignore}} |
* [[Eddie Izzard]]: {{cite news |title='I don't think JK Rowling is transphobic,' says gender-fluid comedian Eddie Izzard |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=27 November 2021 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=1 January 2021|ref=none}}{{cbignore}} |
||
* [[Kathleen Stock]], [[Alison Moyet]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".<ref name= Flockhart2020>{{cite news |last= Flockhart |first= Gary |date= 28 September 2020 |access-date= 2 April 2022 |work = [[The Scotsman]] |title= JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row|url= https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-receives-support-from-ian-mcewan-and-frances-barber-amid-transphobia-row-2986268|ref=none}}</ref> |
* [[Kathleen Stock]], [[Alison Moyet]]: {{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".<ref name= Flockhart2020>{{cite news |last= Flockhart |first= Gary |date= 28 September 2020 |access-date= 2 April 2022 |work = [[The Scotsman]] |title= JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row|url= https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-receives-support-from-ian-mcewan-and-frances-barber-amid-transphobia-row-2986268|ref=none}}</ref> |
||
|} |
|||
==== Sources ==== |
|||
The latest sources in this section are the books from 2022 that are only used to say she got insults and death threats (which is vague to the point of useless). Everything else is from 2020 or 2021. ''Everything'' is kept to vagueness, the sort of thing that sounds meaningful but really says nothing. |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
* {{Cite journal|last=Duggan|first=Jennifer|date=28 March 2021|title=Transformative readings: Harry Potter fan fiction, trans/queer reader response, and J. K. Rowling|journal=[[Children's Literature in Education]]|volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=147–168 |doi=10.1007/s10583-021-09446-9|pmid=35645426 |pmc=9132366 |s2cid=233661189 }} |
|||
*{{cite book |editor-last=Konchar Farr |editor-first=Cecilia |title=Open at the Close: Literary Essays on Harry Potter |publisher=[[University Press of Mississippi]] |year=2022 |isbn=978-1-4968-3931-2|ref = {{harvid|Konchar Farr|2022}} }} |
|||
**{{harvc|last=Henderson |first=Tolonda |date=2022 |in=Konchar Farr |c= A Coda: She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named |url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2kqx0kz.19 |doi= 10.2307/j.ctv2kqx0kz.19|year=2022|nb=yes}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first= Madeleine |last= Pape |author-link= Madeleine Pape |title= Feminism, trans justice, and speech rights: a comparative perspective |journal= [[Law and Contemporary Problems]] |pages= 215–240 |url= https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5037&context=lcp |date= 2022 |volume= 85 |issue= 1 |access-date= 29 March 2022 }} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first= Sarah |last= Pedersen |title= 'They've got an absolute army of women behind them': the formation of a women's cooperative constellation in contemporary Scotland |journal= [[Scottish Affairs]] |date= 2022 |volume= 31 |issue= 1 |pages= 1–20 |doi= 10.3366/scot.2022.0394 |s2cid= 246762983 |url= https://rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/1375349 }} |
|||
* {{Cite book|last=Pugh|first=Tison|author-link=Tison Pugh|title=Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions|publisher=[[University of South Carolina Press]]|year=2020|isbn=978-1-64336-088-1|oclc=1142046769|doi=10.2307/j.ctvs09qwv|s2cid=225791872}} |
|||
* {{cite book |first1=Tatiana |last1=Schwirblat|first2=Karen |last2=Freberg |first3=Laura |last3=Freberg |year=2022 |chapter= Chapter 21: Cancel culture: a career vulture amongst influencers on social media |editor1-last=Lipschultz |editor1-first= Jeremy Harris |editor2-last=Freberg |editor2-first= Karen |editor3-last=Luttrell |editor3-first= Regina|title= The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media |publisher= [[Emerald Group Publishing|Emerald Publishing Limited]] |doi=10.1108/978-1-80071-597-420221021|isbn=978-1800715981}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |last1=Steinfeld |first1=Jemimah|title= Not my turf: Helen Lewis argues that vitriol around the trans debate means only extreme voices are being heard |journal= [[Index on Censorship]] |year=2020 |volume=49 |issue= 1 |pages=34–35 |doi= 10.1177/0306422020917609 |s2cid=216495541 |doi-access=free }} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first1= Judith |last1= Suissa |first2= Alice |last2= Sullivan |title= The gender wars, academic freedom and education |journal= [[Journal of Philosophy of Education]] |volume= 55 |issue= 1 |date= February 2021 |pages= 55–82 |doi= 10.1111/1467-9752.12549 |s2cid= 233646159 |doi-access= free |url= https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10125585/1/Suissa_1467-9752.12549.pdf }} |
|||
*{{Cite book|editor-last=Whited|editor-first=Lana A.|title=The Ivory Tower, Harry Potter, and Beyond|publisher=[[University of Missouri Press]]|year=2024|isbn=978-0-8262-2300-5 |ref= {{harvid|Whited (ed)|2024}} }} |
|||
** {{harvc|last= Borah |first= Rebecca Sutherland |c= 'Accio Jo!' Woke Wizards and Generational Potter Fandom |in= Whited (ed) |year=2024 |nb=yes}} |
|||
** {{harvc|last=Whited|first=Lana A.|c = Introduction |in= Whited (ed) |year=2024 |nb=yes}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
===Discussion of Draft 8=== |
|||
Also, it's one of those things where there could easily be counterexamples, but they're left out. It mentions people supporting her, but not the people of the same categories who oppose her and condemned her views. "She received insults" is so vague to be meaningless, and Rowling... Well, a glance through her Twitter will show she's hardly innocent of throwing insults at trans people. The death threats might be relevant if this isn't just a reporting of an unverified claim by Rowling, but whether it's particularly notable she got any in today's internet culture... that's hard to say without a lot more details. Probably not the point to end the section on, in any case, especially when the section is already a bit heavily leaning towards her framing of the incidents, the only quotes from her opponents being that her statements were "'cruel' and 'inaccurate'" and her getting lengthy quotes responding to every point. And then we use the framing of her opponents arguments as insults and death threats toend the section? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 13:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 13:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
S Marshall, I have another full day today, but hope to be able to look this evening. Quickly though, I did see one comma issue in the first para that may leave a misimpression:{{tq2|She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.}} It could read to the uninitiated as if she a) resists X, and b) (instead) proposes Y, when what is meant is that she a) resists X, and b) resists proposals to Y. And there's some redundant wording and detail. Not sure how to fix it ... maybe something like ... She resisted the (year?) Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland and changes proposed (in year X) to the UK Equality Act, (both of?) which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with this. |
|||
:@[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] '''Agree'''. It's hard not to see it as biased that stuff like the open letter defending her is included with just one source, while the India Willoughby, Holocaust remarks have the same level of sourcing, are more directly related to the topic of the section, and keep getting deleted. If the consensus really is "every source should be high-quality", fine, but then that means we need to rewrite much of this section. [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 17:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I would phrase it as {{tq|She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and also opposes proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.}} [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*It does seem a bit one-sided; and the whole section could definitely stand to be updated to and rewritten using more current sources. In general we're probably relying too much on contemporary news reports and quotes pulled from them to characterize views and reactions, which isn't really necessary when there's more and more academic coverage of this - so I'd try and move away from news sources and towards scholarly ones. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{pb}}Another concern I have is (sentences numbered for discussion purposes):{{tq2|1. She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. 2. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. 3. She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.}} In earlier drafts, we didn't have Sentence 2, so that the "without a medical diagnosis" in Sentence 1 led straight to Sentence 3 (her opposition). Now with the intervening Sentence 2, I'm not sure it's clear what she actually opposes (she said something along the lines, I forget and don't have time to look it up, call yourself what you want, live your life as you please, or whatever that bit was, so it's not self-recognition per se that she opposes); what she seems to oppose is giving access to certain spaces (that she views as necessary to protect women and children) to people who self-identify "without a medical diagnosis". Maybe this can be addressed by fiddling with the word "easier" to something more explicit to her concerns and what she has said (I believe that wording can be found in her essay, or maybe reviewing that New York Times opinion piece from someone who defended Rowling would provide some wording ideas). I hope I can find time to look more closely this evening to suggest wording, but someone else may get to it sooner. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I've now read the Suissa and Sullivan paper ( [https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10125585/1/Suissa_1467-9752.12549.pdf]) and... well, A. it doesn't source the material it claims to - there's no mention of death threats, barely mention of insults, and B. this is a very, very odd paper. Page 69 of it claims... well, let me quote the exact words: "Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the |
|||
term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’" |
|||
:PS, I agree we are close to installation, and will try tonight to dig up the newer sources I mentioned in discussion of Draft 7, but no promises; I am coming to sadly realize that the changes in the structure of my free time may be permanent; apologies again. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Part of neutrality is surely throwing out garbage sources, right? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{U|S Marshall}} thanks again for doing the work! It's great to see this & it looks great. Re the comma, suggest adding a "the" in front of "proposed changes" so as not to confuse that JKR is proposing the changes. {{U|SandyGeorgia}}, re self-recognition, Whited writes, page 7, "In late 2022 and early 2023, as Scotland considered its own gender identity reform, Rowling continued to be a vocal opponent of self-designation, especially for those in early adolescence." [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I share concern with that paragraph and most of those sources, but I'm unwilling to get too far into the weeds on this issue. I struggle to read any useful meaning into all but the last sentence. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I made a suggestion about sentence 2 in the section above this, which would redistribute it. Does anyone have any commentary on my suggestion? We could keep or lose sentence 1 in my opinion - though I think it's largely redundant to later comments - but sentence 2 is kind of a mess. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::(Also, as said above, footnote [a] is clearly misplaced as things stand. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 14:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Now tweaked to draft 8.1.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Just passing by, great work by everyone. I noted a small issue on the third paragraph: "Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World. and Human Rights Campaign." There is a punctuation mark after Wizarding World that is misplaced. Maybe also change one "and" to something else then. [[User:Vestigium Leonis|Vestigium Leonis]] ([[User talk:Vestigium Leonis|talk]]) 10:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Honestly, as it stands, I don't see much use to anything in that paragraph given the other discussion is on a much more general level. There might be a point - in the more detailed sub-article - to going into the list of people who supported her very early in the incident, but, presuming we agree that she's escalated (and this week's news articles about her sure seem to indicate that), quoting support from very early on seems misleading, unless it's put into the timeline. |
|||
*::Fixed in draft 8.1a.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::But there's a risk of having a situation where every comment on how her transphobia is bad is met with a comment about how it isn't so bad, and [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o it's not like there's much doubt about her transphobia anymore]. As an example of possible false balance: No LGBT charity, to my knowledge, supports her (ignoring explicitly anti-trans charities like the [[LGB Alliance]]), so there's the strong risk of falsely balancing Mermaids and GLAAD with a couple quotes by actors from before Rowling escalated. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 13:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{ping|S Marshall}} I have one more minor point: "is concerned" feels like loaded language. How about just a neutral "says" or "stated". I still think "legal protections for women" is vague, but later in the paragraph it matters less. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:If it failed verification then it shouldn't be in the article until / unless we can find an actual high-quality source supporting it. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Loaded how? Do you doubt that she's concerned about those things?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::I also share this, uh, concern with Adam. |
|||
*:::::My concern here is that "is concerned about X" implies that X is true. So when we say that {{tq2|Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women}} we're implicitly saying that {{tq2|easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women}}, a statement we haven't sourced and couldn't say in Wikivoice. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 23:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::Weird. Must be an ENGVAR thing, because "Rowling is concerned about X" doesn't suggest any truth value for X in English English. Anyway, I certainly don't love "says" or "stated". Always use a specific verb in preference to a generic one whenever you can: specific verbs don't just convey more information in a similar word count, they also make your sentence clearer and more engaging. Rowling worries? Fears? Believes?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::"Believes" seems better. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 00:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== Forstater times 3 ==== |
|||
I have reverted the removal of this content, for a second time, as it was subject to extensive workshopping during a FAR process [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1#Workshopping_the_transgender_section] to reach a consensus version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=1081521028&oldid=1081520212]. It should not be removed until a consensus is reached as to how it should be changed or removed. Please avoid edit warring, and reach consensus before implementing any further changes. [[User:Daff22|Daff22]] ([[User talk:Daff22|talk]]) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Working on redundancy: |
|||
:'''Current''' proposal: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]]. When [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|Forstater's employment contract was not renewed]] after Forstater shared gender-critical views, Rowling wrote that |
|||
:: --> '''Less repetitive''': Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended [[Maya Forstater]], whose [[Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe|employment contract was not renewed]] after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that |
|||
Or something similar to the reduce the repetition of Forstater's name three times. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Fixed in draft 8.2.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: Thx! Still working through ... [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== But sales of books grew, and more ==== |
|||
:: That being said it would really seem like this content needs revisiting in light of her subsequent actions and in light of the comment above from {{U|Adam_Cuerden}}. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Why was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=next&oldid=1230597656 this sentence cut]? There's more, see for example {{tq|"In fact, book sales increased, Universal Studios is expanding Harry Potter World, a TV series is in the works, Maya Forstater was exonerated, etc ... "}} that we [[Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_20#Thoughts_from_Victoria|discussed, now back in Archive 20]]. If we need more sources, they can be added, but by leaving out that the popularity of her work continues, while expressing that her image or reputation has been impacted, we are losing some neutrality. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::After all, it's progressed to this: [https://www.salon.com/2024/03/15/jk-rowling-trans-nazis-holocaust-denial/] [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*That paragraph wasn't flowing right with that sentence, but on reflection I agree that we need to put it back in... somewhere. Thinking cap on.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I really don't see how 100% consensus now is trumped by an FAR review from two years ago. I think yoyu're editwarring, {{ping|Daff22}}, given ''no-one'' has said this paragraph should remain. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: |
*: OK, I'll try to revisit this after the rest of my morning work (I finally have a fully free day!). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
*:: I've tentatively added it to a fifth paragraph?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 14:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Also throwing my hat in here that we should remove that paragraph. [[WP:CCC|Consensus can change]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 18:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1230757570 format change] explodes my brain; could be do this another way ? Like, just add the suggested para here ? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Also '''agree''': it should be removed until we take the time to fully address all the valid concerns that have been raised with this section. Consensus seems to have noticeably evolved in the last few months, as did Rowling's views on transgender people [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 19:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::The last sentence of the 8.3 version ''({{tq|Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes...}})'' could be split off into its own paragraph (as the fifth and final paragraph of the section), and the new paragraph in the 8.3 version ''({{tq|Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful...}})'' can then be placed right after the Whited sentence (in the same paragraph). [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 22:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Even aside from the fact that discussion here currently shows a clear consensus, that isn't how consensus or FARs work. They're not privileged in any way and was just a discussion among a relatively small number of editors; the usual [[WP:EDITCONSENSUS]] applies. And [[WP:DNRNC|Do Not Revert Due to No Consensus]] applies; you must articulate a specific reason why you object to an edit. Simply saying "this article went through FAR" isn't sufficient because that would bar effectively all edits without prior discussion going forwards, which is not how featured articles ''or'' consensus-building works (and, by my reading, the specific text in question was ''not'' discussed in any depth at the FAR; certainly I am not seeing anything close to the overwhelming consensus you imply.) If you have specific content-based objections to the edit, you have to articulate them so people can attempt to answer them; if not then you must stop reverting. EDIT: Also, looking over the article's history, it looks like this has been an ongoing problem here. Generally speaking, editors are not required to obtain consensus for edits, even on things that have been discussed - in some cases (where there was an actual ''RFC'' with a clear-cut result) it might be appropriate, but even then, it's usually unhelpful and inappropriate to revert ''solely'' with an edit summary like "this was discussed" or "get consensus on talk" or the like unless some specific issue has been discussed so many times that there's no point, which isn't really the case here. Reverts should be accompanied by a specific objection that can be discussed on talk, otherwise there's a risk of [[WP:STONEWALL]]ing because you're effectively asking people to "answer" objections that you haven't articulated. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::OK, now that I think I've been able to pick out the new para, I'm (always) concerned that we're adding text that isn't necessarily scholarly sourced ... the one sentence that was there before was from Pape. Let me continue my perusal of new sources to see what else comes up, but generally, I'm not fond of the new para, and I'm more concerned that by having a three-column proposal, we will confuse subsequent editors/readers of the page. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I also suspect we might find a way to work that one sentence in to the (now) third para, after examining new sources. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::<s>I don't love the new paragraph, because it feels a little off-topic: it's not about Rowling's views directly, and it's not really comparing Rowling's book sale increase to how COVID-19 affected other book sales. I don't hate it enough to object to the draft, but speculation about a series two years out and book sales increasing (Compared to what, 2019? Because I doubt they reached original release sales numbers) during a pandemic doesn't feel that relevant. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 17:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)</s> |
|||
*:::::::Actually, checking this, I have '''major''' objections to the sales increasing language. See below. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::After seeing the context below, I also object to this line. It's hard to say what her sales increasing means in a context where everyone's sales increased. If her sales increased less than everyone else's, it's still possible the controversy hurt sales. And we don't get a comparison in the sources we have. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== Flow issues and redundancy in first para ==== |
|||
=== Edit warring, untrue claims, and moving forward collaboratively === |
|||
As discussed above by me, and under Draft 7 by Adam Cuerden, there are still flow problems in the first para, and there is a lot of repetition as well as duplication in footnotes. And that leads to a (slight) misrepresentation of her position. And there are missing links and definitions (eg, we manage to never link transitioning). {{pb}} I suggest simplifying the whole thing, while by the way, attributing Duggan's opinion, which is slightly at odds with Rowling's own words: |
|||
# 13:34 March 30 Adam Cuerden (AC) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1216347031 removes sourced text] that has been in the article for at least two years, and was {{em|quite well}} vetted in the FAR |
|||
# 10:46 March 31 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=next&oldid=1216367144 restored by Daff22] |
|||
# 20:20 March 31 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=next&oldid=1216500110 removed a second time by Adam Cuerden] |
|||
# 13:59 April 2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=next&oldid=1216572278 restored again by Daff22] |
|||
# 16:36 April 2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=next&oldid=1216873122 removed for the third time by Adam Cuerden] |
|||
: Concerned that easier [[gender transition]]s could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women,<ref name= Milne2020>{{cite web|first1= Amber |last1=Milne|first2 = Rachel| last2 =Savage | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn-idUSKBN23I3AI | title=Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? | publisher=[[Reuters]] | date=11 June 2020 | access-date=6 April 2021 }}</ref><ref name= Brooks2020>{{Cite news|last=Brooks|first=Libby|date=11 June 2020|title=Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate|access-date=14 January 2022 |work= [[The Guardian]] }}</ref><ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie |last2= Andrew |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019|url= https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref> Rowling opposes proposed legislation{{efn|The laws and proposed changes are the UK [[Gender Recognition Act 2004]] and the Scotland [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill|Gender Recognition Reform Bill]]; related also are the UK [[Equality Act 2010]]{{sfn|Pedersen|2022|loc=Abstract}}{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}}{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}} and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Watson |first1=Jeremy |title=JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman |date=18 February 2024 |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |work=[[The Times]] |access-date=5 May 2024|archive-url=https://archive.today/20240217200104/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-donates-70k-for-legal-challenge-on-defining-a-woman-73tkvwq0b |archive-date=17 February 2024 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription}}</ref>}} to advance gender self-recognition and make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=7}}<ref name=BacksProtest>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill |date= 6 October 2022|url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63162533 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |access-date= 5 May 2024}}</ref>{{efn|Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."<ref name=RowlingReasons/>}} According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and [[cisgender]] women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.{{sfn|Duggan|2021|p=161}} |
|||
At 13:41, 30 March, Adam Cuerden started this talk page section (yay) which contains errors (boo), and at 03:07 1 April, stated that "the Suissa and Sullivan paper ... doesn't source the material it claims to". Subsequent responses repeated the error that the text failed verification; it does not. Cuerden appears to have based that claim on having read only one of the two sources. The citations are bundled to the end of the clause, but the insults are sourced to one scholarly source and the death threats are sourced to Qiao. AC, did you read Qiao? {{pb}} AC also states that "insults and death threats" are "vague to the point of useless". Death threats are death threats; they don't need further definition. If one academic source isn't enough, there are scores of other sources that can be used (during the FAR, we substituted in academic or scholarly sources whenever we could, but there are plenty of high-quality news sources available); that Rowling has received death threats is not [[WP:UNDUE]] in this article. If "choke on a bag of dicks" isn't an insult, what is; must we really add that level of detail to a broad overview article ? Cuerden criticizes the vagueness, which was employed to use [[WP:SS|summary style]] from the sub-article which is linked in the hat note, and to avoid increasing word count with things like "choke on a bag of dicks" and more, which are explored in the sub-article and to which many more sources can be added. {{pb}} AC says the section "mentions people supporting her, but not the people of the same categories who oppose her and condemned her views". This is untrue; the content was the subject of extensive discussion, resulting in this content in the first paragraph of that section: |
|||
{{cot|title= Sources}} |
|||
: ... and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
That is quite explicit and broad; to say the article leaves out this side is false-- it includes it in the first paragraph, and anyone can see at [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1]] the hows and whys the text was written as is. Editors who are (to say the least) not fond of Rowling asked for the text to be written that way rather than naming the who's who list of personalities and organizations, which was where we started. There is a sub-article where greater detail can be explored, which is the same for other sections of the article besides the transgender section. With more sources available now than two years ago, rewriting text to improve it ''after discussing better sourcing'' is one thing, but completely removing accurately cited text that was well vetted by many experienced editors, and more editors than are now weighing in here, isn't the way to improve this content. {{pb}} Separately, it would be ideal to resume the collaborative environment in which the FAR was conducted; edit warring is not the way to write content, and false hyperbolic charges of POV are not helpful. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I'll work next on the sources I promised to explore for the third para of Draft 8. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:To be clear, Qiao ''attributes'' that statement to Rowling and mentions it only in passing ({{tq|Then on June 10 JK Rowling published an article then forwarded it on Twitter in early November 2021, she revealed that she had received a flood of death threats after her family's address was posted online.}}) We can't use it for statements in the article voice; with only that source, we would have to attribute it to Rowling in the same way. And if that is genuinely the only source, then I do think it's [[WP:UNDUE]]; it's a passing mention in a paper that has only been cited once, attributed to Rowling. Giving it weight is [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] in context and requires correspondingly serious coverage that can give it proper context. Also, unless I misunderstand the timeline, I don't think it was actually part of the FAR version - you added it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1095474349&oldid=1095474090 here]; in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_13#Draft_B discussion linked], the only comments other than yours that I can see talking about it were opposed to adding it, which may explain how it ended up with such weak sourcing. I admit I may have missed something because the discussion was complex and spread across several pages. If you do feel you have better sources you can present them and make your case, but even if it ends up in the article we do actually ''need'' those sources because they will provide vital context that might affect how we cover it. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Will catch up on this tomorrow or next ... was editing from car, now home, and out of time. I don't understand your final clause, beginning with "but even if" ... ? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd say "Rowling believes" is better than "Rowling suggests" in your last sentence: "suggests" is a little loaded, insofar as it presents the statement after it as a reasonable idea to suggest; we need to avoid any impression that Wikipedia agrees with very explicitly transphobic comments. Like, this is vague connotation stuff, but it still reads very wrong. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Editing a Featured article subject to ''double'' discretionary sanctions === |
|||
==== Citation overkill ? ==== |
|||
Please 1) read and understand [[WP:SS|summary style]], [[WP:WIAFA]], and [[WP:SIZE]]; 2) don't believe everything you read (the failed verification charge above was untrue); and 3) stop building content by edit warring. See the model at the FAR, and above on this page, that has successfully resulted in consensus. We always knew the transgender text would need to be revisited; doing that without hyperbole, false claims, editing that is not bold (as stated in edit summaries) rather reckless, and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground language]] is the fastest route to where we all want to be. Slow and steady wins the race. The article is again growing with excess detail that has not gained consensus, to where it will surpass [[WP:SIZE]] guidelines, when detail should ''first'' be explored at [[Political views of J. K. Rowling]] and then summarized to here based on collaborative discussion based on the highest quality sources rather than opinions unbacked by source listings. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
How did we end up with four sources citing "human rights campaign"? Did the citations get attached to the wrong bits here ? We shouldn't need four sources to cite criticism from Human Rights Campaign, so could we re-distribute the citations to what they are actually sourcing? |
|||
:I think that it would be best to avoid focusing too much on process over content. If you think that there are people who have violated the numerous restrictions on this page, the appropriate venue is [[WP:AE]], not here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 23:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][39] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42] |
|||
::[[WP:FAOWN]] is a policy page: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." Doing so will help avoid the back-and-forth, borderline edit warring already occurring, and help all collaborate via talk. Eg, see your section above ... suppose I had just added the text back in without discussing? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== Paragraph 3 re-do proposal ==== |
|||
===References for above quotes=== |
|||
As I've mentioned, there are plenty of new sources to cite this content; since I don't have full journal access, I've only listed some at the end of this section, hoping that others will review and decide which to use. And I'd combine the bit we lost at [[#But sales of books grew, and more]] in to this paragraph. My (original) concern was that we not lose the enduring content about the debates the controversy has generated as spillover. Suggest Paragraph 3 thusly (once new sources are chosen from list below and substituted in): [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|title= References}} |
|||
* Rowling's views have fuelled<!-- This article uses British spelling --> discussions about [[feminist views on transgender topics]],<ref name=Kottasova2019>{{cite news |first1= Ivana |last1= Kottasová |first2= Scottie | last2= Andrew|title= J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists |publisher= [[CNN]] |date= 20 December 2019 |access-date= 29 March 2022 | url= https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/uk/jk-rowling-transgender-explainer-intl-gbr/index.html}}</ref><ref name=BBC2020JKRResponds>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times | title=Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'|first=Alona |last=Ferber | work=[[New Statesman]] | date=22 September 2020 | access-date=26 March 2021}}</ref> [[freedom of speech]],{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230}}<ref>{{cite web|title=BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award|url=https://www.dw.com/en/bbc-nominates-jk-rowlings-controversial-essay-on-trans-rights-for-award/a-56014673|website=[[DW News]]|date=22 December 2020|access-date=22 December 2020}}</ref> [[academic freedom]],{{sfn|Suissa|Sullivan|2021|pp=66–69}} [[cancel culture]]{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}} and the relationship of authors to their [[fandom]];{{sfn|Whited|2024|pp=6, 8–9}} and prompted declarations of [[Transgender rights movement|support for transgender people]] from the literary,<ref>UK, US, Canada, Ireland: {{cite news |last= Flood |first= Alison |date=9 October 2020|title= Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter|url= https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/oct/09/stephen-king-margaret-atwood-roxane-gay-champion-trans-rights-open-letter-jk-rowling |work= [[The Guardian]] |access-date= 2 April 2022}}</ref> arts<ref>{{cite magazine|last= Rowley |first= Glenn |title= Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community|url= https://www.billboard.com/culture/pride/artists-fire-back-jk-rowling-anti-trans-remarks-9400386/|magazine= [[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 7 April 2022}}</ref> and culture sectors.<ref>Culture sector: |
|||
* [[Universal Destinations & Experiences]], [[Warner Bros.]] and [[Scholastic Corporation]]: {{cite news |last1= Siegel |first1= Tatiana |last2= Abramovitch |first2= Seth |date= 10 June 2020 |title= Universal Parks responds to J.K. Rowling tweets: 'Our core values include diversity, inclusion and respect' |work= [[The Hollywood Reporter]] |url= https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/universal-parks-responds-jk-rowling-tweets-core-values-include-diversity-inclusion-respect-1297845/ |access-date= 3 April 2022|ref=none}} |
|||
* [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment]] president: {{cite news |last= Skrebels |first= Joe |title= WB Interactive president responds to ongoing debate over supporting JK Rowling |date=1 October 2020 |url= https://www.ign.com/articles/wb-interactive-president-responds-to-ongoing-debate-over-supporting-jk-rowling |publisher= [[IGN]] |access-date= 2 April 2022|ref=none}}</ref> Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,{{sfn|Henderson|2022|p=224}}<ref name=Petter2020>{{Cite web|last= Petter|first=Olivia|date=17 September 2020|title=Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html|access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Independent]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235531/https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html |archive-date=15 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars | title=The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars | work=[[New Statesman]]|first=Gaby |last=Hinsliff|date=3 November 2021 | access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref> and [[Human Rights Campaign]].<ref name= Milne2020/><ref name=AP7June2020>{{cite news |title= JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage |date= 7 June 2020 |url= https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-jk-rowling-us-news-media-7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 |publisher= [[Associated Press]] |access-date= 4 May 2024}}</ref><ref name=Waterson2020>{{Cite news|last= Waterson |first= Jim|title= Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row|url= https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/23/childrens-news-website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day|date= 23 July 2020 |access-date=26 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]] |quote= Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.}}</ref><ref name=Lang2020>{{cite magazine |last=Lang |first=Brent |title= Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets |date= 10 June 2020 |url= https://variety.com/2020/film/news/eddie-redmayne-jk-rowling-anti-trans-tweets-harry-potter-fantastic-beasts-1234630226/ |magazine= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|access-date=28 March 2022 |quote= Eddie Redmayne, star of the ''Fantastic Beasts'' franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.}}</ref> After [[Kerry Kennedy]] expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the [[Ripple of Hope Award]] given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.<ref name=RFKAward>{{cite news |last=Flood|first=Alison |url= https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/28/jk-rowling-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-award-trans-views|title=JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views |work=[[The Guardian]]|date=28 August 2020|access-date=28 August 2020}}</ref> She has been the target of widespread condemnation{{sfn|Duggan|2021|loc=PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161)}}{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|pp=367–369}}{{sfn|Pape|2022|pp=229–230, 238}} and insults, including death threats.{{sfn|Whited|2024|p=9}}<ref name=Burnell4June>{{Cite news|last=Burnell|first=Paul|date=4 June 2024|title= Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP|publisher=[[BBC News]]|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c044vevjyd7o |access-date= 9 June 2024}}</ref> Despite the controversy, sales of ''Harry Potter'' books grew during the [[COVID-19]] lockdown.{{sfn|Pape|2022|p=238}}<ref>{{cite news |first=Mark |last= Sweney |title= Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row |work= [[The Guardian]] |date= 21 July 2020 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/jk-rowling-book-sales-unaffected-by-transgender-views-row |access-date= 3 May 2024}}</ref> Some performers and feminists have supported her,{{sfn|Schwirblat|Freberg|Freberg|2022|p=368}}<ref>{{cite news |first=Katie |last=Law |date= 15 October 2020|title= JK Rowling and the bitter battle of the book world |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/books/trans-battle-book-world-jk-rowling-a4571221.html |work= [[Evening Standard]] |access-date=27 March 2022|ref=none}}<Br />* {{cite news |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |title= Maya Forstater: who is woman in employment tribunal over transgender comments? |first= Sam |last= Hancock |date= 27 April 2021 |work= [[The Independent]] |access-date= 27 March 2022|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210427131430/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html |archive-date= 27 April 2021 |quote= ... criminal defence barrister Allison Bailey – known for launching legal action against LGBT+ rights charity Stonewall over its attempt to have her investigated for setting up the anti-trans rights group LGB Alliance – has also been a vocal supporter of Ms Forstater.|ref=none}}<br />* {{cite news |last1=Thorpe |first1=Vanessa |title=JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=14 June 2020 |quote=Arrayed on Rowling's side are some of the veteran voices of feminism, including the radical Julie Bindel, who spoke out in support this weekend |access-date=6 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200704200412/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm |archive-date=4 July 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}}<br />* {{Cite news |first= Maya |last=Yang|date=7 October 2021|title='I'm team Terf': Dave Chappelle under fire over pro-JK Rowling trans stance|url=https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2021/oct/07/dave-chappelle-transgender-netflix-special-backlash|access-date=27 March 2022|work=[[The Guardian]]|ref=none}}<br />* {{cite news |last1=Shirbon |first1=Estelle |title=J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |publisher=[[Reuters]] |date=10 June 2020 |access-date=13 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200611200348/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI |archive-date=11 June 2020 |url-status=live|ref=none}}<br />* {{cite news |title='I don't think JK Rowling is transphobic,' says gender-fluid comedian Eddie Izzard |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220110/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dont-think-jk-rowling-transphobic-says-gender-fluid-comedian/ |archive-date=10 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |access-date=27 November 2021 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=1 January 2021|ref=none}}<br />* {{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53002557 |publisher= [[BBC News]] |title= JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism |date= 11 June 2020 |access-date= 29 March 2022}}</ref> and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".<ref name= Flockhart2020>{{cite news |last= Flockhart |first= Gary |date= 28 September 2020 |access-date= 2 April 2022 |work = [[The Scotsman]] |title= JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row|url= https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/jk-rowling-receives-support-from-ian-mcewan-and-frances-barber-amid-transphobia-row-2986268|ref=none}}</ref> |
|||
{{cot|title= Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |first1= Judith |last1= Suissa |first2= Alice |last2= Sullivan |title= The gender wars, academic freedom and education |journal= [[Journal of Philosophy of Education]] |volume= 55 |issue= 1 |date= February 2021 |pages= 55–82 |doi= 10.1111/1467-9752.12549 |s2cid= 233646159 |doi-access= free |url= https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10125585/1/Suissa_1467-9752.12549.pdf }} |
|||
* {{cite book |first1=Tatiana |last1=Schwirblat|first2=Karen |last2=Freberg |first3=Laura |last3=Freberg |year=2022 |chapter= Chapter 21: Cancel culture: a career vulture amongst influencers on social media |editor1-last=Lipschultz |editor1-first= Jeremy Harris |editor2-last=Freberg |editor2-first= Karen |editor3-last=Luttrell |editor3-first= Regina|title= The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media |publisher= [[Emerald Group Publishing|Emerald Publishing Limited]] |doi=10.1108/978-1-80071-597-420221021|isbn=978-1800715981}} |
|||
* {{cite conference |last=Qiao |first=Leshui |title=Mainland China's TERFs' Misogyny Under JK Rowling's Anti-trans Incident |book-title=Proceedings of the 2022 8th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2022) |publisher=Atlantis Press |date=1 June 2022 |pages=1322–1326 |isbn=978-94-6239-580-0 |doi=10.2991/assehr.k.220504.238|doi-access=free }} |
|||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
=====Divided feminists ===== |
|||
== Featured article review == |
|||
#This [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/23780231241237662 scholarly source] ("Feminism and Support for the Transgender Movement in Britain", American Sociological Association) cited [https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-living-anti-intellectual-times the Ferber piece in the ''New Statesman'' about JKR]. |
|||
# Victoria, are you able to look in to this ? "Feminist Lesbians as Anti-Trans Villains: A Comment on Worthen and Elaboration. By: Burt, Callie H., Sexuality & Culture, 10955143, Feb2023, Vol. 27, Issue 1. |
|||
I think that this talk page raises a lot of questions about the featured status of this article. As such, I've raised the point at [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive2]] <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 17:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#: "Worthen thus asserts that GC feminists "are opposed to the recognition of trans women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnormativity," citing Kathleen Stock, J.K. Rowling, and me, among other GC feminists (whom she labels 'TERFs')[15] (p.2). While these may be simple descriptions of our arguments, they are misguided." |
|||
#: "Therefore, any questioning or resistance—or even support for the right of others to raise questions or concerns—about negotiating sex-based and gender-identity-based claims is frequently met with hostile, even threatening, responses and derogation. This should not be unexpected; as Manne explains, misogyny targets and blows out of proportion even small violations, which are made out to be indicative of women's bad character, in general.[32] Thus women, like J.K. Rowling, who explicitly support human rights for transwomen, profess compassion and sympathy, and support non-discrimination protections for transwomen in all sex-neutral contexts (which is most contexts), can be cast as horrible 'hateful TERFs' and subject to harassment, violent threats, no-platforming with wholesale disregard for the actual substance of their beliefs and actions. Remarkably, Worthen's article, like much trans-activist feminist scholarship, is silent about the "anti-GC feminist activism" including activists' publicly expressed physical threats, harassment, and celebration of intimidating sloganeering and signs: "kill TERFs, trans power". This is because of misogyny." |
|||
:Yeah... [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 19:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
#::Seems to be available via Springer, which can be found on TWL. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
<small>Moved from FAR. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
===== Freedom of speech and cancel culture ===== |
|||
I am nominating this featured article for review because I think there are severe, severe issues with its handling of her transphobic views. Literally every section of the talk page is on this article's problems with handling them. |
|||
# Callie H. Burt above. |
|||
# Keohane, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00027642241240337 Cancel Culture Rhetoric and Moral Conflict in Contemporary Democratic Societies |
|||
# Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality? By: Norris, Pippa, Political Studies, 00323217, Feb2023, Vol. 71, Issue 1 |
|||
# You are Cancelled': Emergence of Cancel Culture in the Digital Age. Lokhande, Gayatri; Natu, Sadhana. IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review. 2022, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p252-259. 8p. |
|||
# How Cancel Culture Tarnishes Morals Clauses and What to do About It. Peterson, Jordan M. Vermont Law Review. 2022, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p220-247. |
|||
# Agonism in the arena: Analyzing cancel culture using a rhetorical model of deviance and reputational repair. Academic Journal. Hobbs, Mitchell John; O'Keefe, Sarah. Public Relations Review. Mar2024, Vol. 50 Issue 1, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102420. |
|||
# HARM AND HEGEMONY: THE DECLINE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES. TURLEY, JONATHAN. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Jul2022, Vol. 45 Issue 2, p571-701 |
|||
# Pape (already cited in article) |
|||
:#Burt should be available via TWL on Springer. |
|||
:#Keohane, ditto but on Sage |
|||
:#Norris shows pdf available (g-scholar) - [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00323217211037023 here it is] |
|||
:#Lokande seems to be hosted via Ebsohost. So, again, TWL |
|||
:#Peterson is hosted by HeinOnline - not sure whether TWL has but it's worth looking |
|||
:#Hobbs & O'Keefe >> looks like there's a pdf link right there on g-scholar. |
|||
:#Turley > not sure I'd use him. |
|||
:Sorry am up to my eyeballs, house renovations, health, travel, etc. Hopefully will surface mid-Julyish. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===== Relationship of author to fandom ===== |
|||
The article focuses on the situation in 2020, when she's had ample coverage in the last year for ever-increasing anti-trans activity. The [[India Willoughby]] incident earlier this year, the [https://www.salon.com/2024/03/15/jk-rowling-trans-nazis-holocaust-denial/ Holocaust denial], and the widely-reported stunt attacking trans people's existence and Scottish hate speech rules this week (e.g. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o]) and many other things have resulted in a situation where pretty much all coverage of late is on her attacks on trans people, and yet, we have a kind of wishy-washy coverage of it, buried deep in the article. |
|||
# Taylor https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41290-024-00216-w Harry Potter and the ‘Death of the Actor’: reimagining fusion in cultural pragmatics |
|||
===== Academic freedom ===== |
|||
Editing can fix that, but the sources that came up while going into this are very odd. Take [https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10125585/1/Suissa_1467-9752.12549.pdf Suissa and Sullivan], an odd paper that A. does not actually support some of the text it was meant to support - it was meant to support Rowling receiving death threats, but there is no comment on that in the article - and secondly, is a very strange paper. Page 69 of it, in the text primarily used from the source to justify claims, reads: |
|||
# Free Speech in Academia. WOOD, PETER W. Texas Review of Law & Politics. Summer2023, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p761-787. 27p. |
|||
==== Discussion of paragraph 3 redo proposal ==== |
|||
{{cquote|Yet, we have been shocked by the outpouring of hatred directed at women, typically accompanied by the term ‘TERF’, effectively used as a replacement for epithets such as ‘witch’, ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’ see Cameron, 2016). The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired.}} |
|||
That's all for me; I do think once we nail down these few bits, we will be ready for install. {{u|Victoriaearle}} my list of possible sources above could benefit from your scrutiny, choice, etc. I will again be very busy tomorrow and Wednesday, so done for now -- I ran out of time to cough up all the sources I saw earlier, but hope this is enough to capture the idea of just mentioning the spillover enduring issues raised. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*"These few bits"? Well, I'm overwhelmed. Someone else's turn to do draft #9, I think.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== The "sales increased in 2020" problem == |
|||
I mean, that might have somehow gotten published in an academic journal, but is this really a source we should even fathom using for a neutral summary of a situation? Also, every single source on this used in the article is out of date, the ''most recent'' sources are from 2022, but they mostly date to the very early period in 2020-21 of the situation. One can't very well cite people defending relatively mild comments in 2020 as an ongoing defense as her rhetoric increases. |
|||
First off, nothing I'm going to say is an attack on anyone's research for Wikipedia. But... there's context that puts really strong doubts on seemingly-sensible interpretations of what are probably true facts. I'm going to focus on the Guardian article first, because Pape uses it as the source for her figures (with a minor mistake): |
|||
I did some checking, and [https://hub.londonbookfair.co.uk/uk-pandemic-reading-trends-revealed-at-the-london-book-fair/ book sales just generally shot up a lot during COVID, and have continued to increase since.] So that sales of her books increased is largely meaningless without comparing it to other trends. This article in particular is from July 2020, which means it's 3 months into the first British lockdown and covers the UK alone, annd is dealing with an increase in purchases during lockdown. That's not a big timescale. It's also ''very'' early in the J.K. Rowling transgender views controversy, so one can question whether she even had enough bad press at that point - while people were distracted by lockdowns - for a noticable change in the first place. |
|||
It's possible that Wikipedia can't currently cover Rowling well. Perhaps the sources aren't there, or the situation is developing too fast. But if that's true, we can't have [[J.K. Rowling]] as a featured article until they do. And at the very least, this article needs a very thorough source review. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
In short, it's almost certainly true, but it may not be at all meaningful, and, in the absence of comparison with the baseline, probably shouldn't appear here. |
|||
:'''Support FAR''' - article as a whole needs a serious rework, lots of stuff on there is not [[WP:DUE]]. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 19:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
So, let's go on to Pape. Pape is using the Guardian source from 2020, and (mildly) misquotes her source: she says sales of Harry Potter are up 28%, the actual source is that sales of ''children's books sold by Bloomberg'' - a class that includes Harry Potter - are up 27% - and sales as a whole were up 28%. (Frankly, though, the Guardian article is written in a sufficiently convoluted way that that Pape's mistake is a pretty easy one to make.) More problematic is the timeline aspect: As said above, the Guardian article is from 2020, before Rowling had done that much. Pape may be writing in 2022, but if the source for her statistics is from 2020, and she doesn't have other sources, it doesn't push us beyond 2020, and hits all the issues mentioned above. |
|||
<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
(This doesn't affect Pape as a source much beyond this issue; Pape is a 2022 source, but only cites things from 2021 and earlier. Pape may be out-of-date for some information, but I don't object to using her as a source ''where she's not out-of-date''. |
|||
*'''Close, out of process and unnecessary FAR''', {{ping|Nikkimaria}}. There was no talk page notification, nor is there any need (yet) for a new FAR. FAR is not dispute resolution, and there isn't even yet a serious dispute. There appears to be some content disagreements that are being conducted via esssentially edit warring rather than talk page discussion, but that can be handled via arb enforcement on a contentious topic. I have not been active, but it doesn't appear clear that contentious topic warnings have been consistently issued, or that arb enforcement has been used for the sub-optimal editing. Talk page discussion is the way to resolve the issues in '''one paragraph''' with some content we were stuck with after a very large and well-attended RFC before the last FAR. It may be time to revisit that paragraph, but a FAR is not the way to do that; the article remains very largely at featured standards, and we don't need to re-examine that for one paragraph. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:It takes a minute to notify everyone. I've notified them now. I also don't think it's the paragraph, I think it's every point raised on that talk page right now - the coverage of her transphobia in the lead, the positioning of the transgender views section, the entire transgender views section being out of date. This isn't one paragraph, it's how the article is both out of date, and minimising. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 17:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Please read the instructions at [[WP:FAR]]; there was not a talk page notification or a two- to three-week wait. This is not how FAR is used, and the nomination is out of process. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with Adam that there are serious issues with that paragraph, possibly with the rest of the section: and with Sandy that FAR isn't helpful right now. FAR can't sort out the dispute at all, we're still going to need to build consensus on that. The most we can do here is remove the FA designation; but that still won't fix the issue. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I agree removing FA status won't fix the issue, but holding the article up as the pinnacle of articles when it's not very good at covering what Rowling has made a huge part of her subject isn't appropriate. All I see on the talk page is everyone agreeing the whole coverage of the issue has problems. That's literally every section there. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 17:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::While I agree the section has problems, the extent to which people are yelling about it is a bad metric. A contentious topic attracts complaint no matter how it's written. Some of the best examples of NPOV writing I've seen on Wikipedia attract complaint on a daily basis. A lot of the complaint tends to be people who have no clue as to how we conceptualize NPOV. I recommend closing this and opening a talk page discussion as to which sources to use to frame the topic. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Concur. This is the best solution here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Concur with {{U|Vanamonde93}} effectively entirely. I think the reason that the FAR review was raised is because one editor has been arguing that the prior FAR supersedes contemporary changes to consensus on contentious topics within this BLP's page. I certainly think the review request was made in good faith but, frankly, I think that it's overkill going all the way here just to say, "we can change workshopped details of past featured articles when consensus also changes." [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Premature''': I would prefer to give talk page discussion more time. The FAR process recommends at least two to three weeks, and I think it would help to have a talk page post that's explicit about the ways in which the article fails to meet the FA criteria. It would not surprise me to see the article back here again in a month, but FAR is such a long process that it would be counter-productive to rush the early stages. I see editors are already at work collecting new sources, and I do think it's fair to expect that the strongest among them will result in changes to the article. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:It is also/further premature if contentious topic alerts have not been given and dispute resolution has not been used. I am traveling; can anyone check whether CT alerts have been given to all parties? If so, the revisions via edit warring need to be dealt with via arb enforcement. There is an excellent history of talk page discussion to decide on issues on this article; all I see in recent edits is revert warring. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
<small>End moved content. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|||
The framing of this fact is where everything falls apart: "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" - again, this is an interpretation that appears in the Guardian article (it's only implied in Pape) - but we can't possibly put that in present tense. We have no sources for booksales after July 2020. That's in no way enough to make statements about her success. The sourcing is, quite simply, far too outdated. |
|||
I've moved the above content back here to allow time for further discussion before a potential FAR. Please also keep in mind that FAR is not [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]; those avenues should be considered as a potential means of addressing disagreements. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I may have caught up now on the contentious topic alerts, but someone else might check and start keeping up with them, as I won't be editing frequently. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 01:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Since this is solely about the article's coverage of transgender-related issues, and since discussion here is currently ''so'' overwhelmingly in agreement on the broad strokes of what needs to be done, I don't think a FAR is needed just yet - all that's needed at the moment is an acknowledgement that whatever consensus was reached in it regarding trans coverage no longer applies. I think that that is self-evident just by looking at discussions, but if necessary that can be done via a more normal RFC. If, after that, we repeatedly fail to agree on improvements or there are people who believe resulting changes have damaged the article's FA quality and there's no easy agreement on how to get it back, ''then'' we might end up back at FAR. But right now the problems and solutions seem relatively straightforward, with only one or two editors objecting. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Yes, yours is an apt description of how FAR would be used if needed. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
As for the other bit of that paragraph: As far as I'm aware, the HBO Harry Potter series hasn't even been cast yet, it's not meant to appear until 2026. We have no evidence of it being successful; it doesn't even exist yet. One could instead say something like, "Production of the ''[[Fantastic Beasts]]'' series was cancelled after the third film proved to be the lowest grossing film based on Rowling's work." and use it to imply the exact opposite. |
|||
== Reaching consensus == |
|||
---- |
|||
Since there's been a lot of discussion about reaching consensus before editing the transgender views section, let's do just that and first and foremost collect all of our basic stances in one spot. Please voice your thoughts succinctly about whether or not you perceive issues with the section, and if so which ones. We could then proceed to a more detailed approach based on what, if anything, we agree should be reworked. I'll ping everyone who seems to have recently participated in the talk page: @[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] @[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] @[[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] @[[User:Daff22|Daff22]] @[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] @[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] @[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] @[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] @[[User:Victoriaearle|Victoriaearle]] @[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] @[[User:Colin|Colin]] @[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]] @[[User:Bastun|Bastun]] @[[User:Czello|Czello]] @[[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] @[[User:Bazza 7|Bazza 7]] @[[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] @[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] @[[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] @[[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] @[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] @[[User:13tez|13tez]] @[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] @[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] @[[User:Umdlye|Umdlye]] |
|||
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmapocock/2020/07/19/us-harry-potter-book-sales-underperforming-according-to-recent-industry-figures/ Forbes states] that American sales of Harry Potter in the same period lagged behind increases in other children's book purchases. "As the industry as a whole experiences a surge of print sales, Rowling’s works, and sales of Harry Potter books (including licensed titles), have seen a sudden drop. This reported U.S. print book sales drop in June coincides with controversy around tweets and statements made by Rowling via Twitter from June 6 onward." |
|||
I'll go first. Thanks for your input, hope this is the right way to do this! [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 19:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
It's honestly kind of awkward: Reports of profits by Bloomberg inevitably mention Harry Potter, but then give stats for Bloomberg as a whole. [https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/05/31/harry-potter-publisher-sees-record-sales], say. |
|||
::: Adding the editors from the FAR not already pinged, already present or topic banned. {{ping|4meter4|Aza24|Barkeep49|Bodney|Buidhe|Crossroads|Ealdgyth|Endwise|Extraordinary Writ|FormalDude|Guerillero|Hog Farm|Hurricane Noah|Innisfree987|Ipigott |Ixtal|RandomCanadian|Sdkb|Silver seren|SMcCandlish|Xxanthippe|Zmbro|Z1720}} there is interest in reworking the transgender content now that we are two years past the FAR. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I'm very swamped IRL right now - it'll be awhile before I can get back up to speed with this matter. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 02:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/british-publisher-behind-harry-potter-152730894.html?guccounter=1 This] is the best evidence I've seen for any sort of Potter success, but it doesn't include any numbers related to sales, just relative popularity (hit #1 in children's book sales in 2023 for the first time since 2002). - and, again, that's '''only''' British sales. |
|||
:I see '''issues of balance and neutrality''' in the entire section that I think should be addressed. I've explained my thoughts in more detail [[Talk:J. K. Rowling#Is the transgender section imbalanced?|here]] [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 19:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] (fun name) I share your thoughts and also think her recent behavior in regards to the Scottish Hate Crime law finally merits "anti-transgender rights advocate" or something similar in the lead. I also think the views section should be moved up because at this point she is just as well known for her transphobic views as for the Harry Potter franchise. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 20:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Concur. Would also like to see at least passing mention of the whole holocaust denial incident. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::That really didn't make it in here? Lordy. Maybe I'll [[WP:BEBOLD]] later. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, it obvious does need some changes (also, the FAR discussion didn't actually have very many people weighing in, particularly on individual aspects. I don't think it represents a strong consensus - that's not what FAR is for.) Even beyond that it is two years old on a topic that has changed fairly significantly and gotten a lot more coverage. At the very least the last paragraph was unbalanced and we need better sourcing for the "death threats" part if we're going to include it at all, given that it failed verification above. We should also try to update to more up-do-date sources, since many better sources are available on this today. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Aquillon, you may not be reading all of the FAR talk archives; it was the (by far) one of the best attended FARs *ever*, with several dozen editors weighing in, following on a very widely attended RFC which hamstrung what could be done on the transgender content. But yes, it has been two years, and it was always intended to review the transgender content when more time had elapsed from the RFC, and as more high-quality sources become available. I strongly recommend anyone wanting to improve the content to review at minimum the numerous talk archives on the FAR at [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1]], and [[WP:FAOWN]]; a good method of working towards consensus developed. I also suggest before anything to be sure contentious topic alerts have been issued to everyone reverting content here; this article is subject to double sanctions (BLP and gender-related) and recent edits suggest a sub-optimal dynamic is taking hold. {{ping|AleatoryPonderings|Olivaw-Daneel}} who have almost all the sources. I am also traveling, and have been on an extended break due to personal tragedies, and am unlikely to be able to do as much this time as last. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. The transgender section in that discussion consisted of only has a handful of editors, and the conclusion one of them gave was {{tq|Having reviewed the whole of the new text in context, it certainly reads better (and less breathlessly) than the former one. I would feel remiss, though, if I didn't register that it feels a bit WHITEWASH-y and BOTHSIDESist compared to the sources used (and those discussed on Talk). I expect that this will be even more evident once an additional wave of peer-reviewed sources become available; I suppose the newly-minted version will serve its purpose until something major happens, or until it is time to replace it with more authoritative sourcing (which I suspect will be less deferential to Rowling than our current text).}} That is not a strong consensus (unsurprising, since, as you've said, reaching long-term consensuses on an article is not really the purpose of FAR; the way it's being presented and used here was already inapproprite.) If that were all it wouldn't be an issue, but editors here have repeatedly reverted back to the FAR version (or not even really the FAR version; glancing back, the "death threats" part, which failed verification and was one of the bones of contention here, was added ''after'' the FAR) with no explanation beyond "get consensus." That is [[WP:OWN]] behavior! [[WP:FAOWN]] specifically does not excuse it - it says {{tq|explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership}}, not "you can repeatedly revert back to the featured article with no explanation beyond asserting that it has consensus." This, more than anything else, is the reason discussions here are going the way they are; people are leaning on two-year-old discussions among a small number of editors in the FAR in a way that avoids actually engaging with serious issues about sources and content. Either way I think it's clear from the overwhelming direction of discussions here that whatever weak consensus may have been reached about ''coverage of trans issues specifically'' in the FAR no longer applies. I don't think it's necessary to do a whole new FAR if people acknowledge that - if necessary I think we could do it with an RFC even if some people refuse to acknowledge it - but I do think people need to stop trying to cite the FAR on anything related to trans issues; it clearly is not helping, because it clearly does not represent a current consensus. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{u|Aquillion}}, the issue was [[Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11|being stuck with this well-attended RFC]], and the thinking was it was too soon to revisit such a well-attended RFC, hence wait until better sources appeared. What you call a "small number" of editors on the FAR were editors trying to respect a much larger group who participated in the RFC. Re consensus, there is now adequate distance from the RFC to revisit, but in the context still of high-quality sources. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm just about to go away on holiday for 2 weeks so I'll leave you all to <s>fight it out</s> discuss it rationally in my absence. I agree the latest Scottish law antics have moved the dial; maybe wait a few days for that story to settle? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Enjoy your holiday! [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 21:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I also agree that there are issues. What was arguably neutral four years ago is now tilted towards her POV, since it's a small part of the article but has become a larger and larger part of her notability as time passes and she continues to do things that call attention to her anti-trans views. And beyond all that, it's just not up to date. There's lots of stuff that's happened that hasn't been reflected in the article. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. I realise that we don't want to default to going with whatever the most recent thing she did is (that has its own issues), but - well, I don't know her mind, so I can't say if this is her feeling more emboldened to voice views she already had or her becoming more extreme in her views, but the rhetoric she uses is, at the least, very much more openly transphobic. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 00:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::[https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/jk-rowling-arrest-trans-transphobia-b2522155.html The Independent's article here] might be a decent source for summarising. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 00:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am curious as to why you say an opinion piece would be a good source for a featured article, which requires high-quality sources? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's a major, repected British newspaper, avoding mere recetism. It might serve at least to point out what's going on, and it's at least as good as [https://deadline.com/2020/06/j-k-rowling-defends-trans-statements-essay-1202955524/] which is already in the article. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Very broadly speaking, I'm in favor of adjustments to the trans people section in order to reflect coverage in newer RS. It will be tricky to balance between what's covered in the highest quality book and academic sources—which tend to be more dated—and what's in news coverage. I do think it'll be worth it to push through the trickiness. Since they're up against the big-r-RS, I'd prefer to see us stick to only the cream of the news crop and to favor in particular ones that are focused on Rowling and her views over time. I wish we could have more dust-settling time before including some of the recent controversy, but it's too prominent to wait long. My hope is to see the mention kept brief to avoid recentism as much as possible. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 01:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Fully support this, and from the bit of research I did a couple of weeks ago I'm confident we can update the section while using high quality stuff for the most part [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 02:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I do agree that it's very much a moving target, but it's not in good enough shape to wait. Let's sketch in what seems likely to remain important, but I agree that we should keep recentism in mind (and can always throw any extra content into the Politics of... article). Offhand, it seems that patterns of behaviour (with RSes) are more important than most single incidents, and the incidents should be chosen to illustrate whatever patterns of behaviour RSes are already talking about. So, to give some examples, if (and this is an "if" here) RSes talk about here regularly misgendering people, maybe the India Willoughby incident is a notable example. If they talk about her grandstanding against laws meant to protect trans people, then the attempt to get arrested under Scotland's new hate speech law matters there. And if we don't have RSes that help them fit that context, maybe we should skip them. Of the three recent incidents, the Holocaust denial one is the only one that strikes me as being uniquely awful enough to likely deserve get mentioned on its own merits alone, the others feel like just the most recent examples of a pattern of behaviour.. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 04:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yeah, I also agree to focus on the patterns as much as possible. With her April Fools tweets following the Willoughby stuff, I think there's now a good case that her conscious misgendering of trans women is becoming a pattern, as well as a key demonstration of her views. There's also now at least [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-misgender-trans-snp-b2521530.html one RSP green source] that covers India Willoughby in non-breaking news fashion, connecting it to the April Fools stuff. |
|||
::::I'm not sure about singling out the Holocaust stuff though, not only because it hasn't become a pattern thus far but also because we don't even have one RSP green source for it as far as I'm aware. [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 22:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the most recent, very highly publicized rant is a good place to rewrite the article. And I agree with neutrality issues. “Some people call her views transphobic, but she says that she supports trans people” when we have things like this [https://www.themarysue.com/j-k-rowling-holocaust-denial-nazi-transphobic/] and meanwhile a paragraph about all the righteous feminists that support her, has a very clear slant. At this point, I agree that it’s pretty hard (especially in light of the latest rant) to not put anti-trans activist into the summary. I don’t think there’s anyone at this point who hears her name and doesn’t think about, everything over the last couple of years. Downplaying it when it has very much become her brand, just makes this article look like a puff piece. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 05:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::To clarify, I think we should have a half sentence or something dedicated to the holocaust thing. The weight of coverage isn't huge, but we do have RSP green sources saying it. At the very least, a "What many have described as holocaust denial" [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 06:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Aye. It feels like something that might well increase in importance, but.... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 06:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::And I just noticed the careful work of @[[User:Umdlye|Umdlye]] In finding these sources. All RSP green. |
|||
::The Independent: "prominent anti-trans activist" [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jk-rowling-scotland-hate-crime-trans-law-b2521897.html] |
|||
::Reuters: "prominent gender critical campaigner" [https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-government-backs-jk-rowling-scottish-hate-crime-law-challenge-2024-04-02/] |
|||
::Financial Times: "high profile voice in the "gender critical" movement" [https://www.ft.com/content/b289c397-bece-4cf9-9cc5-9e1b4908f3e7] |
|||
::The only question now is whether we have consensus to take GC as synonymous with anti-trans. Personally, my belief is that it's the same as "racist" vs "race realist", but obviously this is something where consensus is needed. [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 14:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I mean, it's in the definition: [[Gender-critical feminism]]. I think that providing a gloss for a term isn't a problem, as long as the definition is very well-sourced. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 17:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm against adding "anti-transgender activist" in the lead sentence. From the fair bit of reading I've done on her, even in the recent stuff, I haven't seen her being described that way by high-quality sources even once. It might start happening soon though, especially if she keeps focusing on laws (as she did on April Fools) and more concrete stuff like that. Another thing, and this may or may not be just a question of personal preference, is that we tend to put too many titles in lead sentences in general. |
|||
::Something I think we definitely ''should'' do though is dedicate a full paragraph to her views in the lead. Based on the coverage of her since 2019, this is more than justified. [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 18:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::A full paragraph in the lead about her views would not be in accordance with [[WP:LEAD]] or with the content of the article, which is a bio of her full life and accomplishments-- not just the last five years. Dedicating a full paragraph to these issues at [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] would be appropriate. The lead was written in accordance with guidelines by looking at the preponderance of all sources on Rowling (not just recent) and the size of each section, after each section was ruthlessly examined and trimmed where necessary. The lead is a summary of the entire article, and the entire article is a summary of her entire life, not just one piece of it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:As @[[User:Umdyle|Umdyle]] noted, there is more than enough notable evidence to describe Rowling as an "anti-trans activist" (the label "holocaust denier" should be added, as well). [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Sources for holocaust denial, because wording ''will'' matter here: |
|||
::* [https://www.salon.com/2024/03/15/jk-rowling-trans-nazis-holocaust-denial/] "accused of being a holocaust denier by critics", "The author also faced criticism from people who saw this denial of Nazi practices as part of a larger pattern of antisemitism," |
|||
::* [https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/jkrowling-nazi-holocaust-hirschfield] "JK Rowling is a Holocaust denier!" |
|||
::* [https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/jk-rowling-under-fire-for-transphobic-remarks-claims-nazis-never-burnt-books-on-trans-health-101710387965834.html] "the renowned Harry Potter author found herself trending after posting comments denying the historical fact that Nazis burned "books on trans healthcare and research." |
|||
::* [https://www.thedailybeast.com/jk-rowling-adds-holocaust-denialism-to-her-transphobia] "J.K. Rowling Insinuates Nazis Did Not Burn Trans Books," "J.K. Rowling is once again making ignorant and anti-trans comments online," "Rowling has been spouting anti-trans rhetoric for years now" |
|||
::* [https://forward.com/culture/592580/j-k-rowling-holocaust-denial-trans/] "The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling. (I’m just kidding — obviously everyone online is already yelling about it. The Harry Potter author is always reliable for generating discourse,)" " She didn’t need to distort the Holocaust. But now we have to add that to her list of sins, under those antisemitic goblins." |
|||
::* [https://boingboing.net/2024/03/14/j-k-rowling-claims-nazis-didnt-burn-trans-books-issues-lawsuit-threat-when-called-a-holocaust-denier.html] "J.K. Rowling claims Nazis didn't burn trans books, issues lawsuit threat when called a holocaust denier," "J.K. Rowling had another "middle-aged moment" Wednesday, claiming that the Nazis did not target trans people when they "burned early books on trans healthcare and research," as an online critic had put it—then threatening to sue another who claimed this amounted to holocaust denial. The Nazis did in fact do that, burning down the first sexology clinic and targeting trans people over the course of the Holocaust," "As the plain intent of making such an argument is to exclude trans people from the history of Nazi victims, it implies nothing good about Rowling's intentions or the right-wing swamp her self-destructive social media persona now exists in." |
|||
::* [https://www.advocate.com/news/jk-rowling-trans-hate-crime] "Shortly after targeting Willoughby, Rowling engaged in Holocaust denial by claiming it is a "fever dream" to say that transgender people were persecuted by the Nazis — a well-documented historic fact that is recognized under German law." |
|||
::* [https://insidethemagic.net/2024/03/jk-rowling-denies-transgender-persecution-holocaust-jc1/] "Harry Potter series author JK Rowling is in hot water again after denying Holocaust facts on X (formerly Twitter). The controversial figurehead has dived full force into the trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) movement in recent years, alienating many LGBTQIA+ Wizarding World fans." |
|||
::* [https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/03/jk-rowling-denies-transgender-persecution-during-the-holocaust/] "Anti-transgender troll and Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has been accused of Holocaust denial for questioning whether transgender people were targeted in Nazi Germany," "While Rowling has not denied the Holocaust itself happened, she is accused of engaging in a form of Holocaust denial for questioning the persecution of trans people under the Nazi regime, a fact which has been well documented." [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Those seem like highly biased sources, similar in tone to J. Jonah Jameson's "Spider-Man: Threat or Menace?" articles. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Severity isn't the same thing as bias. These sources are more credible by Wikipedia's standards than the sources defending Rowling. [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Rowling's own statement on the issue: [https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/statement-from-j-k-rowling-14th-march-2024/] [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 15:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's a primary source. Of *course* Rowling herself would deny being a Holocaust denier. Holocaust deniers deny the fact that they are all the time. [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 15:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::See [[WP:BLPPUBLIC]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1217067079 this explanation]; we can't leave out her denials of charges (eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1216968214 reinstatement of inappropriate deletion]). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::A relevant article: [https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/21/no-jk-rowling-is-not-a-holocaust-denier/ No, JK Rowling is not a Holocaust denier] [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 15:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Spiked is not considered a credible source. [[User:PenelopePlesiosaur|PenelopePlesiosaur]] ([[User talk:PenelopePlesiosaur|talk]]) 15:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There's a reason I excluded Spiked from that list and it wasn't personal bias. |
|||
:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_289#Spiked] |
|||
:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_181#Reliability_of_Spiked_for_Non-Fact_Issues] |
|||
:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_206#spiked-online.com] |
|||
:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_429#Spiked_%28magazine%29] |
|||
:::::It's a perennial question at [[WP:RS/N]] and never treated favorably. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It seems to me that we can unambiguously source something very roughly like "Rowling falsely claimed that the Nazis didn't persecute trans people, when persecution of trans people in Nazi Germany is a well-documented historical fact. Many people called her a Holocaust denier because of this." I'm much less confident that we have the sources for "Rowling is a holocaust denier" in Wikivoice. I'd want several big neutral newsorgs before we made a claim like that in Wikivoice in a BLP. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Honestly I concur. While I might have personal opinions about Rowling and about the intersection of transphobia and far-right ideologies we do need to be very cautious about how we address [[WP:BLP]] figures. The whole point of my exercise above was to demonstrate the extent to which sources tended to simply point out her false claims, such as in LGBTQ Nation "While Rowling has not denied the Holocaust itself happened, she is accused of engaging in a form of Holocaust denial for questioning the persecution of trans people under the Nazi regime, a fact which has been well documented." I would ''personally'' like to see mention of Advocate included ("Shortly after targeting Willoughby, Rowling engaged in Holocaust denial by claiming it is a "fever dream" to say that transgender people were persecuted by the Nazis — a well-documented historic fact that is recognized under German law.") but that would ''necessarily'' be under an "Ryan Adamczeski, writing for Advocate, said" qualifier if it was considered due. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
We need more recent sources on sales of ''Harry Potter'' - which include America and other countries - to say much of anything. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I am in agreement with Firefangledfeathers post of 01:53 3 April, but find that the discussion after that point has taken off in the wrong direction with respect to blending academic and scholarly sources with the very best of the recent highest quality non-academic or scholarly sources. Any time Rowling speaks, there's a spike in news and publicity; avoiding [[WP:RECENTISM]] and [[WP:NOTNEWS]] is important for this broad overview article, and some of that kind of content can be better explored at [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]], from where it can be more easily seen later what can be summarized back to here. I see no exploration of how to blend the recent with scholarly/academic sources in the discussion above, and the idea of putting in wording like "anti-trans activist" because it is found in one newspaper isn't how FAs are written. And the sources listed by Simonm223 (please name your sources when posting them so we don't have to click on each one to find out if they are high quality) are not all of the caliber expected for featured content-- they may be fine for the "Politics of... " article, subject to consensus, but not for a broad overview summary Featured article. Please try to refocus this discussion on the kinds of sourcing expected in a featured article, and perhaps consider exploring more expansion using lesser quality sources at the "Politics of ... " sub-page. Rewriting as per Firefangled feathers will involve first a thorough examination of high-quality sources, and then workshopping through several drafts. We are finally far enough from the highly attended RFC to be able to revisit and rework content, but this has to be done with a backdrop of highest quality sources in mind. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Luckily, the Guardian article doesn't just quote sales figures for the children's books division. The journalist also interviewed the boss of Bloomsbury, hence: {{tq2|The company, which publishes all of the author’s Harry Potter books, said its consumer publishing arm grew sales by 28% to £31.4m. The children’s division grew by 27% to £18.7m, with Bloomsbury highlighting Rowling’s titles as a “bestseller”... Nigel Newton, the Bloomsbury chief executive, said the books had remained bestsellers since Rowling published her views on her website last month. “Harry Potter has been very popular with families at home reading to each other and has been marvellous throughout this period,” he said.}} |
|||
:If we obey your statement, 90% of the sources ''in'' the article need junked. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The claim that these figures aren't meaningful stumbles over the fact that a scholarly source found them meaningful enough to remark on. |
|||
::Respectfully you can see the source by hovering over the link without clicking. However I will endeavor to remember this for the future, as a courtesy. I would note that the absence of LGBTQ Nation, Advocate, and similar mainstream queer publications from this article is a current failure of [[WP:NPOV]] and not something to be celebrated as meritorious of a featured article considering the subject. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The claim that these figures are outdated stumbles over the fact that these are the latest figures published by a reliable source. |
|||
:::Thx, but iPad editing from car as I travel, and I can't see source by hovering over it ... I had to go in to edit mode to view the list. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The Forbes article from June 2020 (a) predates the Guardian one, (b) appears in no scholarly source, and (c) doesn't account for audio books or ebooks. The ebook was released for free during this period which will have affected sales.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Aye. Apparently [[Deadline Hollywood]] is a good source, but Reuters and the Financial Times aren't? The sources for the statement ' She has rejected these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.' are herself, ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'', and ''[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]'' - but that's fine? Why do the goalposts move to whereever makes it hardest to criticise Rowling? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 16:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::TL;DR: In the game of Wikipedia, doing your own research to counteract a scholarly source counts as a foul.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Adam Cuerden, context ... appropriate sourcing depends on content being sourced, and for some of the non-controversial or biographical content, what is used is appropriate, and for the transgender material, the FAR was hamstrung by the well-attended RFC, and there was an attempt to stick to using newspaper sources if they generally aligned with scholarly sources. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::We're also hamstrung by [[WP:BLPPUBLIC]], which requires that we include denials of allegations for BLPs. In general, it's a policy I opposed and still oppose, but it's what we got. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Regardless, it's clear, that there is a current consensus that the page as it stands does not accurately reflect the extent of Rowling's activities as an anti-trans campaigner. Being as she is a [[WP:BLP]] I would certainly agree we should be cautious around attribution and use of wiki-voice. But I think we'd be remiss to leave it at "she's really just misunderstood," considering how clear it is within the LGBTQ+ community that, no, Rowling is entirely understood. This is also why I think it's critical, for [[WP:NPOV]] that sources from within that community, specifically, be included. And not just an off-the-cuff remark form Eddie Izzard. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I hasten to add that it's not ''just'' the LGBT community that agrees she is venturing increasingly far into anti-trans activism. Many high quality news sources have said something to the effect in their own voice. I'd at least say we have strong sourcing for "gender-critical activist". [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 19:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"Gender-critical activist" is better-supported than the pejorative "anti-trans". [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 20:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It's not pejorative. It's a flat statement of her politics, expressed by her loudly and at length. She ''routinely'' misgenders trans people, regularly treats trans women as a threat to cis women and regularly supports other anti-trans activists. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Agree with Dan T. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't see how [[WP:BLPPUBLIC]] applies here: That's in the section about people famous for ''events'', and if there's doubt as to whether someone did something, then sure, but when there's no doubt as to her very public actions and statements, then it's not a denial of allegations, it's just her wanting it characterised differently. It's true she once denied transphobia, but does she even do that anymore? Like, after her "TERF wars" comment, hasn't she been oppenly allying herself with the TERF/Gender critical movement? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 8.9% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]].</sub></span> 21:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with @[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] on this. As I wrote a bit earlier, I think there's enough high-quality recent stuff to rework the section using mostly that. It took me less than a hour to find [[Talk:J. K. Rowling#Scholarship and book sources|three academic papers written on her views]] a couple of weeks ago. I do agree that some of the more recent stuff is hard to avoid though, especially the number of people she deliberately misgendered in the last few weeks. It's a clear escalation of the topic that I think needs to be mentioned. [[User:WikiFouf|WikiFouf]] ([[User talk:WikiFouf|talk]]) 19:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Whatever consensus was reached earlier is clearly outdated considering the progressive escalation of the subject's anti-trans views. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 00:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:24, 25 June 2024
J. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008, and on June 26, 2022. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Death threat
A man has been sentenced for making death threats against J K Rowling and Rosie Duffield. [1] I think this should be added to this article, but I don’t want to interfere with any redrafting, etc. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Incorporated in draft #7, below.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft 7
Suissa and Sullivan are out, and Glenn Mullen is in. As there's no good faith dispute at all over whether J. K. Rowling was insulted and threatened for her views, I've left that in.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft 7.1: 403 words | Historical: 429 words |
---|---|
Rowling has [some contributors want to add a qualifier here] gender-critical views.[1][2][3] She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.[4][5][6][a] She opposes gender self-recognition[11][12][b] and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[14] In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".[15] Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater.[16] When Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views,[17] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][c] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[23] In June 2020,[23] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[25][17] Rowling's views have affected her reputation.[26] She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[9][27][28] insults, and threats, including death threats.[29][30] Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[31][32] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.[33][34][35] and Human Rights Campaign.[4][36][37][38] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[39] Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic.[13][40] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed[11][33] – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[41][42] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[42][43][44] Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".[45] |
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,[4][5][d] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy.[9] Her statements have divided feminists;[6][46][47] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[48][49] academic freedom[8] and cancel culture;[27] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[50] arts[51] and culture sectors.[52] When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views,[17][18] Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][e] In another controversial tweet in June 2020,[34] Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[54][55] LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments;[37][38][f] GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".[61] Rowling responded with an essay on her website[13] in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[42] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[42][62][63] Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny,[64] she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".[65] Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017[9][66][67] – have been called transphobic by critics[68][69] and she has been referred to as a TERF.[69][70][71] She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.[13][68][67] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[72] and the charities Mermaids,[34] Stonewall,[73] and Human Rights Campaign.[74] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[39] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[8] she received insults and death threats[75][76] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[77] Some performers and feminists have supported her.[77][78] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[79] |
Sources
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes
|
Discussion
- Is that meant to be titled as Draft 6.3, or is it a mistake? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Busy for the rest of today, but I should be able to enter my commentary (as promised weeks ago), by tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- PS, this might provide an updated source to replace her website essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- S Marshall, thanks for doing this & huge apologies for being awol (there's another article where I'm in over my head & my time for Wikipedia keeps shrinking). A couple of comments to get started:
- I have some as-yet-very-muddy-thoughts about the first sentence & the phrase gender-critical so I'll try to flesh those out later.
- Minor point, but there's some repetition of "She, she, she" in the first para that needs wordsmithing.
- For people with no clue, have been wondering whether we should try working in a link to Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe
- "affected her reputation" should be cited to Whited page 8
- Good to see the draft less wordy; I'm wondering how others feel about putting back the sentence "Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." that's in the historical draft? The end of that sentence mentions includes " "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real", which is another way of saying sex is immutable. Should that be clarified?
- That's it for now. Victoria (tk) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- In draft 7.1, I've attempted to address points #2, #3 and #4 that you raise, and I await further input on #1 and #5.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! Agreed that input from others is needed.
Just to spin my thoughts out a bit more. Re the first sentence, I've realized that one reason it's been bugging me is that the term gender-critical may mean something very different in the US than in the UK. Recently I read an article about someone running for congress whose opinions about women are, shall we say, a bit archaic. Beyond that this person claims the LGBQT+ movement was created by radical feminists. So we need to be clear in terms of where links are going & what exactly we mean for a global audience.Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with ""Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made. Also I've not had time for a full examination of the essays in Whited (Project MUSE book 111748} or Konchar Farr {Project MUSE book 99615), which in my view needs to be done. Anyway, let's see what the others say. Victoria (tk) 23:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)- Yes. On the wildest, most far-flung fringes of the US right, there lurk certain characters who do indeed like to burst out of their swamps, yell things like "the LGBTQ+ movement was created by radical feminists!" and then slide back into the mire, waiting for the next gloriously unhinged thought to turn up. Like you, I'm often refreshed and challenged by their unique perspectives and their idiosyncratic ways of putting things. I think my personal favourite is "blame the gun". Presumably someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to drive without a driving licence is "blaming the car".I don't think we can use language the way those people do, and I also don't think we should be trying. Conservapedia is thataway ----->. I feel that as encyclopaedists, it's our task to summarize things in simple and clear terms, even (especially!) when the things we're trying to summarize are complex and difficult; and we should use normal, natural language in its usual meaning; and, despite what the US right might think, it's quite possible to be supportive and tolerant of gay and lesbian people, but intolerant of trans people; and that J.K. Rowling is; and that "gender-critical" is succinct, accurate, and neutral. It's not a pejorative.But I can see that "gender-critical" is an uncomfortable thing to say about someone. Even though it's not a pejorative, it's a pungent term. It reeks of repression and segregation and prejudice. It's scrupulously accurate, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I knew I wouldn't be able to make myself clear & that's why I have trouble engaging here. Being told to go off to Conservapedia doesn't want me to engage. To try to clarify: can we not just say she's a Gender-critical feminist whose views align with Maya Forstater (i.e the #IStandWithMaya tweet) & then tell readers who don't know (or who do know) those views are x, y and z (including that they believe sex is immutable). I think we're close. So just ignore me. Victoria (tk) 14:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle If we call J.K. Rowling a gender-critical feminist in the article, do we need to clarify what that means? Surely the page it would link to would give people an idea of what those views are without having to reclarify here? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we should because this is her biography & the article is about her. But I need to step away to refamiliarize myself with the sources & don't have time for that at the moment. Victoria (tk) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- My thought is this: J.K. Rowling uses the term herself, e.g. here. I think we can safely call her gender critical - ideally with an explanation - because it's language she seems to accept as a description of the group she belongs to anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Basically I was only wondering if we needed to gloss the term & failed to explain myself at all well. Stricken a bunch above. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have been stalled by real life matters on coming back to this, but I'm concerned that the process is not engaging WP:WIAFA 1c; yes, we're updating to Whited, which is a good thing, but that's only one high quality recent source, and it's not apparent whether we're working towards a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Instead, we seem to be working towards preferences of individual editors, which won't render this in compliance with FA standards. I don't have easy/full journal access, so can only access that which is freely available, but that (limited) survey continues to support the most NOT-NEWSY, NOT-RECENTISM, and likely to endure statement that was once in the article, and is mentioned by Victoriaearle at 23:56 June 15:
"Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with 'Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc.' ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made."
I've been hoping the other FA writers of the FAR version would find time and inclination to weigh in here so we could address the WIAFA issues, including any updates needed to the literary portions of the article based on Whited and more, but I don't feel like I should ping them again. I have other (more minor) concerns about the draft, but if we aren't working towards meeting WIAFA, I'm unsure what the value of time spent here is ... so I haven't yet spelled those out. Ideas ?? Most certainly, that one deleted sentence is warranted by what I can access as a survey of the relevant literature (scholarly articles restricted to 2024), and is likely the most enduring of the section, so I hope it comes back with updated citations. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)- With all respect, you seem to be objecting to change by holding standards that are not apparent in the original version of the section, which, if anything, is far worse. If this fails WIAFA after the changes, it fails it without the changes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I (and others) have explained several times that the FAR was constrained by the results of a very recent, and very well attended, RFC, and that all acknowledged we would have to revisit after some time had elapsed from that RFC ... so I won't repeat all of that again. Please do reread the archives of discussions already had with you. Now that we are revisiting, we should be keeping WIAFA in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- From a high quality sourcing point-of-view, I'm not convinced there's enough yet to revisit. The search function at the top of the page of The Wikipedia Library goes to Ebscohost. If sorted by newest the first page shows results only from Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Hollywood Reporter, Business Wire, USA Today, and so forth. Sorting by "peer reviewed" does show much and nothing I'm seeing that can be used, on a quick perusal. That said, anyone can search there. Whited is a start, but not much of a start & only published a few months ago. Waiting is not the worst option; agree that the understanding was that the section would be rewritten when high quality sources come available. Victoria (tk) 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I (and others) have explained several times that the FAR was constrained by the results of a very recent, and very well attended, RFC, and that all acknowledged we would have to revisit after some time had elapsed from that RFC ... so I won't repeat all of that again. Please do reread the archives of discussions already had with you. Now that we are revisiting, we should be keeping WIAFA in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- With all respect, you seem to be objecting to change by holding standards that are not apparent in the original version of the section, which, if anything, is far worse. If this fails WIAFA after the changes, it fails it without the changes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have been stalled by real life matters on coming back to this, but I'm concerned that the process is not engaging WP:WIAFA 1c; yes, we're updating to Whited, which is a good thing, but that's only one high quality recent source, and it's not apparent whether we're working towards a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Instead, we seem to be working towards preferences of individual editors, which won't render this in compliance with FA standards. I don't have easy/full journal access, so can only access that which is freely available, but that (limited) survey continues to support the most NOT-NEWSY, NOT-RECENTISM, and likely to endure statement that was once in the article, and is mentioned by Victoriaearle at 23:56 June 15:
- Basically I was only wondering if we needed to gloss the term & failed to explain myself at all well. Stricken a bunch above. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- My thought is this: J.K. Rowling uses the term herself, e.g. here. I think we can safely call her gender critical - ideally with an explanation - because it's language she seems to accept as a description of the group she belongs to anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we should because this is her biography & the article is about her. But I need to step away to refamiliarize myself with the sources & don't have time for that at the moment. Victoria (tk) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle If we call J.K. Rowling a gender-critical feminist in the article, do we need to clarify what that means? Surely the page it would link to would give people an idea of what those views are without having to reclarify here? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I knew I wouldn't be able to make myself clear & that's why I have trouble engaging here. Being told to go off to Conservapedia doesn't want me to engage. To try to clarify: can we not just say she's a Gender-critical feminist whose views align with Maya Forstater (i.e the #IStandWithMaya tweet) & then tell readers who don't know (or who do know) those views are x, y and z (including that they believe sex is immutable). I think we're close. So just ignore me. Victoria (tk) 14:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. On the wildest, most far-flung fringes of the US right, there lurk certain characters who do indeed like to burst out of their swamps, yell things like "the LGBTQ+ movement was created by radical feminists!" and then slide back into the mire, waiting for the next gloriously unhinged thought to turn up. Like you, I'm often refreshed and challenged by their unique perspectives and their idiosyncratic ways of putting things. I think my personal favourite is "blame the gun". Presumably someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to drive without a driving licence is "blaming the car".I don't think we can use language the way those people do, and I also don't think we should be trying. Conservapedia is thataway ----->. I feel that as encyclopaedists, it's our task to summarize things in simple and clear terms, even (especially!) when the things we're trying to summarize are complex and difficult; and we should use normal, natural language in its usual meaning; and, despite what the US right might think, it's quite possible to be supportive and tolerant of gay and lesbian people, but intolerant of trans people; and that J.K. Rowling is; and that "gender-critical" is succinct, accurate, and neutral. It's not a pejorative.But I can see that "gender-critical" is an uncomfortable thing to say about someone. Even though it's not a pejorative, it's a pungent term. It reeks of repression and segregation and prejudice. It's scrupulously accurate, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! Agreed that input from others is needed.
- I believe the draft as written constitutes a considerable improvement on the current text. I'm certain it can be improved further, but we ought not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I do think the sentence beginning "Rowling rejects these characterizations..." needs some reworking specifically because we've lost the reader on what those characterizations might be. I'm also not certain the statement is broadly true; she denies being transphobic, and rejects the "TERF" label (though nobody really embraces it, do they?), but if there's evidence she rejects "gender critical", I've yet to see it. I'm also noting I don't have time to engage deeply here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Her statements have divided feminists...
This sentence was cut because:
- It's not about J.K. Rowling's views; and
- There was pressure to cut the word count.
I don't object to restoring it if we feel the extra words are justified in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- The proposed word count now (400-ish) is approaching 10% less than what was in the article historically (430-ish); IIRC, any pressure to reduce the word count was when the section on transgender rights was hovering around or at times above 475 words (eg here, although I think at one point we were near 500). I propose we have room to bring back one sentence, but that if we did, it could be updated and cited to newer scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bastun re this edit, WP:WIAFA is linked in the discussion just above this one. It stands for What Is A Featured Article, also abbreviated as WP:FACR, Featured Article Criteria. It is separate from Featured Article Review; it is not clear to me that S Marshall was suggesting (yet) that we need a trip to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sources for the "divided feminists" sentence are 2019 and 2020, I don't think this should be used without very explicitly putting some context as to WHEN feminists were divided. Though the sourcing then adds additional problems:
- one source is explicitly about her comments on Maya Forstater. It'd be a great source to use in the context of Forstater, but not to use as if it applied to anything else Rowling said. It's also pretty clearly the main source for the statement; neither of the other two have "feminists divided" as a clear reading.
- One source is just probably not very good: A single tweet by (non-academic) blogger Claire Heuchan is literally the only evidence of feminists supporting Rowling presented.
- The third source is... honestly a great article by Judith Butler, but she explicitly says "...I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen." A source that says gender critical is WP:FRINGE is a poor source to use for a statement that presents the views as equal within feminism.
- ----
- So... aye. I'd probably say that, without modern, mainstream sources talking about a division in feminism, that sentence is dead in the water. And, let's face it: Even if we did find sources, if we kept the text exactly the same, then we wouldn't be summarising modern sources, we'd be using a summary of a source about the reaction to her commentary on Maya Forstater, treating it as if it covered all Rowling's comments since then, and retrofitting sources onto it) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is straightforward. Her statements haven't so much divided feminists, but rather, feminists were already divided on trans issues, and they've split on Rowling according to tribal lines. Those feminists who're gender-critical like Rowling and those who're gender-inclusive dislike her. Her statements have certainly prompted debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech, and they've certainly given rise to declarations of support for trans people from various actors and pressure groups. Nobody who's read the sources could possibly deny any of that, could they?—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm only commenting on that one sentence (as written) and its poor sourcing. I don't disagree with what you just said, but what you just said explicitly rejects the statement I'm commenting on, and what you said, that already gender critical / TERF people supported her, is sky-is-blue stuff that probably doesn't need said. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Probably does need to be said, though, doesn't it. We're an encyclopaedia. Imagine we're writing for an intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, teenager from a village in rural India. If you want reliable/recent sources for this stuff, you don't need to look further than the BBC, which has published so many pieces about J.K. Rowling that she has her own dedicated topic page, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c50znx8v82dt.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm only commenting on that one sentence (as written) and its poor sourcing. I don't disagree with what you just said, but what you just said explicitly rejects the statement I'm commenting on, and what you said, that already gender critical / TERF people supported her, is sky-is-blue stuff that probably doesn't need said. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, this is straightforward. Her statements haven't so much divided feminists, but rather, feminists were already divided on trans issues, and they've split on Rowling according to tribal lines. Those feminists who're gender-critical like Rowling and those who're gender-inclusive dislike her. Her statements have certainly prompted debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech, and they've certainly given rise to declarations of support for trans people from various actors and pressure groups. Nobody who's read the sources could possibly deny any of that, could they?—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sources for the "divided feminists" sentence are 2019 and 2020, I don't think this should be used without very explicitly putting some context as to WHEN feminists were divided. Though the sourcing then adds additional problems:
Wikipedia Featured article criteria (WIAFA)
Without changes to this section the article is outdated. Without the proposed changes it represents a historical version of what J.K. Rowling is famous for, and it's consequently drawing attention from people who want to update it piecemeal. A wholesale rewrite from the best sources available is the least bad option.—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Choosing to not update it is basically saying this article should not be an FA. If we're not going to do the best job we can with it, then it's not featurable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 22:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- As it happens, I agree with S Marshall. But I also understand the urge to swap newer sources for those the FA writers used some years ago. I wasn't one of the contributors (except maybe a little around the edges) and tapped out with Wikipedia atm. To keep the process on track, do you have any comments to make regarding S Marshall's most recent draft, Adam Cuerden? That's how we keep going. Victoria (tk) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fairly happy with it. I'm just not happy with - and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is.
- There's bits to argue. I think "She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased. But that's not the worst objection, is it? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.)
- We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Re
and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is
, yes you are misunderstanding -- I've not said (or meant) that at all. As I stated above, this process has not (yet) fully engaged 1c of WP:WIAFA by engaging in a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and as I've mentioned, there are newer and better sources for redrafting that sentence, which I believe to be one of the most FA-worthy parts of the section (that is, what is the lasting effect, beyond JKR triggering every news cycle, and editors then wanting to insert that NEWS here rather than in the sub-article). My apologies for not having time to delineate them, but repeating, if we aren't engaging the FA criteria, and as most of the FA writers who did engage it originally can no longer engage, I'm unsure where we are headed if we are going to keep filling the talk page discussions with NEWS and RECENTISM. Victoriaearle, when you stated yesterday that you find little new from your scholarly search to incorporate, were you referring to updating the literary portions of the article, or only the transgender rights section? When I browsed the other day (from the car, so couldn't save the sources), I found indications there is plenty for re-drafting that sentence, although I could only access those that were freely available. I'm relieved to have now heard from VM93, but remain concerned we may not be engaging in an overall way that will lead to retaining FA status. I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, but it's possible we could get more FA-knowledgeable writers to engage the criteria by in fact going back to FAR, where the off-topic RECENTISM is less likely to overtake the discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)- This characterization of using material from post-2020 as "off-topic RECENTISM" is disputed.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- As it happens, I agree with S Marshall. But I also understand the urge to swap newer sources for those the FA writers used some years ago. I wasn't one of the contributors (except maybe a little around the edges) and tapped out with Wikipedia atm. To keep the process on track, do you have any comments to make regarding S Marshall's most recent draft, Adam Cuerden? That's how we keep going. Victoria (tk) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sandy, I probably misunderstood. I wouldn't call my quick dip-stick search at Ebscohost a scholarly search. I thought you were referring to high-quality scholarly vs. news sources re the transgender section - and no, I didn't see anything that we aren't already using (but I didn't go beyond the first page). Even if you can't save, is it possible to capture links? In terms of updating the rest of the article, there's plenty, but as I mentioned Whited is new & generally lit. articles don't get updated within months of a new publication - at least not the ones I steward. It's always good to wait a bit.As far as the sentence in question, I'm not wedded to it. It would be better to keep the process moving, imo.As for as going back to FAR, don't see the need. The only immediate is need an overhaul of the transgender section & given the suggestions overnight think S Marshall's current version is fine. But ... today's article in the Times will need to get incorporated at some point because of the election.Victoria (tk) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad to be wrong. Thanks, Sandy. I think there's a major tension between recentism and outdated here. We need to include some amount of recent content as Rowling's views have pretty clearly moved to more extreme ones, but we also don't want to merely document the most recent three incidents. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- RE, "the most recent three incidents", that is the tricky part of working on this article (she triggers the news cycle weekly, so how to decide which to include). Re Victoria and S Marshall, when I was browsing from the car, what I meant was that I found plenty of scholar.google sources that could be used to update that sentence and that we don't need to go to news sources -- enough so that the still-relevance of the sentence was shown, which is why I think it the most enduring. The reason I didn't save those I found is that I considered my search (without journal access) incomplete. I could find them again, subject to same constraints, if my real life issues would ever settle down and give me a long-enough break to refocus here (sorry :( . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- To some extent, we don't need to be perfect, as long as we cover fairly typical and/or illuminating events. We're trying to give a flavour of her sort of activity. Ideally, analysis that makes the choices for us would be better, but in the absence of that, we have a little editorial perogative to pick and choose. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- RE, "the most recent three incidents", that is the tricky part of working on this article (she triggers the news cycle weekly, so how to decide which to include). Re Victoria and S Marshall, when I was browsing from the car, what I meant was that I found plenty of scholar.google sources that could be used to update that sentence and that we don't need to go to news sources -- enough so that the still-relevance of the sentence was shown, which is why I think it the most enduring. The reason I didn't save those I found is that I considered my search (without journal access) incomplete. I could find them again, subject to same constraints, if my real life issues would ever settle down and give me a long-enough break to refocus here (sorry :( . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This morning's article in The Times
is extraordinarily timely and helpful. I propose that we suspend updating this section for the moment because Rowling's latest little rant will provoke a reaction and, hopefully, some analysis by third parties.—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- ...could you please post a link to this article? Or at least the title? Loki (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sure.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- @LokiTheLiar, @S Marshall: There's a summary and context at this BBC article. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees the current draft is much better, and nothing says we have to stop work on drafts once we put something up. If we're going to suspend, let's implement the current draft. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, and would like to point out that while I haven't been a big fan of the allegations of WP:RECENTISM so far, relying heavily on breaking news about Rowling's comments about a currently happening election really would be RECENTISM. Loki (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rowling is in the public eye on this matter. Coverage isn't going to miraculously stabilize at any point. It is likely that we will need to periodically revisit this, especially as scholarly sources come out. That isn't a reason not to adjust the present wording, which is sub-optimal and considerably worse than the draft above. I support implementing it, my quibbles above notwithstanding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, and would like to point out that while I haven't been a big fan of the allegations of WP:RECENTISM so far, relying heavily on breaking news about Rowling's comments about a currently happening election really would be RECENTISM. Loki (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees the current draft is much better, and nothing says we have to stop work on drafts once we put something up. If we're going to suspend, let's implement the current draft. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
For easy discussion.
I mentioned this above, but:
"She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased.
I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.) We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want.
Footnote [a] is mispositioned, if we accept my change, put it with footnote [b], otherwise, it should be a sentence earlier.
These two sentences come right before a remarkably readable and clear statement of her positions (most of the rest of that paragraph). And they are in no way as clear or readable as those statements. At the least, it shouldn't come first. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do think it's important to be clear about at least some of the specific bills she opposes, since she does oppose specific bills and not just the general concept of gender self-recognition. But I also agree that sentence 3 should come first: we should say the general thing first, which is that she opposes gender self-recognition and then progress to more specific things she's said, like the specific bills she's opposed. Loki (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft 8
I'm starting to see consensus to go ahead and implement this, but it would be a pity to do so without Sandy's forthcoming commentary.—S Marshall T/C 08:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft 8.2: 407 words | Draft 8.3, with extra paragraph: 444 words | Historical: 429 words |
---|---|---|
Rowling has gender-critical views.[1][2][3] She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition[4][5][a] and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[7] Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.[8][9][10][b] In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".[15] Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater,[16] whose Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views.[17] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][c] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[23] In June 2020,[23] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[25][17] Rowling's views have divided feminists;[10][26][27] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[28][29] academic freedom[12] and cancel culture;[30] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[31] arts[32] and culture sectors.[33] She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[13][30][34] insults, and threats, including death threats.[35][36] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][39] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[43] Rowling denies being transphobic.[6][44] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed[4][37] – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[45][46] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[46][47][48] Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".[49]
|
Rowling has gender-critical views.[1][2][3] She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and resists proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. She opposes gender self-recognition[4][5][d] and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[7] Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.[8][9][10][e] In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".[15] Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater,[16] whose Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views.[17] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][f] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[23] In June 2020,[23] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[25][17] Rowling's views have divided feminists;[10][26][52] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[28][53] academic freedom[12] and cancel culture;[30] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[54] arts[55] and culture sectors.[56] She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[13][30][34] insults, and threats, including death threats.[35][36] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][57] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[43] Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful. Sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[58][59] In 2023, streaming series Max (formerly HBO) began to develop a television series[60][61] which will be released in 2026.[62] Rowling denies being transphobic.[6][44] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed[4][37] – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[45][46] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[46][63][64] Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".[49] |
Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,[8][9][g] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy.[13] Her statements have divided feminists;[10][26][65] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[28][66] academic freedom[12] and cancel culture;[30] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[67] arts[68] and culture sectors.[69] When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views,[17][18] Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][h] In another controversial tweet in June 2020,[38] Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[71][72] LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments;[41][42][i] GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".[78] Rowling responded with an essay on her website[6] in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[46] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[46][79][80] Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny,[81] she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".[82] Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017[13][83][84] – have been called transphobic by critics[85][86] and she has been referred to as a TERF.[86][87][88] She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.[6][85][84] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[89] and the charities Mermaids,[38] Stonewall,[90] and Human Rights Campaign.[91] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[43] As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[12] she received insults and death threats[92][93] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[94] Some performers and feminists have supported her.[94][95] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[96] |
Sources
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes
|
Discussion of Draft 8
S Marshall, I have another full day today, but hope to be able to look this evening. Quickly though, I did see one comma issue in the first para that may leave a misimpression:
She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.
It could read to the uninitiated as if she a) resists X, and b) (instead) proposes Y, when what is meant is that she a) resists X, and b) resists proposals to Y. And there's some redundant wording and detail. Not sure how to fix it ... maybe something like ... She resisted the (year?) Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland and changes proposed (in year X) to the UK Equality Act, (both of?) which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this.
- I would phrase it as
She opposes the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and also opposes proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.
Loki (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Another concern I have is (sentences numbered for discussion purposes):
1. She resists the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Scotland, and proposed changes to the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, which would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. 2. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. 3. She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.
In earlier drafts, we didn't have Sentence 2, so that the "without a medical diagnosis" in Sentence 1 led straight to Sentence 3 (her opposition). Now with the intervening Sentence 2, I'm not sure it's clear what she actually opposes (she said something along the lines, I forget and don't have time to look it up, call yourself what you want, live your life as you please, or whatever that bit was, so it's not self-recognition per se that she opposes); what she seems to oppose is giving access to certain spaces (that she views as necessary to protect women and children) to people who self-identify "without a medical diagnosis". Maybe this can be addressed by fiddling with the word "easier" to something more explicit to her concerns and what she has said (I believe that wording can be found in her essay, or maybe reviewing that New York Times opinion piece from someone who defended Rowling would provide some wording ideas). I hope I can find time to look more closely this evening to suggest wording, but someone else may get to it sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- PS, I agree we are close to installation, and will try tonight to dig up the newer sources I mentioned in discussion of Draft 7, but no promises; I am coming to sadly realize that the changes in the structure of my free time may be permanent; apologies again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- S Marshall thanks again for doing the work! It's great to see this & it looks great. Re the comma, suggest adding a "the" in front of "proposed changes" so as not to confuse that JKR is proposing the changes. SandyGeorgia, re self-recognition, Whited writes, page 7, "In late 2022 and early 2023, as Scotland considered its own gender identity reform, Rowling continued to be a vocal opponent of self-designation, especially for those in early adolescence." Victoria (tk) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I made a suggestion about sentence 2 in the section above this, which would redistribute it. Does anyone have any commentary on my suggestion? We could keep or lose sentence 1 in my opinion - though I think it's largely redundant to later comments - but sentence 2 is kind of a mess. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- (Also, as said above, footnote [a] is clearly misplaced as things stand. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Now tweaked to draft 8.1.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just passing by, great work by everyone. I noted a small issue on the third paragraph: "Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World. and Human Rights Campaign." There is a punctuation mark after Wizarding World that is misplaced. Maybe also change one "and" to something else then. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed in draft 8.1a.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I have one more minor point: "is concerned" feels like loaded language. How about just a neutral "says" or "stated". I still think "legal protections for women" is vague, but later in the paragraph it matters less. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Loaded how? Do you doubt that she's concerned about those things?—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also share this, uh, concern with Adam.
- My concern here is that "is concerned about X" implies that X is true. So when we say that
we're implicitly saying thatRowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women
, a statement we haven't sourced and couldn't say in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women
- Weird. Must be an ENGVAR thing, because "Rowling is concerned about X" doesn't suggest any truth value for X in English English. Anyway, I certainly don't love "says" or "stated". Always use a specific verb in preference to a generic one whenever you can: specific verbs don't just convey more information in a similar word count, they also make your sentence clearer and more engaging. Rowling worries? Fears? Believes?—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Believes" seems better. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weird. Must be an ENGVAR thing, because "Rowling is concerned about X" doesn't suggest any truth value for X in English English. Anyway, I certainly don't love "says" or "stated". Always use a specific verb in preference to a generic one whenever you can: specific verbs don't just convey more information in a similar word count, they also make your sentence clearer and more engaging. Rowling worries? Fears? Believes?—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Loaded how? Do you doubt that she's concerned about those things?—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I have one more minor point: "is concerned" feels like loaded language. How about just a neutral "says" or "stated". I still think "legal protections for women" is vague, but later in the paragraph it matters less. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed in draft 8.1a.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just passing by, great work by everyone. I noted a small issue on the third paragraph: "Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World. and Human Rights Campaign." There is a punctuation mark after Wizarding World that is misplaced. Maybe also change one "and" to something else then. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Forstater times 3
Working on redundancy:
- Current proposal: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater. When Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views, Rowling wrote that
- --> Less repetitive: Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she shared gender-critical views. Rowling wrote that
Or something similar to the reduce the repetition of Forstater's name three times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed in draft 8.2.—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thx! Still working through ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
But sales of books grew, and more
Why was this sentence cut? There's more, see for example "In fact, book sales increased, Universal Studios is expanding Harry Potter World, a TV series is in the works, Maya Forstater was exonerated, etc ... "
that we discussed, now back in Archive 20. If we need more sources, they can be added, but by leaving out that the popularity of her work continues, while expressing that her image or reputation has been impacted, we are losing some neutrality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- That paragraph wasn't flowing right with that sentence, but on reflection I agree that we need to put it back in... somewhere. Thinking cap on.—S Marshall T/C 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I'll try to revisit this after the rest of my morning work (I finally have a fully free day!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've tentatively added it to a fifth paragraph?—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- This format change explodes my brain; could be do this another way ? Like, just add the suggested para here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The last sentence of the 8.3 version (
Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes...
) could be split off into its own paragraph (as the fifth and final paragraph of the section), and the new paragraph in the 8.3 version (Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful...
) can then be placed right after the Whited sentence (in the same paragraph). Some1 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The last sentence of the 8.3 version (
- OK, now that I think I've been able to pick out the new para, I'm (always) concerned that we're adding text that isn't necessarily scholarly sourced ... the one sentence that was there before was from Pape. Let me continue my perusal of new sources to see what else comes up, but generally, I'm not fond of the new para, and I'm more concerned that by having a three-column proposal, we will confuse subsequent editors/readers of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also suspect we might find a way to work that one sentence in to the (now) third para, after examining new sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't love the new paragraph, because it feels a little off-topic: it's not about Rowling's views directly, and it's not really comparing Rowling's book sale increase to how COVID-19 affected other book sales. I don't hate it enough to object to the draft, but speculation about a series two years out and book sales increasing (Compared to what, 2019? Because I doubt they reached original release sales numbers) during a pandemic doesn't feel that relevant. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- Actually, checking this, I have major objections to the sales increasing language. See below. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- After seeing the context below, I also object to this line. It's hard to say what her sales increasing means in a context where everyone's sales increased. If her sales increased less than everyone else's, it's still possible the controversy hurt sales. And we don't get a comparison in the sources we have. Loki (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, checking this, I have major objections to the sales increasing language. See below. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also suspect we might find a way to work that one sentence in to the (now) third para, after examining new sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- This format change explodes my brain; could be do this another way ? Like, just add the suggested para here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've tentatively added it to a fifth paragraph?—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I'll try to revisit this after the rest of my morning work (I finally have a fully free day!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Flow issues and redundancy in first para
As discussed above by me, and under Draft 7 by Adam Cuerden, there are still flow problems in the first para, and there is a lot of repetition as well as duplication in footnotes. And that leads to a (slight) misrepresentation of her position. And there are missing links and definitions (eg, we manage to never link transitioning).
I suggest simplifying the whole thing, while by the way, attributing Duggan's opinion, which is slightly at odds with Rowling's own words:
- Concerned that easier gender transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women,[1][2][3] Rowling opposes proposed legislation[a] to advance gender self-recognition and make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis.[8][9][b] According to English professor Jennifer Duggan, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[11]
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes
|
I'll work next on the sources I promised to explore for the third para of Draft 8. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say "Rowling believes" is better than "Rowling suggests" in your last sentence: "suggests" is a little loaded, insofar as it presents the statement after it as a reasonable idea to suggest; we need to avoid any impression that Wikipedia agrees with very explicitly transphobic comments. Like, this is vague connotation stuff, but it still reads very wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Citation overkill ?
How did we end up with four sources citing "human rights campaign"? Did the citations get attached to the wrong bits here ? We shouldn't need four sources to cite criticism from Human Rights Campaign, so could we re-distribute the citations to what they are actually sourcing?
- Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[37][38][39] and Human Rights Campaign.[8][40][41][42]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Paragraph 3 re-do proposal
As I've mentioned, there are plenty of new sources to cite this content; since I don't have full journal access, I've only listed some at the end of this section, hoping that others will review and decide which to use. And I'd combine the bit we lost at #But sales of books grew, and more in to this paragraph. My (original) concern was that we not lose the enduring content about the debates the controversy has generated as spillover. Suggest Paragraph 3 thusly (once new sources are chosen from list below and substituted in): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rowling's views have fuelled discussions about feminist views on transgender topics,[1][2][3] freedom of speech,[4][5] academic freedom,[6] cancel culture[7] and the relationship of authors to their fandom;[8] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[9] arts[10] and culture sectors.[11] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World,[12][13][14] and Human Rights Campaign.[15][16][17][18] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[19] She has been the target of widespread condemnation[20][7][21] and insults, including death threats.[22][23] Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[24][25] Some performers and feminists have supported her,[26][27] and figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[28]
Sources
|
---|
References
Notes |
Divided feminists
- This scholarly source ("Feminism and Support for the Transgender Movement in Britain", American Sociological Association) cited the Ferber piece in the New Statesman about JKR.
- Victoria, are you able to look in to this ? "Feminist Lesbians as Anti-Trans Villains: A Comment on Worthen and Elaboration. By: Burt, Callie H., Sexuality & Culture, 10955143, Feb2023, Vol. 27, Issue 1.
- "Worthen thus asserts that GC feminists "are opposed to the recognition of trans women as women and instead, opt into sex essentialist beliefs that reinforce cisnormativity," citing Kathleen Stock, J.K. Rowling, and me, among other GC feminists (whom she labels 'TERFs')[15] (p.2). While these may be simple descriptions of our arguments, they are misguided."
- "Therefore, any questioning or resistance—or even support for the right of others to raise questions or concerns—about negotiating sex-based and gender-identity-based claims is frequently met with hostile, even threatening, responses and derogation. This should not be unexpected; as Manne explains, misogyny targets and blows out of proportion even small violations, which are made out to be indicative of women's bad character, in general.[32] Thus women, like J.K. Rowling, who explicitly support human rights for transwomen, profess compassion and sympathy, and support non-discrimination protections for transwomen in all sex-neutral contexts (which is most contexts), can be cast as horrible 'hateful TERFs' and subject to harassment, violent threats, no-platforming with wholesale disregard for the actual substance of their beliefs and actions. Remarkably, Worthen's article, like much trans-activist feminist scholarship, is silent about the "anti-GC feminist activism" including activists' publicly expressed physical threats, harassment, and celebration of intimidating sloganeering and signs: "kill TERFs, trans power". This is because of misogyny."
- Seems to be available via Springer, which can be found on TWL. Victoria (tk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Freedom of speech and cancel culture
- Callie H. Burt above.
- Keohane, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00027642241240337 Cancel Culture Rhetoric and Moral Conflict in Contemporary Democratic Societies
- Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality? By: Norris, Pippa, Political Studies, 00323217, Feb2023, Vol. 71, Issue 1
- You are Cancelled': Emergence of Cancel Culture in the Digital Age. Lokhande, Gayatri; Natu, Sadhana. IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review. 2022, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p252-259. 8p.
- How Cancel Culture Tarnishes Morals Clauses and What to do About It. Peterson, Jordan M. Vermont Law Review. 2022, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p220-247.
- Agonism in the arena: Analyzing cancel culture using a rhetorical model of deviance and reputational repair. Academic Journal. Hobbs, Mitchell John; O'Keefe, Sarah. Public Relations Review. Mar2024, Vol. 50 Issue 1, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102420.
- HARM AND HEGEMONY: THE DECLINE OF FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES. TURLEY, JONATHAN. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Jul2022, Vol. 45 Issue 2, p571-701
- Pape (already cited in article)
- Burt should be available via TWL on Springer.
- Keohane, ditto but on Sage
- Norris shows pdf available (g-scholar) - here it is
- Lokande seems to be hosted via Ebsohost. So, again, TWL
- Peterson is hosted by HeinOnline - not sure whether TWL has but it's worth looking
- Hobbs & O'Keefe >> looks like there's a pdf link right there on g-scholar.
- Turley > not sure I'd use him.
- Sorry am up to my eyeballs, house renovations, health, travel, etc. Hopefully will surface mid-Julyish. Victoria (tk) 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Relationship of author to fandom
- Taylor https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41290-024-00216-w Harry Potter and the ‘Death of the Actor’: reimagining fusion in cultural pragmatics
Academic freedom
- Free Speech in Academia. WOOD, PETER W. Texas Review of Law & Politics. Summer2023, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p761-787. 27p.
Discussion of paragraph 3 redo proposal
That's all for me; I do think once we nail down these few bits, we will be ready for install. Victoriaearle my list of possible sources above could benefit from your scrutiny, choice, etc. I will again be very busy tomorrow and Wednesday, so done for now -- I ran out of time to cough up all the sources I saw earlier, but hope this is enough to capture the idea of just mentioning the spillover enduring issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- "These few bits"? Well, I'm overwhelmed. Someone else's turn to do draft #9, I think.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The "sales increased in 2020" problem
First off, nothing I'm going to say is an attack on anyone's research for Wikipedia. But... there's context that puts really strong doubts on seemingly-sensible interpretations of what are probably true facts. I'm going to focus on the Guardian article first, because Pape uses it as the source for her figures (with a minor mistake):
I did some checking, and book sales just generally shot up a lot during COVID, and have continued to increase since. So that sales of her books increased is largely meaningless without comparing it to other trends. This article in particular is from July 2020, which means it's 3 months into the first British lockdown and covers the UK alone, annd is dealing with an increase in purchases during lockdown. That's not a big timescale. It's also very early in the J.K. Rowling transgender views controversy, so one can question whether she even had enough bad press at that point - while people were distracted by lockdowns - for a noticable change in the first place.
In short, it's almost certainly true, but it may not be at all meaningful, and, in the absence of comparison with the baseline, probably shouldn't appear here.
So, let's go on to Pape. Pape is using the Guardian source from 2020, and (mildly) misquotes her source: she says sales of Harry Potter are up 28%, the actual source is that sales of children's books sold by Bloomberg - a class that includes Harry Potter - are up 27% - and sales as a whole were up 28%. (Frankly, though, the Guardian article is written in a sufficiently convoluted way that that Pape's mistake is a pretty easy one to make.) More problematic is the timeline aspect: As said above, the Guardian article is from 2020, before Rowling had done that much. Pape may be writing in 2022, but if the source for her statistics is from 2020, and she doesn't have other sources, it doesn't push us beyond 2020, and hits all the issues mentioned above.
(This doesn't affect Pape as a source much beyond this issue; Pape is a 2022 source, but only cites things from 2021 and earlier. Pape may be out-of-date for some information, but I don't object to using her as a source where she's not out-of-date.
The framing of this fact is where everything falls apart: "Despite the controversy, Rowling's work is increasingly successful" - again, this is an interpretation that appears in the Guardian article (it's only implied in Pape) - but we can't possibly put that in present tense. We have no sources for booksales after July 2020. That's in no way enough to make statements about her success. The sourcing is, quite simply, far too outdated.
As for the other bit of that paragraph: As far as I'm aware, the HBO Harry Potter series hasn't even been cast yet, it's not meant to appear until 2026. We have no evidence of it being successful; it doesn't even exist yet. One could instead say something like, "Production of the Fantastic Beasts series was cancelled after the third film proved to be the lowest grossing film based on Rowling's work." and use it to imply the exact opposite.
Forbes states that American sales of Harry Potter in the same period lagged behind increases in other children's book purchases. "As the industry as a whole experiences a surge of print sales, Rowling’s works, and sales of Harry Potter books (including licensed titles), have seen a sudden drop. This reported U.S. print book sales drop in June coincides with controversy around tweets and statements made by Rowling via Twitter from June 6 onward."
It's honestly kind of awkward: Reports of profits by Bloomberg inevitably mention Harry Potter, but then give stats for Bloomberg as a whole. [2], say.
This is the best evidence I've seen for any sort of Potter success, but it doesn't include any numbers related to sales, just relative popularity (hit #1 in children's book sales in 2023 for the first time since 2002). - and, again, that's only British sales.
We need more recent sources on sales of Harry Potter - which include America and other countries - to say much of anything. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Luckily, the Guardian article doesn't just quote sales figures for the children's books division. The journalist also interviewed the boss of Bloomsbury, hence:
The company, which publishes all of the author’s Harry Potter books, said its consumer publishing arm grew sales by 28% to £31.4m. The children’s division grew by 27% to £18.7m, with Bloomsbury highlighting Rowling’s titles as a “bestseller”... Nigel Newton, the Bloomsbury chief executive, said the books had remained bestsellers since Rowling published her views on her website last month. “Harry Potter has been very popular with families at home reading to each other and has been marvellous throughout this period,” he said.
- The claim that these figures aren't meaningful stumbles over the fact that a scholarly source found them meaningful enough to remark on.
- The claim that these figures are outdated stumbles over the fact that these are the latest figures published by a reliable source.
- The Forbes article from June 2020 (a) predates the Guardian one, (b) appears in no scholarly source, and (c) doesn't account for audio books or ebooks. The ebook was released for free during this period which will have affected sales.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- TL;DR: In the game of Wikipedia, doing your own research to counteract a scholarly source counts as a foul.—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)