S Marshall (talk | contribs) TL;DR |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{Talk header|age= 30|bot= lowercase sigmabot III|units= days|minthreadsleft= 3}} |
|||
{{talk header|search=no}} |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
{{JRowling}} |
|||
{{UK English}} |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
|action1=GAN |
|action1=GAN |
||
|action1date=11:06, 3 June 2006 |
|action1date=11:06, 3 June 2006 |
||
Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
|action4oldid=176585208 |
|action4oldid=176585208 |
||
|action5 = FAR |
|||
|action5date = 2022-04-15 |
|||
|action5link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 |
|||
|action5result = kept |
|||
|action5oldid = 1082873609 |
|||
|currentstatus=FA |
|||
|maindate=April 11, 2008 |
|maindate=April 11, 2008 |
||
|maindate2=June 26, 2022 |
|||
|topic=Langlit |
|topic=Langlit |
||
|otd1date=2017-07-31|otd1oldid=792890911 |
|||
|currentstatus=FA |
|||
|otd2date=2021-07-31|otd2oldid=1036292258 |
|||
|otd3date=2022-07-31|otd3oldid=1101432981 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{section sizes}} |
|||
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Writers|class=FA}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|class=FA|blp=yes|living=yes|listas=Rowling, J. K.|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography |
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=Mid |a&e-work-group=yes }} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women |
{{WikiProject Women}} |
||
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=high|fantasy-task-force=yes|fantasy-importance=high|harry-potter-task-force=yes|harry-potter-importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Women|class=FA}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Women in Business|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Gloucestershire|importance=Top}} |
||
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |class=FA |category=Arts |WPCD=people}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} |
|||
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-07-31|oldid1=792890911}} |
|||
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|brief}} |
|||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Oberlin_College/GSFS_101_(Fall_2017) | assignments = [[User:Mgs1234|Mgs1234]] }} |
|||
{{Talk:J. K. Rowling/FAQ}} |
|||
{{press|small=yes|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 |
|||
|author2 = Hava Mendelle |
|||
== Education section == |
|||
|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 |
|||
| title = JK Rowling Net Worth |
|||
| year = 2023 |
|||
| author = Fehintola Ambali |
|||
| display-authors = |
|||
| url = https://gatekeepersnews.com/2023/04/16/jk-rowling-net-worth/ |
|||
| org = gatekeepersnews.com |
|||
| monthday = 16 April |
|||
| id = 1139578915 <!-- |
|||
| title2 = |
|||
| year2 = |
|||
| author2 = |
|||
| display-authors2 = |
|||
| url2 = |
|||
| org2 = |
|||
| monthday2 = |
|||
| id2 = --> |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|||
|counter = 20 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(20d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
== Death threat == |
|||
The Education section notes J.K. Rowling's "What was the Name of that Nymph Again? or Greek and Roman Studies Recalled" as being published in 1988, but it appears to have been published in 1998 as found within the Journal of the University of Exeter Department of Classics And Ancient History on a University website at: https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf |
|||
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) |
|||
<ref>https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/pegasus/files/2013/06/41-1998.pdf</ref> |
|||
*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== |
|||
[[User:AndrewHeagle|AndrewHeagle]] ([[User talk:AndrewHeagle|talk]]) 11:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Andrew Heagle |
|||
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) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
== Why add the the maya forsater situation and TERF accusations with biased sources == |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Draft 7.1: 403 words |
|||
{{hat|This is clearly a case of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]], [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] and also [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. Reasoning has been explained several times with no change to the OP's attitude. This will clearly go nowhere.}} |
|||
! style="width: 30em;" | Historical: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=1202117364#Transgender_people 429 words] |
|||
Is it because wikipedia editors are now toxics SJWs . |
|||
|- |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
I mean, brie larson gets a free pass with her man hating views on wikipedia but Jk Rowling is accused without proof . People cant add man hating to brie Larson article because wikipedia isnt a gossip rag but TERF can be added to Jk Rowling ? With one tweet and biased sources ? Talk about hypocrisy. This should apply to brie as well- if you add Terf to JKR you should be able to add Man hating to Brie . Gossip rag argument is moot point if your willing to vilify one person on the bases of poor gossip sources but not the other. |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
People can't make edits to articles of other celebs like brie Larson because of poor sources and wikipedia not being a gossip rag YET here we are with gossip sources for Jk Rowling. Even if people change the maya situation, it will be reverted by some SJW editor . Don't get me started on Johnny Depp being abused by amber heard and online tapes being released - someone on wiki said these tapes were doctored. Anything to believe woman as if woman cant do harm. Their are woman criminals. |
|||
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> |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
Hypocrisy 101 is showing and it must end . Social justice doesn't equal to equality but reverse revenge . Hpdh4 12:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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}} |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
:Discussion on this talk page should be limited to ''this'' article. A tangentially related situation on an unrelated article cannot be addressed by assuming they are somehow related or should be handled in a way that you deem to be "fair". |
|||
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> |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
:Comments attacking editors (individually or as a group) are neither productive nor acceptable. |
|||
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}} |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
:If you feel there are sources used which are not reliable sources, please specify which sources and in what way(s) you feel they do not meet the criteria outlined at [[WP:IRS]]. You are ''very'' unlikely to find support for arguments that CBS News, ''The New York Times'', ''Vox'', and ''Forbes'' are "poor" or "gossip sources". |
|||
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: |
|||
* [[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> |
|||
:If you feel the coverage of that material is beyond its coverage in the sources, such that it is a [[WP:WEIGHT]] issue, please explain. Note it is two sentences, citing four very reliable sources. |
|||
[[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> |
|||
:Please note that the article does ''not'' say Rowling is a [[TERF]]. Instead, the two sentences say she "faced criticism for supporting Maya Forstater" (which is certainly true), "after a court ruled that Forstater's anti-transgender views were not protected beliefs" (again, true and verifiable), "Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident," (it is inarguably true that the media outlets made those statements) "with some describing her as a trans-exclusionary feminist whose views are transphobic" (again, it is true that some described her that way). - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]</sup> 18:33, 18 April 2020 (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> |
|||
::Theirs something called consistency and fairness. Even if you and others like you feel otherwise . If things like this can be added to Rowling, then it can be done for anyone that's controversial. |
|||
::I'm not going to add contrevercial things said or done by people like brie Larson or Amber heard or delete the terf accusations . I know my contributions will be reverted. It appears as if The truth only matters when its factual in its support for specific agendas. |
|||
::Hpdh4 13:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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: |
|||
:::This article is about Rowling. If you feel something in another article is contrary to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, discuss THAT issue THERE. If you feel you have similar quality sources about another issue on another subject, you will need to take the issue up there: Provide the sources, show they are reliable (most of the sources here have been covered in [[WP:RS/P]]) and provide a [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] summary of what they say. |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
:::The TERF accusations in THIS article are very well sourced. If you feel any of the sources are not reliable you will need to be specific as to which source and how it fails [[WP:IRS]]. |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
:::What our article says is -- unless those sources are lying (for some reason) -- true: Rowling faced criticism, outlets said she had been controversial in the past and some described her as a [[TERF]] with trans-phobic views. Which of those statements do you feel are not [[WP:V|verifiable]]? If you feel Rowling was not criticized, was not accused and was not described, you will need to explain. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]</sup> 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
::::I'm not going to bother doing shit. |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
::::You and the rest of the Toxic SJW editors can keep on using wikipedia T&C to pretend it's all about adhering to the rules. We all know what it is : an agenda. Anything controversial said or done by any living person should be added to their respective articles irrespective of weather the sources are verifiable or not - that's what controversy is- generally unproven rumors . Isn't it strange sources deemed "appropriate" by some editors spew the same rhetoric yet with some ( I say some ) sources "not appropriate" actually have the truth . |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
::::I'm done . You lot win |
|||
* [[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> |
|||
::::Just trying to point out fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles. |
|||
::::Hpdh4 23:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, controversial claims about living people require high quality sources. If you don't like it, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]</sup> 23:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::No , controversy requires clickbait journalism. The kind of thing people like you prefer to support. When she actually starts supporting hate groups and saying negative things like Trump then I will believe that shes a Terf . |
|||
::::::How can clickbait journalism be supported over actual speech like in the case of Brie Larson and the Johnny Depp tapes of amber's abusive behavior. Actual spoken proof matters more then your agenda based sources . |
|||
::::::Hpdh4 09:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}A specific BLP article is not the place to discuss general claims about "fairness of being allowed to add controversial material said or done by celebs to their respective articles". [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 11:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|} |
||
== Similar controversies == |
|||
'''Sources''' |
|||
I recently edited this article to remove the line {{tq|Similar controversies have arisen with regards to her liking tweets which some considered to be transphobic}}. This line was initially supported by a PinkNews source, which I removed per [[WP:RSP]], and by articles from Vox and LGBTQ Nation, both of which can be considered reliable sources. However, neither article would appear to effectively support that sentence. The Vox source was in fact previously used to support this sentence {{tq|Media outlets stated that Rowling had expressed controversial views on transgender issues prior to this incident, with some describing her as [[transphobia|transphobic]]}} which I removed in this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=next&oldid=960424554] as it appeared to be a generalisation, not supported as per [[WP:3REFS]]. Retrospectively, this source does not adequately support the remaining sentence, as it principally covers the Forstater case, with the rest of the article being social media speculation, making it [[WP:UNDUE]] as a source for the sentence. The LGBTQ Nation source relies entirely on speculation regarding social media. I do not believe that there is enough reliable coverage to support the sentence, per [[WP:3REFS]] and that to include it based on the sources given would be [[WP:UNDUE]] for a [[WP:BLP]]. <s>I would therefore propose to revert to the edit here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=961062502].</s> [[User:Autumnking2012|AutumnKing]] ([[User talk:Autumnking2012|talk]]) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
===Discussion=== |
|||
:Thanks for discussing. It won't be hard to find additional Rowling's opinions on transgender issues, and I'll happily add them over the next couple of days. Minimising coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues and activism seems to be a particular interest of yours, but coverage of such opinions does seem to be on the increase. Note that social media such as Twitter can be used as a [[WP:TWITTER|reliable source]]. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC) --- Huh. [https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313 Timely] [https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269389298664701952 tweets] [https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269394077176541189 tonight]. She and Gl*nner seem to do this ''a lot''! [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{re|Bastun}} References to news coverage of the tweets and subsequent commentary will be better than linking to [[WP:PRIMARY]] tweets and snippets. Should wait before expanding on the recent controversy, though the previous Forstater controversy needs some better expansion itself. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 04:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:::Oh, absolutely. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 08:31, 7 June 2020 (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: |
|||
:::: Clearly current events have overtaken things here, hence my strike through. From a Wikipedia perspective, Rowling's latest comments, and the subsequent coverage they have generated, should prove helpful to editors. I would suggest that editors refrain from throwing aspersions at other Wiki editors, as has been done on this talk page. My aim, as I would hope is the aim of most editing here, is to edit Wikipedia and particularly BLP's fairly, keeping balance and context in mind, and attempting to avoid personal bias/agendas. Passing judgement on others supposed motivations is neither helpful, in the spirit of collaboration or general politeness. [[User:Autumnking2012|AutumnKing]] ([[User talk:Autumnking2012|talk]]) 20:02, 9 June 2020 (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. |
|||
:*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. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|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.—[[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) |
|||
:::::I stand by my comment. Your contributions speak for themselves and appear to be aimed at minimising, specifically, coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues. That is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]]. You could of course prove me wrong by supporting the inclusion of coverage "the subsequent coverage they have generated", which you say above that you support. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**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...==== |
|||
Twitter is far from reliable unless it comes from proven sources making use of Twitter like for example a journalist. When your information comes from multiple tweeters its incorrect. Hate to see wikipedia fall to tabloid standards over unproven allegations and virtue signaling. Hpdh4 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4|HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4]] ([[User talk:HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
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) |
|||
Per [[WP:NOTEVERYTHING]], especially [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:NOTSOAPBOX]], and keeping in mind the reasoning at [[WP:RECENTISM]], we should not include every single flash-in-the-pan piece of commentary. As of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&oldid=961670482 right now], regarding her June tweets, we have what the tweets were about, their criticism, and, for [[WP:NPOV]], the [[WP:BLP]] subject's response, all covered by [[WP:Secondary]] sources. This is more than enough coverage of this extremely recent incident. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: {{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)==== |
|||
:Agreed, we should not include every flash in the pan response. I added some criticism of Rowling's most recent anti-trans tweets yesterday, made by several notable people not directly associated with her, which were subsequently removed, and on balance, that's probably the correct decision. Keeping in mind [[WP:NOTPAPER]], [[WP:BALANCE]], [[WP:TENYEARRULE]], however, the criticism of her tweets by Daniel Radcliffe which was reported today most certainly is proper to include. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:25, 9 June 2020 (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) |
|||
::Why? Because he's Harry Potter? What about Evanna Lynch's response? Should we include it too? <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color: #00b;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><span style="color: #b00;">pod</span></sup>]]<span style="color: #00b;">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</span></b> 23:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, because he's responding via the Trevor Project after years of collaboration with them, making it pretty much their official comment, even if his name is on the open letter. Why is GLAAD okay but The Trevor Project not? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 04:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::We don't need ''two'' advocacy groups' detailed comments. Remember, this is a flash in the pan source-wise. It should be kept brief. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 04:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::So why does her reply belong here? Just state the outline of the controversy and link to [[Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights]]. Why is her reply significant enough for the main article, but [[The Trevor Project]]'s is not? Especially if the latter got more media attention? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 04:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Because: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=961675123&oldid=961674042] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=961741476] <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::That explains quite well why we shouldn't include stuff like [[Mara Wilson]]'s brilliant reply, and also why we probably shouldn't include Rowling's reply (to your notice). But not why we shouldn't have The Trevor Project. I mean, GLAAD's response is quite clearly not news, and therefore is included. Same for the Trevor Project. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 04:55, 10 June 2020 (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) |
|||
:::::::That explains nothing. :-) No valid reason for excluding Radcliffe's response on behalf of the Trevor Project has been presented. Given the inextricable links between Radcliffe and Rowling, excluding any mention of his response - especially given [https://www.google.com/search?q=radcliffe+trevor+project+rowling&rlz=1C1CHBD_enIE708IE708&sxsrf=ALeKk03wDHlJaO4kqXaiPqowmpIEQC4DwQ:1591819834719&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEv63-hvjpAhVyWxUIHedHBUIQ_AUoAXoECAsQAw&biw=1920&bih=937 the coverage it has received] - would actually seem perverse. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 20:12, 10 June 2020 (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, {{u|Adam Cuerden}}? That's how we keep going. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I added a mention of Radcliffe's comments before seeing this conversation. Sorry, I would've discussed the issue first if I had known it was controversial. Radcliffe's and Redmayne's comments are included in more than enough RS to show they are notable. I believe it also belongs according to [[WP:NOTNEWS]] as well since this seems to be more than a routine reporting and are not overemphasized in the article. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 20:28, 10 June 2020 (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. |
|||
{{od}} Thinking about this more, and looking at the coverage now, if editors want to mention commentary from Radcliffe via The Trevor Project, then I suppose that makes sense. Still, I think the June 2020 material that is critical of Rowling should be kept short enough to be a single paragraph that is not unusually long, per [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:RECENTISM]]. I also don't think we necessarily need to mention Eddie Redmayne and Evanna Lynch's responses, as they are individuals who say basically the same things as GLAAD and The Trevor Project. But my main issue is watching out for excessive length or detail. Rab V, your version of it was summarized well. But let's see what others say on including the mention of the Lynch and Redmayne comments. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 20:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
:Thanks. Agree about how long it should be. I'd also say the current version is too long when discussing her blog post per [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and seems to be written with a bit of a slant. Right now it's seeming like Redmayne's comments are getting a lot of traction in RS but not Lynch so I think a brief mention of Redmayne may be due though it is similar to other comments. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 21:16, 10 June 2020 (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> |
|||
::My main concern is also keeping things brief. I would probably cut things down to two paragraphs, one about Rowling's views and one about the backlash. That is roughly how [https://apnews.com/6d99e691c88a5631cc8c2aa2b39ff3c1 this AP article] organizes things, focusing largely on Rowling's views in the first half then the backlash in the second. Regarding the criticism from ''Harry Potter'' actors: I think it's worth including, as long as it's kept as brief as possible. [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/arts/Jk-Rowling-controversy.html Radcliffe]'s, [https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/06/evanna-lynch-jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets Lynch's], [https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/emma-watson-trans-people-are-who-they-say-they-are-j-k-rowling-gender-comments Watson's], and [https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-52975994 Redmayne]'s criticism have all gotten headline coverage. [[User:WanderingWanda|WanderingWanda]] ([[User talk:WanderingWanda|talk]]) 03:12, 11 June 2020 (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. <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) |
|||
:::I prefer the current ordering, which is the same as the Reuters piece. |
|||
::::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) |
|||
:::Regarding Rab V's tweaks to the summary I wrote of the [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI Reuters piece]: |
|||
::::: 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) |
|||
:::1. The bit about {{tq|some of which [criticism] had been in the form of abusive language and threats of violence}} should be mentioned. Reuters, as a news service, is a superior source to various entertainment magazines, and they saw fit to mention this. It gives context to what she goes on to say about having suffered violence, and is part of the background complexity of the situation. |
|||
:::2. It was claimed that {{tq|She expressed concern that some young women were being persuaded to escape womanhood via gender transition, noting her own struggles as a teenager.}} was {{tq|confusing and not in source}}. I don't feel too strongly about including this sentence, even though Reuters emphasizes this point, but I need to address the claim it was not in the source. Here is the supporting text: {{tq|Rowling, 54, explained in detail her research and beliefs on trans issues, and the concerns she has about how women’s rights and some young people’s lives were being impacted by some forms of trans activism....“I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition,” she wrote. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge.” She said that as a teenager she had struggled with severe Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and that she now believes that had she found community and sympathy online, she could have been persuaded to turn herself into the boy her father said he would have preferred.}} I'm not sure where the confusion lay, but adjustments can be made of course. |
|||
:::3. She <s>never stated</s> <u>didn't just say</u> {{tq|that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces [was] dangerous}}. Note the Reuters source carefully: {{tq|she did not want girls and women to be less safe, and she gave some examples of where she thought demands by trans people were dangerous to women. “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman ... then you open the door to '''any and all men who wish to come inside.'''”}} (Emphasis added.) She is clearly stating that the issue goes beyond trans women - that certain criteria for access allow persons ''who are not trans women and do not '''actually''' identify as women'' to gain access ''for other reasons'' ("any and all"). We can't attribute to her a position different from the one actually held. |
|||
:::4. On {{tq|She stated that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning, comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women.}}, the {{tq|comparing them to degrading slurs that have been used against women.}} portion was cut off. I think this should stay because so much of the recent commentary revolves around the "people who menstruate" phrase, which we already quote, we should mention why specifically she objected to it beyond vaguely calling it "demeaning". <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC) <small>correcting <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::::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) |
|||
::::Agree with keeping this brief, to two to three paragraphs. Expanding as necessary when there is another such controversy (the current controversy did not exist when this talk page section was started). Re Crossroads' comments, (3), her quote not only misgenders trans women but absolutely '''does''' imply that allowing trans women are dangerous. Re (4), I do know for a fact that those remarks insulted and demeaned [https://www.nme.com/news/film/harry-potter-author-jk-rowling-criticised-for-anti-trans-tweets-2683294 post-menopausal women and women and those who have had hysterectomies]. That should also be covered. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 08:37, 11 June 2020 (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. <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) |
|||
::::::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) |
|||
:::::::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) |
|||
====This morning's article in The Times==== |
|||
::::I see the Radcliffe/Trevor Project material was removed again. Consensus now seems to favour inclusion. I propose including a sentence about the criticism from Radcliffe, Watson and other HP stars, including reference to the Trevor Project. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 10:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:::::If there is ever another such controversy, I don't support adding another paragraph, per NOTNEWS. Since the topic is politically charged and entertainment sources cover every little thing celebrities say (both Rowling and each person reacting), we get a bunch of different flashes in the pan that say nothing new substantive. I'd say this section should max out at three reasonably sized paragraphs, one of which is about her response(s), rather than adding another paragraph in August and another in January and so on. If new incidents occur, we can make it less about specific incidents and more about comments that sources have made about the overall pattern of statements. Regarding point #3, she does do that, but it also is about men as I explained. Regarding #4, you can't know that for a fact as that is an opinion. That opinion is not of any note - it's just some random person on Twitter who never even said they were a post-menopausal woman or a woman with a hysterectomy. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 15:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:...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) |
|||
::::::Yeah, re-working the section next time there's a controversy works too. As long as it's not "there can never be more than we have now", obviously. Looking at other biographies, when you stop being notable for your former field and are now mainly known for your new area of interest, that latter topic will be covered in increasing depth. That's only proper, per [[WP:DUE]]. Re 4, I can't know what for a fact? NME covered one tweet out of dozens or more that replied in exactly the same fashion to Rowling's tirade - many, ''many'' cancer survivors, menopausal women, etc., responded. It's not hard to find those tweets. I suspect you're aware of them, though, and your removal of that response was disingenuous. Reuters is not the gold standard as sources go, and NME is a perfectly valid source, by the way. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Responding to the comments Crossrads made about my edits: They are mainly done since the paragraph was overlong considering NOTNEWS. (1) The phrase from the source "At times, the criticism has taken the form of abusive language and threats of violence" is incredibly vauge. What is abusive language, when was it used, who is saying it, was this why she wrote the essay? Later in the source it goes on to describe her being compared to Voldemort as abuse. Also Reuters is not a superior source necessarily, we have to decide which parts of this story are featured prominently across RS in general to figure out what is appropriate to share and what isn't [[WP:DUE]]. (2) The source talks about her worry about how trans activism imapcts her life and whether she might've transitioned. It doesn't explicitly state young people now are transitioning now who shouldn't. The phrase "escaping womanhood" is an unusual and confusing wording for transition to male and calling people who transition to male "women" goes against wikipedia policy. (3) 'A man who believes or feels he is a woman' is a charged way to refer to a trans woman. I don't think the article or the preponderance of RS support that she isn't talking about fears around trans women. (4) Sentence was overlong for NOTNEWS, not sure the removed material signigicantly to readers' understanding of Rowling's position. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 18:16, 11 June 2020 (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) |
|||
{{od}}X-posted from [[Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling]] and directed at Crossroads: "Let's see what develops" apparently means just cutting out the material. This article is specifically about Rowling's politics, but you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's ''literally'' news. [https://www.google.com/search?q=rowling+transphobe&rlz=1C1CHBD_enIE708IE708&sxsrf=ALeKk00XhZDJYN9FRTw_SvnqoSfS9KXcGQ:1592092343291&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV3siU_v_pAhXuTxUIHSJ9BPwQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1920&bih=888 1.6 million ghits right now]. [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is '''not''' a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:53, 13 June 2020 (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) |
|||
:Your reply there was to a days-old comment. I stopped objecting to an addition about Radcliffe and the Trevor Project. Other editors, though, also have a say. You need to actually read [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. Once you do, you'll see that "It's literally news" is a very poor argument for inclusion. Don't forget [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]'s twin, [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. And you are hereby warned to stop attacking me. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." - [[WP:NPA]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 04:19, 14 June 2020 (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) |
|||
::::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) |
|||
:::::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) |
|||
== For easy discussion. == |
|||
::Can I ask, what's your obsession with Reuters? It's no more or less reliable than any other reliable source, such as ''Variety'', ''Entertainment Weekly'', or ''The Guardian''. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::See [[WP:RSP]]. Obviously, outlets that are mainstream journalism are more reliable than entertainment magazines. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 16:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I mentioned this above, but: |
|||
::::I'm very aware of [[WP:RSP]]. It quite often makes subtle distinctions for specific outlets, but y'know what? It's perfectly valid to use sources other than Reuters, especially when they're listed on [[WP:RSP]] as reliable. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 16:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{Reply to|Abbyjjjj96}} the reasoning behind giving weight to Radcliffe's response is overlayed here. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 06:21, 16 June 2020 (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. |
|||
:Rowling's lack of enthusiasm for the English language bending in until-recently-strange ways, and making it clear that having lived as a woman in the entire biological sense has shaped who she is and what she does, while also repeatedly making it very clear she's supportive of trans rights and was way ahead of the curve on that – this is not "transphobic". Even some trans activists are saying it is not and that labeling her that way will hurt their own cause. It's just extremist noise and is not encyclopedic material. Every time someone somewhere gets mad at some tweet, we do not need to write about it in the encyclopedia. This is not EmpheralMessagesAndEmotionsPedia.<p>Activism organizations and publication may be reliable sources for certain things, but they are absolutely not for their activistic messages and labeling; that is pure [[WP:PSTS|primar-source]] material, by definition. That ''Variety'' published everything I just summarized, yet still put "transphobic" in their headline, unqualified, as if this were a world-wide consensus instead of a minority and extreme and self-defeatist opinion, simply means that the magazine needs a better editor. Entertainment magazines (which is most of the sources for this stuff) are not reliable sources for socio-political matters, anyway; they're reliable for things like whether so-and-so celebrity got divorced from thus-and-such other celebrity, and for what whatshername was seen wearing at her movie premiere last week, and how unhappy whatshisname says he is with his album being a flop because the pandemic killed his promo tour. As for the spousal-abuse thing, there has been a little bit of press about this, but it's more using her as an example, not making an example of her, as it were. The incident is not central to Rowling as a public figure, as an encyclopedia subject; rather, people are using her celebrity to draw attention to the overall social problem of domestic violence. It's not our job to dwell on the old private-life matters of bio subjects (especially living ones), even if some other publishers are doing so. If we mention this at all, it should be in-context, in the material about her marriage and divorce; not in some "controversies" section that is getting more and more like a drama-mongering trivia section.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)</p> |
|||
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.) |
|||
:: Rowling claimed trans people are trying to erase the concept of biological sex, which is false and a TERf dogwhistle. She claimed trans women are a threat to cis (or as she said in another TERf dogwhistle, natal) women, which is super transphobic. She claimed most trans men are just confused girls, which is both wrong and transphobic. She claimed trans people are trying to "convert" gay men into trans women, which is again wrong and transphobic. When I read the essay I counted at least 8 falsehoods and 19 direct quotations of TERf rhetoric, and similar breakdowns by medical and psychological professionals found even more. If Rowling decided to stop working on her book to write this 3600 word transphobic manifesto, I believe it's only just that we include a single sentence about how she was criticised for that. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 07:42, 16 June 2020 (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. |
|||
Footnote [a] is mispositioned, if we accept my change, put it with footnote [b], otherwise, it should be a sentence earlier. |
|||
:::Speaking of falsehoods... [[User:Abbyjjjj96|Abbyjjjj96]] ([[User talk:Abbyjjjj96|talk]]) 19:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
== Should Transgender Essay be Included in Non-Fiction? == |
|||
<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 vote yes; it is a much talked about piece, and seems to have been written more as a true essay, rather than simply as a blog post. [[User:Inspector Semenych|Inspector Semenych]] ([[User talk:Inspector Semenych|talk]]) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:In my view, no, it should not be listed in the "non-fiction" section at this time; it's better handled in the "views"/"gender identity" section. If it gets continuing coverage, and/or coverage ''as'' a significant non-fiction work rather than just a(nother) expression of her views on gender identity, then I would re-evaluate it at that time. ... Frankly, the fact that we're listing even some individual ''Guardian'' articles also seems questionable; I did not think these sections were intended to be comprehensive lists of everything a person had ever written, but only of notable/important works, but I may be mistaken there... [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 03:42, 11 June 2020 (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) |
|||
== Jacobs / Sun paragraph == |
|||
==Draft 8== |
|||
The paragraph about the ''Sun'' publishing, and being reprimanded for publishing, her husband saying her slapped her ... is currently in the "Views"→"Transgender issues" section, but does not ever mention or relate itself to transgender issues. So, it seems like it should be moved. Perhaps the sentence which says "Biographers have suggested that Rowling suffered domestic abuse during her marriage," which was recently expanded with "which was later confirmed by Rowling herself", should be further expanded with "...and by her first husband" + whatever additional details are actually DUE ''here'' (and we might want to discuss whether someone who is not the article subject reprimandng a paper for publishing something by someone else who is not the article subject is DUE ''here'' as opposed to in the article on e.g. the newspaper which was reprimanded). [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 20:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:I agree on moving the Sun paragraph. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 20:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
:It was me who created this paragraph, I am not necessarily against moving it, but where do we move it to? Although your last sentence was very convoluted, not sure I followed it, sche. [[User:PatGallacher|PatGallacher]] ([[User talk:PatGallacher|talk]]) 20:39, 12 June 2020 (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}} |
|||
:OK, I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&type=revision&diff=962231946&oldid=962224050 moved] the paragraph up, into the part of the article that talks about the marriage and about the domestic abuse. For now, I left in the sentence about Jacobs reprimanding the ''Sun'', although it's kind of ... straying off of the topic of this article? (But I don't feel strongly enough to remove it. Another idea for consideration is to make it a {{tl|efn}}, though.) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
:: Hi all. I added the bit about Jacobs and believe it should stay as context pivotal to a full understanding of the outcry against The Sun. Without that statement from Jacobs, it's not in itself clear why The Sun's publishing choices have been formally found to be reprehensible (the quote from the ex-husband is not enough... "he slapped her and he's not sorry" does not in itself adequately convey that his actions are domestic violence and therefore criminal). Thoughts welcome. [[User:Zedembee|Zedembee]] ([[User talk:Zedembee|talk]]) 01:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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> |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
=== "who lost her employment tribunal against (x)" === |
|||
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}} |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
:: {{re|-sche}} to answer your question in Contrib comments... "tribunal" (no need to follow with "case") is correct in British English. ''Her loss in the tribunal inspired Ms. Doe to advocate for better protections for pregnant women.'' [[User:Zedembee|Zedembee]] ([[User talk:Zedembee|talk]]) 15:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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: |
|||
* [[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> 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> |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
::: "Her loss in the tribunal" is grammatically very different from "who lost her tribunal against [X]", though, are you sure the latter phrase is also grammatical? One can also say "her loss in court inspired Ms Doe", but not "she lost her court against X". I see all of eight(!) google hits for the phrase "lost her tribunal against", and while I know [[WP:GHITS]] aren't an argument for titling or deleting an article, it does make be wonder if the phrase is standard English. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 21:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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}} |
|||
== Support for Rowling on Trans issues == |
|||
|| {{Main|Political views of J. K. Rowling#Transgender rights}} |
|||
Support of Rowling's stance on Transgender issues should be included as much as critique is included. Excluding support for her comments is indicative of an obvious bias in support of the gender narrative and isn't conducive to wikipedias main purpose. Some would debate adding any information is controversial and that adding support that doesn't come from Potter cast isn't proper. Support is support no matter who it comes from as in the case of Transgender pop singer [[Dana International]] who spoke in support of Rowling. |
|||
I will add the supporters to counteract the detractors who are motivated by publicity reasons . Hpdh4 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I think that would apply to an article on the controversy surrounding Rowling's tweets, should we decide we need one. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color: #00b;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><span style="color: #b00;">pod</span></sup>]]<span style="color: #00b;">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</span></b> 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Please read [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Positions should be represented proportional to their weight in RS. Including Dana when HP stars only get brief mentions would be [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]].[[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 17:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Mermaids, an LGBTQ+ charity, gets a single sentence, and the CEO of GLAAD doesn't get a mention, despite her not insignificant response to Rowling's essay. With all due respect to Dana, her opinion doesn't matter for the purposes of this article. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 18:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Overview --> |
|||
Dana's opinions matter more then Radcliffe,Glaad,Mermaids, Watson,Lynch,Redmayne,Wright . Dana is actually transgender. Opinions of the person from the actual group matters more then that of controversial organizations like mermaids or PR driven actors . Plus it's a situation of Us vs Them . Having only Rowlings detractors is bias as it assumes Rowling is entirely wrong when people like Dana agrees with her to an extent. Support as much as critique should be included . Even a neutral sentence should be included like : Rowling's claims have garnered some support and then have the Reuters/dana article used as a citation. Hpdh4 19:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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> |
|||
:: Mermaids is a major nonprofit transgender advocacy organisation, and therefore carries much more weight than that of a single random trans person. Furthermore, you seem to still be misunderstanding what a neutral point of view means in relation to Wikipedia and transphobia. Transphobia is a fringe position, and therefore should be given less weight on this website than the opposite. [[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- History --> |
|||
No |
|||
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}} |
|||
I am starting to understand one thing from this: theirs a bias against Rowlings comments. I still stand by my original position; Both CRITIQUE and SUPPORT should be included to avoid being seen as giving creditability to one side only. It isn't neutral if theirs only critique from PR driven actors and a controversial transRIGHTS organization. |
|||
Neutral is this : Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues have generated controversy and have garnered both criticism and support from an assortment of celebrities and organizations. Hpdh4 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::please consider [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight|undue weight]]--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 22:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hpdh4, can you please sign your posts with 4x ~ so we can find our way to your talk page? As you were asked to do [[User talk:HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4#Chatting on talk pages|here]] [[User:Britmax|Britmax]] ([[User talk:Britmax|talk]]) 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Reaction --> |
|||
:::Yes, there likely ''is'' a bias against Rowling's comments in the real world - LGBT rights issues have included the 'T' since - well, Stonewall, actually and literally, if not before. They're pretty key. To have someone who wrote the HP books apparently miss the point of her own writing by such a distance, and to have her punch down on trans women, women who've had hysterectomies, and post-menopausal women, was shocking for many. Radcliffe's response explains why far better than I can. So it is entirely [[WP:DUE|due]] to feature the response of GLAAD, The Trevor Project, and Mermaids, all significant organisations, plus the reaction of the actors synonymous with the HP films. Dana International is relevant to JK Rowling how, exactly? You're new here - please read [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:DUE]]. Regards, [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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: |
|||
* [[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> 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> |
|||
<!-- Nevertheless --> |
|||
You prove my point Batsun. This site is supposed to be neutral and report things as is. Agendas are left at the table . |
|||
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> |
|||
Fairness demands both criticism and support exist in the same article section. Dont play the new card when your blatantly against Rowling. I'm neither against her and nor am I with her. I just want both criticism and and support to be included. Information should not be excluded on the basis of whose relavent or not and definitely not be excluded on the basis of a editors personal agenda. |
|||
Somebody else will include Dana's support and I can't wait for the blow up . Hpdh4 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The proper point of comparison is with the comments of the Harry Potter actors. Including those, and not those of a notable transgender woman, whose comments were treated as noteworthy by [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-rowling/j-k-rowling-reveals-past-abuse-and-defends-right-to-speak-on-trans-issues-idUSKBN23H2XI Reuters] (and [https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/06/14/israeli-transgender-pop-star-dana-international-comes-to-defense-of-harry-potter-author-j-k-rowling/ elsewhere]), and creating the impression that all celebrities condemned Rowling, is what creates [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Simply having played a character in the Harry Potter movies ''does not'' give one special authority in this matter. It takes some sort of intellectual [[gerrymandering]] to say that their opinions need to be included, but those of an actual transgender woman do not. It's still clear that many other trans people do not feel the way Dana International does because we have comments from groups like GLAAD. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 03:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::That's one sentence only in the Reuters source suggests this isn't as notable in RS as the other actors, especially those with many RS dedicated to their opinions. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 05:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Denial --> |
|||
I mean, in theory I have no problem with the inclusion of Dana International's opinions, it's just that there are quite a few trans people's opinions that disagree with her, and there's no reason to give her more weight over them. So if Dana's opinion gets included, it is only fitting that we include quite a lot more of trans opinions, making this chapter the longest in the article. Also, there is no need to defend Rowling more than her own defence if several professional organisations (the Trevor Project, GLAAD, Mermaids) condemn her entire behaviour in this controversy. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 06:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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}} |
|||
:It's Bastun, not Batsun. My ''point'', person whose username is about Harry Potter and wants to include an additional defence of Rowling but is neutral and doesn't stand with her, is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Organisations working with, by and for trans people, amongst others, including GLAAD, Memaids and The Trevor Project have all criticised Rowling's comments, but if you look at the page history here, their criticisms were all removed at one point or another. We still have nothing in the article about the criticism she received for equating sex with menstruation (apparently you stop being a woman after menopause or hysterectomy; and keep being a woman even if you're a trans man?). I have no objection whatsoever to including support for Rowling, if its relevant and satisfies [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:BALANCE]]. The HP-associated actors satisfy that. A random singer, not so much. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 09:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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: |
|||
::The post above says that: ''"We still have nothing in the article about the criticism she received for equating sex with menstruation ('''apparently you stop being a woman after menopause or hysterectomy'''; and keep being a woman even if you're a trans man?)."'' |
|||
* [[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> |
|||
::That's not what Rowling said; regardless of what one thinks of her views, let's not put things into her mouth that she never said, that's a [[WP:BLP]] issue. Saying that "only women menstruate" does '''not''' equate with "only the persons who menstruate are women" (ie. what she says is that men don't menstruate, '''not''' that women who don't menstruate aren't real women). What she means is: "Not all women menstruate, but only women menstruate." The part on transmen may be indeed her view, but not the bolded part about menopause/hysterectomy.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|talk]]) 10:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
[[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> |
|||
:::Cool, so you support the addition of criticism about her implicit claim that trans men are women, and her saying that those who say otherwise are trying to erase the concept of sex? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 11:18, 16 June 2020 (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'm sorry, what is a BLP issue? I haven't implied that she said anything that she didn't write. She wrote what she wrote. What she wrote about menstruation [https://www.newspostleader.co.uk/read-this/why-jk-rowling-has-been-accused-transphobia-and-how-she-has-responded-2877982 offended a lot of women and men], and it's on the record. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 11:24, 16 June 2020 (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: |
|||
== mermaids == |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
* [[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}} |
|||
* [[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 ==== |
|||
Is the uk times a reliable enough source to label mermaids as controversial? From my understanding it's up there with the daily mail in terms of manufacturing fake controversies. EDIT: see also the wikipedia page about [[Mermaids (charity)|mermaids itself]] which does not refer to them as such.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|Sources}} |
|||
:to expand on this further: should we call a charity controversial if the subject it raises money for is already controversial? I feel the current wording implies that there is something nefarious going on with this charity beyond it dealing with potentially controversial subject matter, which, going by the charity's wikipedia page and my knowledge of it, doesn't seem to be the case--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 23:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{Reply to|Britmax}} pinging you since you reverted my edit on this --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{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=== |
|||
== Summary of J. K. Rowling's essay on transgender issues == |
|||
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. |
|||
The section ''Transgender issues'' reads like this: |
|||
: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) |
|||
{{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) |
|||
::Rowling later published an essay on her website in response to the criticism.[251] She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that allowing trans women access to single-sex spaces was a danger to women, while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection. She also wrote that many women consider terms like "people who menstruate" to be demeaning.[252] |
|||
: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) |
|||
This is such a poor summary of Rowling's essay that it's almost a caricature of that essay. For some reason, the summary focuses on single-sex spaces access of transwomen although that is only a minor part of that essay (and as somebody else pointed it's not even clear if Rowling has a problem with access of transwomen as such, rather than with broad regulations which would allow ''any man'' to enter such spaces). There are so many other issues she addresses in that essay, including medical concerns re MS (she is involved in MS activism), concerns regarding huge increases in teenage girls transitioning in recent years, inability of women to define themselves as a class; Rowling sees these, as well as many other issues, as problems. If we choose to summarize Rowling's essay we should do it properly, without misrepresenting what she says; if we can't do that, than we shouldn't comment at all on the essay, instead we should simply say that she wrote an essay in response which sought to clarify her positions on trans issues, with a link to the essay so that readers see for themselves what the essay contains and make their own minds.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|talk]]) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: I'm okay with something along the lines of "Rowling later published an essay... In which she opposed several transgender rights, such as changing the gender marker on IDs and letting trans people enter the same toilets as their gender." Which includes more of what she said there. You may also add that "she claimed trans women in women's toilets are a threat to women, an that the transgender community is trying to erase the concept of biological sex, forcing doctors to ignore it when treating them." All of these are claims in that essay, all of them are false. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 07:35, 16 June 2020 (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) |
|||
::Also let's not forget that she claimed trans men are confused women and that trans people are trying to "convert" cis gay men. You wanna include that too? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 07:46, 16 June 2020 (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) |
|||
:::Why would we include your false claims? [[User:Abbyjjjj96|Abbyjjjj96]] ([[User talk:Abbyjjjj96|talk]]) 19:42, 17 June 2020 (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) |
|||
::::[[WP:TRIFECTA]] keeping your cool, assume good faith and no personal attacks. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 19:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*::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) |
|||
:::[[WP:DNTL]]. [[User:Abbyjjjj96|Abbyjjjj96]] ([[User talk:Abbyjjjj96|talk]]) 20:24, 17 June 2020 (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) |
|||
::::Have you read Rowling's manifesto, or are you just calling me a liar to defend her? [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (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 ==== |
|||
Bias against Rowling is showing |
|||
Working on redundancy: |
|||
This site is full of SJW editors. |
|||
:'''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 |
|||
Pity , wikipedia is regressive not progressive. |
|||
:: --> '''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 |
|||
Both points of view should be included. |
|||
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) |
|||
Arguments of the things Rowling is right about |
|||
*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) |
|||
Arguments of the things Rowling is wrong about |
|||
*: Thx! Still working through ... [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
But you editors won't allow that just to fit the gender narrative. Wonder if she could sue - I would if I could . Indeed this site is misrepresenting Rowlings ideas by not including some support for her or the points shes right about and their are people who support her . Hpdh4 15:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==== But sales of books grew, and more ==== |
|||
:For the record, I am not a SJW. I am a Level 12 Social Justice Warlock. And my house is Ravenclaw. We will not have a section or points on what Rowling is right about or wrong about because that is not our call to make. We report on what reliable sources say, and we include those bearing in mind various policies and guidelines, including but not limited to [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:BALANCE]], [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]], and [[WP:DUE]]. I think Rowling's lawyers would tell her "No, you can't sue Wikipedia just because an editor there wrote that Daniel Radcliffe responded to your tweets by writing 'Trans women are women'", but then nor do I think Rowling would be stupid enough to ask her lawyer to look into it. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:10, 16 June 2020 (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) |
|||
*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) |
|||
*: 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) |
|||
*:::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) |
|||
*::::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) |
|||
*:::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 ==== |
|||
I would like to point out though that it seems only people that disagreed with Rowling are mentioned under her views, not the tons of ppl that agreed with her. That is a sign of bias if anything. Why are even these peoples views listed under JK Rowlings views? [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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: |
|||
: 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}} |
|||
== Reactions (criticism and support) to J. K. Rowling's views on transgender issues == |
|||
{{cot|title= Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
I see there has been a lot of controversy regarding whose reactions on Rowling's views on transgender issues should be included here, but the question is should any reactions be included at all in this article? There's a section ''Views'' with four subsections: ''Politics'', ''Religion'', ''Press'', ''Transgender issues''. For some reason, the first three subsections just explain Rowling's views on those issues without giving any reactions or response from other people or organizations, although many of those issues are highly controversial; whereas the ''Transgender issues'' is almost half about response/reactions from others. We already have the [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] page where we can (and should) detail how her views were received. |
|||
==== Citation overkill ? ==== |
|||
On the other hand, if we do include reactions from others, we should only include those people/organizations who had commented ''explicitly'' on Rowling. Some of the actors cited as "criticizing her views" didn't actually say anything on Rowling. They have only posted support for trans rights in general, without any mention of Rowling. Of course, given the timing of such postings, it can be inferred that they were indirectly criticizing Rowling, but we are not allowed to engage in [[WP:OR]] here. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51FB|talk]]) 07:50, 16 June 2020 (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? |
|||
* 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] |
|||
[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== Paragraph 3 re-do proposal ==== |
|||
:This section is justifyingly long, because it's the biggest controversy Rowling has been part of (just as a way of measurement, the only thing Rowling tweeted since that stream of tweets on 7 July was the link to that 3600 word essay). Rowling's claims were denounced by several major LGBTQ+ organisations and by the entire main cast of Harry Potter. You can't ignore that. The actors other than Radcliffe (who's special in this case) were only mentioned in a single sentence, so that this chapter doesn't become too text heavy. |
|||
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) |
|||
:I understand why you are concerned, but the current status of this chapter is entirely justified. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* 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}} |
|||
:You're right, there has been a lot of controversy. We're discussing how it should be covered in a couple of sections above, already. Starting a new one implies you probably haven't read the talk page, where your points have already been addressed. Can we keep discussion to the sections that are already open, please? [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 12:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* [[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> |
|||
::yep it is confusing and repetive... I do apologise for replying when someone starts a new thread and I felt the need to reply. This talk page has become very messy. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|title= Sources}} |
|||
But why should only people and organizations that disagreed with Rowling be listed? Tons of individuals are listed, why not list some individuals that defended Rowling? There are even some high profile lgbt people (including trans) that defended her right to have a view, or part of that view (like transgender athletes). [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply|Chronicler87}} In my opinion, the article accurately reflects the ratio of support-opposition that she received: a lot of condemnation and almost zero support from prominent figures. Giving equal mention to JK supporters could give the false impression that they are comparable in number to her critics. Anyway, could you name some of those "high profile" LGBT ppl who supported her? (Please don't tell me that you are referring to "Dana International" or "Blair White") <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#0d0638">[[User:Daveout|<span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#15ff00">'''daveout'''</span>]]</span> 👾 [[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]] 21:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Well, is there a single mention of a person or organization that agreed with Rowling? If you just want examples, one could be that I watched the news where India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson made comments, they both defended Rowling, or at least things Rowling claimed, such as being against self-identification, against transgender athletes etc. There is also no mention of psychologists or other ppl that agreed with Rowling. Also, let's remember that it's a small clique of people that disagree with Rowling, if you look at newspapers and likes and dislikes, it's clear the support for Rowling is overwhelming. Most people think the entire dispute is just silly. And should we really take serious ppl that just tweeted "Transgender women are women", like that is a serious input in the discussion, while we completely disregard people that made long statements? [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 21:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Chronicler87}}, there is a request for comment [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#RfC:_J._K._Rowling|here]] that concerns this very topic that you are welcome to participate in; after a month of discussion, it will be closed with the consensus determined and the decision implemented here. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Chronicler87}} Her comments were condemned by the majority of LGBT campaign groups and most of the the reliable new media was negative about her essay. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 23:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Well Bodney. There is another way to look at things, like for example when Sopranos started running, all the Italian-American organizations opposed it, but basically all the Italian-Americans loved it. It seems similar with the JK Rowling situation. Lots of transgender women think the whole transgender athlete thing is silly btw. These are just organizations, they say nothing about the people on the ground. Tons of transwomen have come out in favour of Rowling, those I mentioned like Nicole and India, but then many others. It has mostly been the "gay transmen" that she specicially mentioned (young women with autism) that have been reacting badly. I disagree with most news media being negative btw. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 12:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Transwomen and transmen are as variable in their politics and beliefs as the rest of humanity, it is pointless waving mysterious unknown and imaginary tons of unnotable people into the argument, you need to back it up with with actual notable people preferably with some experience or organisations working in the area, so far I see the known friend of Rawlings and a couple of YouTube z list celebrities who represent only themselves. But in the end listing minor figures is pointless. I read about 26 News articles, from reliable sources, none were positive. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 12:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply|Chronicler87}} Please refrain from using potentially insensitive remarks while making your point. There's no need to suggest that JK critics are autistic. This support-opposition thing is nuanced indeed. People who are expressing support\opposition are not necessarily supporting\opposing everything she says. For instance, India Willoughby thinks that JK is transphobic, but agrees with her on the specific issue of "trans self-identification". Dana International, on the other hand, doesn't consider her transphobic and defended her right to speak, Dana said that the topics JK was addressing were "worthy of discussion". In Dana's case, it's not clear whether she supports JK opinions, or simply her right to express and discuss them. |
|||
:When I google ´´J.K. Rowling´´ at Google News, these are the headlines: |
|||
:*Harry Potter Stars And Fan Community Reject J.K. Rowling’s Statement On ‘Trans Activism’ And Gender Identity (Forbes) |
|||
:*Trans activists call J.K. Rowling essay 'devastating' (CNN) |
|||
:*GOP senator quotes J.K. Rowling while blocking vote on LGBTQ bill (NBC) |
|||
:When I google ´´'''SUPPORT FOR''' J.K. Rowling´´ at Google News, the results are basically the same. Almost unanimous condemnation.<span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#0d0638">[[User:Daveout|<span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#15ff00">'''daveout'''</span>]]</span> 👾 [[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]] 13:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Hey dave (I'm sorry I don't know how to "reply" like you do). And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive, it was a reference (which also Rowling stated) about the increase in young women seeking transition, there being studies showing for example 90% of gay transmen having autism, and there being a theory that it's the body dysmorphia of young women with autism and bpd that makes them go for transition, if you need the studies I can try to find them, but basically the point of many psychologists is that the same girls that used to self-harm and have eating disorders are now transitioning, here in Sweden the entire staff of a certain department of health care (dealing with trans) quit their jobs because they didn't think these girls should get that kind of treatment (and they couldn't refuse it), due to the high chance of later (sex-change) regret and it not dealing with their underlying issues. But yeah, I didn't mean to be offensive to anyone. It's crazy how many detransition videos there are on youtube right now from young women that regret changing into gay men and talking about their other issues. But yeah it's a big issue right now overall, and why so many are involving themself in this debate. But yeah, I didn't mean to offend sorry. I don't think I suggested that Rowlings critics were autists, but maybe I phrased my sentence badly. For that I'm sorry. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: Yep it was Rowlings who was being offensive, her attack on young transmen is as bad as it was against women, she repeatedly purposefully missgenders them both. Rowling forgets to mention that most of the young folks who change their mind regards transitioning are just on puberty blockers, which are totally reversible with no long term effect. A 2018 survey of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) surgeons found that approximately 0.3% of patients who underwent transition-related surgery later requested detransition-related surgical care. I thought the figure was about 2.5% of all transpeople had regrets, still a tiny figure exaggerated by Rowlings and I am afraid yourself.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think I gave a figure. Also statistics can be read in many ways, if we say the number is 2.5%, that doesn't say anything about how many are gay transmen, or how many are male to female or female to male. Like for example there are many more male to female than there are female to male, if then of those 2.5%, like 80% would be gay transmen (made up number) then that would be significant. I am more interested of what kind of people that 2.5% is made up, and who is most likely to detransition, and right now it seems that gay transmen are most likely to detransition. Also, a lot of those that de-transed had been on opposite sex hormones and had breasts removed (at least those in the news). [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 18:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{reply|Chronicler87}} You do understand we are talking about *just* 2.5% of all transsexual people, who them selves are a tiny minority. What is written in Wikipedia articles is not about our individual interests or opinions (though they of course play *may* apart in which article you choose to edit) but what is reported in reliable secondary sources. ALSo something basic [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum]]. (unsigned from: [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]) |
|||
:{{reply|Chronicler87}} That's alright. That's why I said "potentially insensitive". Sometimes we may be insensitive without noticing\intending. All the concerns you are bringing here are valid (although there might be some unintentional exaggeration and conflation going on). In your argument, you say that most ppl criticizing JK are young transmen with autism, that is clearly false. As for ppl who regret transitioning, well... we all regret some life choices that we've made, don't we? Some ppl regret spending their lives pursuing lucrative careers instead of their dreams. Some regret undergoing plastic surgery. Some regret having children. Some regret becoming priests. That's normal. Why should that be some sort of taboo when it comes to trans ppl? Specially when the number of ppl who regret transitioning is comparatively insignificant. I'm certain that the vast majority of ppl who transition do not regret it. In fact, many of them say that transitioning saved their lives. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#0d0638">[[User:Daveout|<span style="font-family:Courier New;color:#15ff00">'''daveout'''</span>]]</span> 👾 [[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]] 17:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Well daveout, for me it's partially personal. Let me explain. I know a girl, well, just imagine a girl so autistic she can't even look people in the eye (she also has bpd), she has scars over her entire arms (wear long sweaters with hoods), and has an eating disorder. She got the idea she was a gay man (based on her idea that her discomfort with her body was the same as the discomfort a transgender person feels with their body), and started hormones and had her breasts removed, she now regrets it, and is back to being a girl (with a darker voice) and even more miserable than before. There was no-one stopping her from getting that treatment (parents warnings were ignored), and this kind of story is repeated every day. And as I wrote above, sure, there might be a low number of detransitions overall, but how many of that low number are gay transmen (It's a huge problem that all these populations are just put together in most studies)? Most transppl are male to female (also my point earlier was only about transppl, which it seems to me that most have come out in support of many of Rowlings views, but maybe not Rowling herself). Anyhow, there is no logical biological explanation that can explain a "gay transman", we have to remember there are two schools of sexology, one that pretends sexual orientation, sex and gender (as in biological differences rather than cultural) are things that are separate and separately developed, but hard science show a completely different picture. I mean the latest antibody studies on the fraternal birth order effect show great promise in explaining how a male fetus is "prevented" (as in the testosterone surges in utero being disrupted) from masculinizing properly for example, therefore resulting in a person with a "female" sexual orientation (attraction towards men), engaging in "female" social behaviour and so on (brain failing to "masculinize"). But as stated, there is no biological explanation for "gay transmen". There are more male to female than female to male transgender for the same reason there are more gay men than lesbian women, that is, the brain being female by default in utero, and doesn't change for boys until the testosterone surges start. As someone that works with autistic young women I am deeply concerned. EDIT: Oh yeah, and I'm sorry, I realize this is massively off-topic, but then I didn't start it =P. My point was just that Rowlings article has 0% nuance and my experience from the news was massive support for Rowling in most quarters, especially transppl. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
So are we then saying India Willoughby and Nicole Gibson are not notable? What transgender people are the most notable? Laverne Cox? I mean India is media person. Most the HP actors just tweeted in support of transwomen (Transwomen are women). Is Dana International notable? I mean if we are talking transpersons specifically, is this not as notable as it gets? And man, it might depend on what you read, and how you experience those articles, I've seen tons of articles and columnists supporting Rowling, and finding the misrepresentation of her views as silly. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 13:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Apologies about India Willoughby, can you point to a reliable source that shows her support, not the metro or daily mail. Personally I can find almost nothing on Nicole Gibson. But these people only represent themselves. Of course some folks support her, just the main leading support organisations don't. I am interested in balance it would be good to see some of these supportive articles as my search engine keeps failing to pick them up. But we are going down a silly hole, none of this is relevant.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 13:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Bodney, here for example is a news discussion including both India and Nicole Gibson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXKSVWnyOSM&t=152s |
|||
Now if I remember right for example Nicole Gibson states she agrees with Rowling on transgender athletes and some other things, and India says that she agrees on self-identification and other things, but if I remember right she states she considers JK Rowling transphobic (despite agreeing with her major points). I also read some newspaper articles in which she talks about the self-identification thing. My point was that they seem to agree with some or most of Rowlings views, maybe not just everything (but then there is generally no person that 100% agrees with another person overall, especially not when Rowling covered so much in her essay). [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I am afraid YouTube is not considered a reliable source for wikipedia.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Also, let me please just restate my point. My point was that her page was completely biased in favour of her critics, with no nuance or stating that there was extensive agreement with Rowling on a lot of issues. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 17:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::It simply reflects the overwhelming majority of the coverage of the essay in the reliable sources, if you want to know what wikipedia considers a reliable source [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|click here]] [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 17:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Well, obviously, the source isn't youtube, it's Good Morning Britain, but I got no access to their website/that channel (location), so I linked from good morning britains youtube channel, of a panel which India is on, it's the same clip that was in their news episode. But obviously someone British or that has no location lock could find it on their website. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 17:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Good Morning Britain is the TV equivalent of a cross between the Daily Mail and a trashy celebrity magazine, its presenter Eamonn Holmes was publically criticised for supporting the Covid-19 5G conspiracy theory. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::My understanding was that ITV was a pretty big channel in Britain, anyhow, it's clear it's India Willoughby in that video, stating her own opinions. I am feeling this is just your bias showing here. (The platform she uses for stating her opinions shouldn't matter in a free debate). [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::The Sun, Daily Mail, the Daily Star, Hello Magazine are all big sellers in the Uk, but they are not used in Wikipedia. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::And ITVnews is not any of those publications. Anyhow, I would have to look at the rule itself. [[User:Chronicler87|Chronicler87]] ([[User talk:Chronicler87|talk]]) 19:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== This is a biographical article == |
|||
If this controversy is important enough to include alternate views, then it probably needs an article of its own. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color: #00b;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><span style="color: #b00;">pod</span></sup>]]<span style="color: #00b;">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</span></b> 09:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:This could be taken as an argument for keeping the section as short as it is. Per [[WP:NOTNEWS]], and the fact that most of the sources on this are low-quality entertainment sources that are usually about flash-in-the-pan things like what so and so wore to such and such premiere, a new article is not warranted. Such an article would be a [[WP:POVFORK]] and would not survive AfD. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 16:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::It may scare you but there are plenty of sources that are certainly not 'low-quality entertainment sources' which Wikipedia considers very reliable that have reported on this issue, or maybe the Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Forbes, Variety etc should be treated as unreliable on the [[WP:RSP]].[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 16:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Doesn't scare me at all. Note that per RSP, though, "As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source '''in its field'''." (Emphasis added.) And in any case, just because several outlets cover something at the same time does not mean it warrants its own article. Per [[WP:NOTNEWS]], "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia". Tweets are trivia. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Firstly I should say I actually do share your concerns regards article forks, I prefer for the event to be treated properly and accurately here. |
|||
::::Most peoples Tweets are indeed total trivia, but these tweets are by a high profile sociopolitical commentator which have been reported in the serious press, so they have become elevated to more than just tweets. Tweets can be notable in themselves, ([[Donald Trump on social media|our great world leader is well known for using them and there is an article on his tweets]]). |
|||
:::: I do think the notable reactions against her tweet AND the lengthy essay with which she released to the world as a famous social-political commentator (which contained several additional erroneous fallacies regards transgendered people), should not be dismissed away as some loopy trans activists with their knickers in a twist in the low-quality entertainment press, it deserves to be treated with accurately neutrally respectfully, with full knowledge about the words and topics she chose to use.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm: But FWIW I don't think we have nearly enough material to justify a new article. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I do support going into further detail in [[Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender issues]], but you can't really shorten what's written in the main article without making things worse. I mean, three paragraphs isn't much for quite a big controversy. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 10:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Agreed. It is after all (deservedly or not) a topic commonly seen as political in nature. Politics of JKR seems like a good place for expanding on this. [[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 10:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[WP:NOTNEWS]] applies to the entire encyclopedia. Since we are in June 2020 and this has mostly happened in June 2020, we are not in a position to judge how "big" a controversy this is in the sense that there would be lasting significance. We should not write about every tweet back the gossip press reports on. Any expansion at that fork article would tend to have different [[WP:WEIGHT]] and thus makes it into a [[WP:POVFORK]], which is not allowed. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 21:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Excuse me, where exactly did I claim the intention to "create (or use) a different article to be developed according to a particular point of view."?? Al I am saying is that if we're going to spend more words on this, it should be in the article specifically about her politics, as it's a political topic. Please keep your outrage at the appropriate level per [[WP:CALM]]. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Notice of Request for Comment == |
|||
Editors should be aware that a Request for Comment (RfC) about aspects of the [[:J.K Rowling]] and [[:Politics of J. K. Rowling]] articles has been posted on the BLP Noticeboard, [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: J. K. Rowling|here]]. Some editors have expressed concern that the RfC has not been put together or presented neutrally. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== HP fansites' statement on Rowling's anti-transgender activism == |
|||
I inserted the following: |
|||
:In July 2020, the [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron (website)|The Leaky Cauldron]] Harry Potter fansites jointly announced that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about achievements outside her Harry Potter fiction, as her views are "out of step with the message of acceptance and empowerment we find in her books and celebrated by the Harry Potter community," and describing them as "harmful and disproven beliefs about what it means to be a transgender person."<ref>{{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|work=The Guardian|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/harry-potter-jk-rowling-trans-mugglenet-leaky-cauldron-a9599151.html|title=Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender comments|last=Chilton|first=Louis|work=Independent|date=3 July 2020|access-date=3 July 2020}}</ref> |
|||
It was immediately reverted by {{u|Crossroads}}, stating "Removing excessive material per WP:NOTNEWS. The RfC at BLPN is addressing the length of this section and most such comments favir brevity. The WP:ONUS to get consensus is on those who wish to add material". |
|||
I contend that two of the biggest HP fansites jointly taking this action is [[WP:NOTABLE|notable]] and is certainly worthy of coverage; that the now moribund RFC was '''not''' called to discuss [[WP:NOTPAPER|length]]; and that the excision of anything from this and related articles that could in any be viewed as critical of TERF positions, with a cry of "[[WP:ONUS]]!" is now bordering on [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]] - Wikipedia [[WP:NOTCENSORED|is not censored]]. <small>The Guardian source even cites '''Reuters!!!'''</small> Yet, here we are. Line up, usual sides... [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
{{notelist-talk}} |
|||
*I obviously '''oppose''' this material for the reason I said in the edit summary. [[WP:NOTNEWS]] states, {{tq|Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of...events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia.}} And yes, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#RfC:_J._K._Rowling|the RfC]] has 6 editors besides myself saying the section should be brief, with some of those even favoring removal (which I do not). It ''is'' being addressed there (and it is not "moribund"; it ''will'' be officially closed like all RfCs). Excessive length on this matter on Rowling's biography is [[WP:Undue]] and [[WP:Recentism]]. The section is not going to be a POV repository of each and every condemnatory opinion that got mentioned somewhere in the gossip press. And no, the opinion of some Harry Potter fans on the internet is in no way significant. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) <small>updated <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 00:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
::The RFC wasn't about this latest addition, which happened after the rfc, nor was it about the lenght of the text. NOTNEWS doesn't apply either, since these fansites are large enough to be notable and this is a permanent development. So crossroad's point is completely moot. If you guys want to improve the flow of the text by moving it around do that, and don't just revert because me no likey. I favour inclusion of the fact that this happened and you guys are free to figure out a way to better include it if you feel inclined to do so. Just keep in mind that there's nothing counterfactual, grammatically incorrect, or unencyclopedic about what is currently written in that alinea. Crossroad's personal preference is not an argument for reverting a change.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think this needs its own lengthy paragraph at this time, but IMO it would be appropriate/due to expand the current sentence {{tq|Several actors known for portraying Rowling's characters criticised her views or spoke in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leung}} to add {{tq|[...Leung], as did the fansites [[MuggleNet]] and [[The Leaky Cauldron]]}}. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 06:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I think this is a good way to do it.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 12:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|-sche}}, agreed there is no need for a lengthy paragraph. One sentence would seem resaonable? {{u|Crossroads}}, if the RFC has drifted off=topic that's unfortunate, but if you want it to be discussing something other than the particular questions which have already been put, then maybe you should point that out there, openly? The fact is, the ''whole topic'' of Rowling's attitude to transgender people and issues is now ''very'' [[WP:NOTABLE|notable]] and is not going away. There are additional related issues that should probably also be included. Whatever whitewashing or censorship mission you're on - stop? Expecting a talk page section for every new addition simply is not on and is [[WP:GAMING|not how wikipedia works]]. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 08:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would OPPOSE the inclusion of the paragraph per WP:NOTNEWS.I also think it's entirely reasonable to propose major additions to an article on its talk page prior to adding them as per WP:ONUS.[[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 12:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I oppose the addition of that paragraph too. It gives undue weight to recent events; and you end up with the section "''Transgender issues''" being mostly about the reactions of other people/organizations, rather than describing Rowling's views. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|talk]]) 12:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I mean, yes? that's how that works? if someone says something controversial, people's reactions to it are a good way (and the only acceptable way) to illustrate that without violating wiki policy--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC). |
|||
:::::::Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences. It doesn't make those consequences irrelevant to the article. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I don't really think that ''"Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences"'' is an appropriate tone to have a productive discussion here. And the "consequences" that Rowling faces are not all negative (there's more on this at the RfC). With regard to the reactions to her essay, there were very many of them, and we must choose carefully and give due weight to what we add here, both with regard of whose opinions we add and with regard to how much the discussion on others' opinion can take from that section. Just because these things are '''now''' all over the news, that doesn't mean we must throw everything here indiscriminately because [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|talk]]) 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I mean, it's not even about consequences or anything as arcane as that, it's a basic principle of wikipedia. If you don't want OR in your articles, which we don't, citing other sources' reactions to something is the only legitimate way to actually include the fact that something happened on wikipedia. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 13:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm with Batsun. Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets or that she deleted a tweet praising Stephen King after he showed support for trans women may fall under WP:NOTNEWS. But these are two significant websites (combined they are about as popular as [[Pottermore]]), significant enough to have Warner Bros. send them movie materials before release. Just because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|you don't like it]] doesn't make it unencyclopedic. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You should really have in mind that [[WP:BLP]] applies to talk pages too. Your claim ''"Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets"'' is deeply misleading because it implies that Rowling supports conversion therapy (in its original meaning, that is practices trying to change a person's sexual orientation). That tweet was about a Canadian law that dealt with children's biological sex and how it related to a child's gender identity and what can therapists say to that child about biological sex. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250|talk]]) 13:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That's what's being reported. Would you care to log in, 2A92:ipv6? You appear to have forgotten to. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
It's clear there's a consensus for inclusion. I would prefer a distinct sentence (single - it doesn't need a paragraph), but including it as part of the other reactions is fine. Of equal import, though, is the seeming marker bring drawn by Crossroads, which seems to be saying nothing gets included without them removing it and forcing a discussion, per [[WP:ONUS]] (which is a subsection, let us remember, of the [[WP:V|Verifiability policy]], ''not'' the notability policy!). To my mind, that is [[WP:GAMING|gaming the system]]; and equally, the reference above to the RfC, which apparently is now also about the length of this section, even though that's '''not''' addressed in any resolution in that RfC. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Again. Bastun has done the right thing. I disagree that consensus is clear. I suggest proposing an edit here and we'll see if we can find sth we're happy with.[[User:NEDOCHAN|NEDOCHAN]] ([[User talk:NEDOCHAN|talk]]) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::: That already happened. Considering the fact that you don't acknowledge this I am starting to feel that you are acting in bad faith by suggesting we go through the process again. Do you even know what the version you are reverting says? --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 19:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::: <small>FWIW, the user did something similar on [[Talk:Graham Linehan]], participating in a discussion about making a change and even supporting the change, as enough other users also did to establish consensus, but then claiming the change had been made without discussion or support. I assume good faith, though, despite being mindful of the [[WP:DUCK]]/[[Sealioning|Sealion]] test. :) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 20:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::::<small> the user just way too hastily dropped a 3rr admin request on my head after triggering an edit war with me (which stopped at excactly three revisions), so make of that what you will. (so hasty in fact that nothing on the form has actually been filled in besides my name) --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 20:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:Someone boldly adding something and me reverting it as not encyclopedic is not [[WP:GAMING|gaming the system]], it ''is'' the system, per [[WP:BRD]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 00:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::it also says you should err on the side of caution when choosing what to revert, something you certainly aren't a shining example of. let me remind you that [[WP:BRD-NOT|BRD is not]] an excuse for tedentious editing, nor for reverting changes you don't like. BRD is never a reason for reverting, and I quote: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." which, despite all the random WP:pages you drag into it, certainly appears to be what you are doing. I recommend you stop doing it and take a good read through what WP:BRD is NOT before you press that undo button again, because I for one am seriously getting fed up with your antics. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 09:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: Shouldn't there be inclusion of the fact the the sites did more than merely criticising her? I mean, removing pictures of her, not linking to her site and practically ignoring her existence after 2007 is quite big. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 03:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree. I liked the original version better for that reason, but since there seems to be a bit of a spanish inquisition present on this page I elected to be conservative in what the consensus version was. Feel free to try to add it to the current version, but I expect we'll have to deal with another bullshit revert-and-complain cycle immediately afterwards. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=y}} |
|||
"change Transgender issues to Transgender people" [[User:JKISEVIL|JKISEVIL]] ([[User talk:JKISEVIL|talk]]) 20:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:What justification is there for this change? — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 20:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Rummskartoffel|Rummskartoffel]] ([[User talk:Rummskartoffel|talk]]) 21:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Transgender people vs transgender issues == |
|||
There appears to be a slow moving edit war both here and on [[Politics_of_J._K._Rowling|Rowling's politics page]] about whether the heading under #views should be "Transgender people" or "transgender issues". The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=966222526&oldid=966221860 claim has been made] that there is a consensus about this, though I can't find one. Let's discuss it further here and establish a consensus for both pages. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 21:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
It's just come to my attention that this edit war is thanks to Paris Lees' very unhelpful [https://twitter.com/parislees/status/1279869216997376000 canvassing]. Semiprotect status has been requested. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 21:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{Not a ballot}} |
|||
*I would support the correction to Transgender '''people'''. Rowling's is concerned and has written about her issue with real people's rights, both trans men and trans women. I do not think we can separate these 'issues' with trans people - from trans people themselves. When discussing a person's views on '''peoples rights''' is is it OK to say gay issues, lesbian issues, black issue, disability issues, etc if we are talking about a section of society. Lets us be respectful, neutral and call them people and simply not 'issues'. To call someone a Issues, does not sound neutral and suggests that the is a problem with them.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I support '''issues''', with '''matters''' or '''topics''' as equally acceptable alternatives. Her comments are not about any individual people, nor about the group of people as a whole. Rather, they are about certain related issues/matters/topics. There is disagreement among transgender people on these matters as well, for example: [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-transgender-superstar-dana-international-to-the-defense-of-j-k-rowling-1.8919710][https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-dare-the-body-shop-tell-jk-rowling-what-to-think] And [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] show that it is not about people but about political questions: [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate][https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm] I had stated that "issues" was the consensus version per what is said at [[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS]], and because the heading had not been changed despite all the other controversy that had been going on over the last few weeks. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 21:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I think changing it is both justifiable and not a big enough deal to warrant yet another talk page discussion. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 22:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* The phrase "Transgender issues" has negative connotations, implying that the group in question may have issues, or are an issue. Compare it with the phrase "Jewish problem". This can thus be best avoided by the phrase "Transgender people". "Transgender matters" is <i>better</i>, but still less than ideal. [[User:AlbertW|AlbertW]] ([[User talk:AlbertW|talk]]) 22:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* Agree with Crossroads and his reasoning for '''issues'''. I do not agree that there's any kind of implication that this heading implies trans people have issues: I think it's clear that it's about issues relating to transgender people. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:Czello|Czello]] Maybe you just came up with a good new title for the section with the line you just used! Maybe the title should be Issues Relating To Transgender People. Keep everyone happy! Good compromise. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:FlyboyExeter|FlyboyExeter]] ([[User talk:FlyboyExeter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FlyboyExeter|contribs]]) 22:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
* [[User:Czello|Czello]] and others posting above: The title "Anti-transgender Activism" is used on Graham Linehan's page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Linehan#Anti-transgender_activism. That might also work as a title for the section. But I like "Issues Relating To Transgender People" the best as a good compromise for both parties! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:FlyboyExeter|FlyboyExeter]] ([[User talk:FlyboyExeter#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FlyboyExeter|contribs]]) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
** I think this is far too loaded a term -- it's not for us to say that Rowling is anti-transgender, as that doesn't seem to be the crux of her political views. She's coming at this through the lens of women's rights. I think changing the heading to "Anti-transgender activism" would violate WP:NPOV. However, I would be happy with "Issues relating to transgender people" as that seems to be a fair compromise, as you say. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 06:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)\ |
|||
***I would find this an acceptable compromise as well, though I do think it's still a bit too white-washy and vague --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* I find 'issues' a bit euphemistic/vague. I agree with Bod that labeling a section gay issues or gay matters would raise an eyebrow from me if it was about a person's negative views towards gay people. I understand the desire for neutrality but being vague in this case feels less than neutral. I find Crossroads arguments that this isn't about individuals or a group of people strange as well. These are clearly her opinions about transgender people as a group and RS talk about it that way. For example, Forbes refers to this as her "opinions on transgender people and rights" and Washington Post refers to this as her opinions on the transgender community [https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmapocock/2020/06/23/harry-potter-stars--fan-community-reject-jk-rowlings-statement-on-trans-activism-and-gender-identity/#435a7057295d here] and [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/jk-rowling-transgender-women-comments/2020/06/07/303dd2e2-a8f7-11ea-a9d9-a81c1a491c52_story.html here]. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
**A Forbes "contributor" piece, which you have linked to, carries no more weight than a blog post, per [[WP:RSP]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 02:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Good catch, I missed that since the contributor tag is so tiny on the page. Here is how some reliable sources do refer to Rowlings' comments; [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/style/jk-rowling-transgender-fans.html NYT] "Ms. Rowling’s anti-transgender comments", [https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53276007 BBC] "comments about transgender people",[https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/ Variety] "Anti-Trans Tweets", [https://apnews.com/7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2 Associated Press] "JK Rowling’s tweets on transgender people", [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351 NBC] "her controversial stance on the transgender community", [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/harry-potter-fan-sites-distance-themselves-from-jk-rowling-over-transgender-rights The Guardian] "her beliefs on transgender rights", [https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/30/jk-rowling-deletes-stephen-king-tweet-support-transgender-women/3283982001/ USA Today] "her recent anti-transgender comments." It seems like RS support that het comments pertain to transgender people and transgender rights. [[User:Rab V|Rab V]] ([[User talk:Rab V|talk]]) 03:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Transgender Issues:''' The Transgender People heading is dishonest, and it flies in the face of article neutrality. Rowling's issue isn't with the existence of transgender people. She's arguing against the current handling of issues concerning transgender people. The belief that the Transgender Issues heading is insulting is 100% obtuse. The heading is clearly referring to issues surrounding the transgender debate. Wikipedia is not intended for users who are easily insulted by the most innocuous of phrasing. (BTW, a better heading would be Gender, since Rowling's views on this matter aren't limited to transgender issues.) [[User:MetaTracker|MetaTracker]] ([[User talk:MetaTracker|talk]]) 02:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*I would go with '''transgender people''', for much the same reasons as Rab V. (I have seen at least one article use the wording "transgender topics", which is vaguer but would at least avoid the—well—''issues'' people have raised with the connotations of "issues".) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 04:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Transgender people''' is the correct term. '''Transgender issues''' is a nebulous "whitewash" heading. Rowling has a problem with transgender women in particular. At a minimum, she doesn't want them in the bathroom with her, and she doesn't want them to be able to self identify.[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate] She wants to control the lives of '''Transgender people''' and deal with them on her terms. Rowling supported Maya Forstater in a case where the judge ruled that similar views on transgender people to Rowling's "violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment".[https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view] [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 04:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*Just rename the subsection to [[Cissexism]]. [[User:Gobonobo|<span style="font-family:DejaVu Sans; color: #333300">gobonobo</span>]] [[User talk:Gobonobo|<sup>+</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Gobonobo|<sup>c</sup>]] 09:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:*I don't think this would be appropriate -- as far as I'm aware, there aren't any reliable sources accusing her beliefs as "cissexist" -- or at least, not in any such number that it'd be appropriate to label her as one here. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 09:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Of course it can't be named "cissexist" and neither should such a term be used to describe her or her views, it's needless to say that would violate numerous policies.[[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8|2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8|talk]]) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::It also violates [[WP:JARGON]]. We here debating this know what it means, but very many readers will not. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Transgender issues''' (or transgender matters or a similar formulation) but not "transgender people". Transgender people is POV and a provocative title, because it implies that Rowling has a problem with the trans people themselves, rather than with politics surrounding some forms of trans activism. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8|2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8|talk]]) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:*@ Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8 From what source are you getting that Rowling had a problem with trans politics or trans activism, rather than with the trans people themselves. The use of the word 'activists' or even 'politics' are POV in themselves, a way to divorce the discussion away from the fact that we discussing a person's opinions on the civil liberties or human rights of a section of people in society. The first rule in attacking the rights of a section of society is to deny we are talking about human beings, but to say it is only an issue or problem with their leaders, or them crazy radical activists, or vaguer the politics.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 15:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:*Agree with this point; I think it encapsulates why I'd prefer it to be "issues". — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 12:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I mean, does she not? She seems to have quite the problem with them, given that she's written an entire longread criticizing their very right to exist in ~women's spaces~. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I'm in favour of "people", as I pointed out directly above this, her words are directly directed at and affect trans people, who in her opinion should barely be allowed to exist in women's spaces if they're passing, let alone if not.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm afraid that's your interpretation though (that she has a problem with trans people themselves) and so would be go against WP:NPOV. Personally I don't think she has an issue with the people, she's raising an issue about the safety of women's spaces. That said, I don't to turn this into a WP:FORUM thing, which is why I agree with the IP above that this seems that "issues" is the most neutral way of presenting the subject. However, earlier you have expressed that "Issues relating to transgender people" could be a good compromise, even though you feel it's white-washing the subject. While I have my own qualms with that heading, I also do think it's the heading that would please the maximum number of people. It seems an accurate heading to me -- while her comments are mostly about women's issues, they are by proxy "Issues relating to transgender people". It also includes the word "people" which I'm hoping will please you and others in this thread. What do you think? — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 14:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::While I don't think my suggestion is against NPOV, like I said, I am more than willing to more than willing to make a compromise on this one. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 14:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I can accept this as a compromise if it comes to that. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::It looks like we're developing a consensus for "'''Issues relating to transgender people'''". There seems to be a fairly even split between "people" and "issues" (with good arguments on both sides) -- so is there anyone who disagrees with "'''Issues relating to transgender people'''"? — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Issue (noun) = ''a subject or '''problem''' that people are thinking and talking about'' ~ [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/issue the Cambridge Dictionary], so "Issues relating to transgender people" = "Problems relating to transgender people" nice, great improvement. If an article subject has negative issues with the rights of a section of society or minority group we should not side with the article subject and reduce the rights of those other people to mere issues or problems. When discussing a person's views on a section of society, especially their civil and human rights it is not OK to merely say gay issues, lesbian issues, black problem, disability issues, Jewish problem, women's issues in the title etc. Lets us be respectful, neutral and call, when referring to people and simply not call discussions about them 'issues' or 'problems'. To call someone an Issues in Wikipedia's voice (which a heading is) is not neutral and suggests that the is a problem with them.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 15:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Respectfully, I think you boldened the wrong word there. The word that should have been in bold was "or". It can relate to a problem, but most people will read it as "subject" -- rather than willfully reading it in a way to take offense. No one is saying that transgender people are an issue, we're saying it's a topic relating to them. However, the suggestion was made above that "matters" or "topics" could serve just as well. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 15:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Naaa "Or(s?) relating to transgender people" would not make sense (joke). People read things in different ways, one extremely common way to read 'issues' is to see that word as an alternative to 'problems'. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 15:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I take your point, but I don't think we should be avoiding the word "issues" on the off-chance someone reads it in the wrong way -- when I think it's fairly clear what to real meaning is. That said, we do have alternatives in "matters" or "topics" as above (I'd pick "matters" above "topics", personally). — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::if we make it "matters relating to transgender people" I'm fine with that too --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::It certainly comes across better, but a Wikipedia title heading 'Topics relating to X' or 'Matters relating to X' is not the ''Topics or Matters relating'' part of the heading a bit superfluous.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 16:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::it's a compromise. If it works for them, it works for me.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 16:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
(out)The "issues" are about "<b>transgender rights</b>" or "<b>transgender law reform</b>" or "<b>gender identity</b>"[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/14/jk-rowling-from-magic-to-the-heart-of-a-twitter-storm][https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate][https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53276007][https://variety.com/2020/film/news/jk-rowling-transphobic-tweets-controversy-1234627081/][https://apnews.com/7338b2b262090c00f04deafe2e6689c2][https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/30/jk-rowling-deletes-stephen-king-tweet-support-transgender-women/3283982001/][https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/07/j-k-rowling-harry-potter-author-slammed-transphobic-comments/3169833001/] Any of those three could be a reasonable compromise. "Issues relating to transgender people" is <b>not</b> a good compromise because it too has the original objection that the interpretation can be "transgender people have issues". That is not [[WP:NPOV]]. Many of the cited sources use the terms "anti-trans” and “transphobic” by her critics so there is a strong arguement "Transgender people" is appropriate. There were only 2 citations given to support "issues". Only one uses "transgender issues", which is in a quote from what the article admits is a radical feminist. That same reference uses the term "transgender rights". [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 15:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I made a [[WP:BRD]] edit and used the term "gender identity" to get to a neutral term. It is already used in the subsection. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 16:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::With all due respect, literally no one would read it the way you just did.--[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 16:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would word it not "transgender people have issues" but rather other people have issues/problems with "<b>transgender rights</b>" or "<b>transgender law reform</b>" or "<b>gender identity</b> of trans people.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's already discussed in the subsection, "facts about gender identity" and "do not respect a person's self-identity". Please expand on why "Gender identity" is not a good compromise. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 16:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have no problem with "Gender identity." I was just pointing out that trans people do not have issues with it (well not when it comes to them having rights and protection under the law) its other people like Rowling <s>s</s> and Bindel who have the problem.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 16:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Her name (that is, the name of the subject of the article) isn't 'Rowlings'. And transgender people already have 'rights and protections under the law' in the UK -- not so much in the USA -- and Rowling hasn't said that she has any problem with that at all. And that whole section of the article, including the heading 'Transgender people', with the deliberate and false implication that Rowling has a problem with transgender people when what she's actually talking about is women's rights (the thing that TRAs, who are mostly blokes with beards, wish to eradicate, quelle surprise), reads as if it were written by people with... quite serious unresolved issues. [[User:Khamba Tendal|Khamba Tendal]] ([[User talk:Khamba Tendal|talk]]) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I am sure you did not mean to be offensive about transwomen, this article is after all a biographic article. '''Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page'''. If Rowling was not talking about transgender people why then is most of her essay about her concerns regarding transgender people, both how trans rights some how affect women's spaces and the very existence of transgenderism ~ many times she miss-genders trans people, regarding the growth in the number of young transmen, Rowling said in her essay she believed misogyny and sexism, fuelled by social media, were reasons behind the 4,400% increase (in the UK) in the number of transmen transitioning in the past decade, not transgenderism itself. To deny that her essay and tweets is about trans people is to whitewash and deny the clear reality that her words are clearly about how transgender people who are seen by Rowling and radical feminists as a threat to biological sex.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I, however, am sure that you ''did'' mean to be offensive. IF you're not here to improve the article but just to make provocative statements, please find somewhere else to do it. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 19:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks [[User:Bodney]] for making that more clear to me. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Licks-rocks]]:I don't understand your objection to "Gender identity". As I stated, it's already discussed in the subsection, "facts about gender identity" and "do not respect a person's self-identity". Please be more specific about why it isn't a good compromise. Thank you. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 17:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
(out)Reading [[Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people vs transgender issues 2]], I think there was some progress made on a consensus for using a term like Transgender identity, Transgender rights, Gender identity, Comments on gender identity, Women's rights vs transgender rights or something similar that would relieve the objection she was not tolerating "people", and the objection of how "issues" could be misconstrued. Discussions? [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 21:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Seriously? You've read this discussion, and are genuinely proposing "Women's rights vs transgender rights"?! Transgender women are women. The two are '''not''' mutually exclusive and the vindication of one set of rights does '''not''' come at the expense of anyone else's rights. That's the whole bloody point of this controversy! After taking a breath... no, Ward20. That would not be a [[WP:NPOV]] heading. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 22:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't ascribe to Rowling's way of framing it, but my opinions don't matter a bit. That is her argument as far as I understand from the sources, and the article is about Rowling's political views. I have seen several media articles write about both sides. Most articles don't make a value judgement one way or the other, but interview the advocates for the sides. The advocates and option "against" Rowling's viewpoint seem to have much more [[WP:WEIGHT|coverage]] in the reliable sources I've read. |
|||
::It is up to the editors [[WP:NPOV|to neutrally give the proper weight]] to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." |
|||
::I was a mechanical engineer before I retired. When brainstorming concepts it is usual to throw things into consideration, without making value judgements, in hopes of stimulating a idea. Sorry I offended, it was not my intent to adhere to a particular point of view except [[WP:POLICY]]. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 00:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Understood, and accepted. My reaction was prompted by use of a term that could be said to come straight out of the TERF playbook and could be seen to be/was seen by me as partisan rather than neutral, but I accept you were brainstorming in good faith. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 16:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=yes}} |
|||
"=== Transgender people ===" to "=== Transgender issues ===", using 'Transgender people" makes no sense in the article. As these are her views, and the only reason why the said change was made was because of the transgender community taking offence to Ms. Rowling's views. [[User:Brakesahib|Brakesahib]] ([[User talk:Brakesahib|talk]]) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Not done}} - {{u|Brakesahib}}, this is already being discussed [[Talk:J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people_vs_transgender_issues|in the previous section]]. You are welcome to comment there to help us reach a consensus. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 02:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Should her views on transgender people be mentioned in the lede? == |
|||
A few months ago, I considered adding a single sentence to the end of the lede section acknowledging the ongoing controversy about Rowling's views on transgender people, but I felt it might be premature. I think that now it may be time to do so. These hateful views of hers have been the defining characteristic of her public life for several months now, and there's no reason to think this will stop being the case anytime soon. What do others think? --[[User:Reschultzed|Reschultzed]]|||[[User_talk:Reschultzed|Talk]]|||[[Special:Contributions/Reschultzed|Contributions]] 04:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:From what I remember the coverage reached its highest level up till then last month, with those tweets and then the essay. Since that is recent, I think we do need to beware of [[WP:Recentism]]. I think it would be better to wait a little more to see if it really stays so defining that it is worth mentioning in the lead. But if it is mentioned, one sentence is all we should have per [[WP:Due]]. And the source to be used for it should be something top-tier at [[WP:RSP]]. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Rowling herself considers this subject important, as evident by the fact she refuses to let it go. Rowling recently released a new book, yet almost all news and online talks regarding her are about her transphobia. Imagine if Stephen King were to release a new book, and all everyone talked about were his tweets. I would imagine there's significance to those tweets. [[User:YuvalNehemia|YuvalNehemia]] ([[User talk:YuvalNehemia|talk]]) 06:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:My initial inclination was to suggest waiting, as this "feels" recent (and I suspect the case for inclusion will grow with time). However, not only have her "likes" of things in this vein been getting coverage in RS going back years, but looking at the dates I am reminded that her statements "standing with" Maya etc and significant RS coverage of those goes back to last year: this has been given significant coverage for months. It also accordingly constitutes a not-insubstantial portion of the article, about 1 of 30 "screens", or about 5% of the body by word count when I paste it into a word processor (in both case excluding [[WP:RPS|the text of the references]]). (She also appears to consider it significant herself, as YuvalNehemia notes.) So, I think a sentence about it would be [[WP:DUE]]<!-- (and almost exactly mathematically appropriate, as the lead is currently 18 sentences)-->. But what should the sentence say? [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 07:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I think including her views in the lede would be a case of [[WP:RECENTISM]]. It's been big news for the past few months, but I think it'd be undue weight to add it to the lede at this time. We have a fairly prominent section on her views further down in the article, though, which I think works. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 08:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:We agree that this has been going on for longer than six months and has certainly been covered extensively by a very large number of international reliable news media sources, plus neither are Transgender people going to disappear nor sadly is Rowling's outspoken gender critical view of them is likely to change. The case for [[WP:RECENTISM]] is more than a little bit crumbling away. Her views on transgenderism are covered by a fairly prominent established section in this article, and as the lede is supposed to reflect the article, so a mention is increasingly [[WP:Due]]. Lede statements do not need to sourced as citations are usually found in the main body, but I guess if we do not add a good source or three somebody will come along and delete the segment.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 11:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Some top level sources :- |
|||
::Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate?] |
|||
::NBC [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351 J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto'] |
|||
::Independent [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people] |
|||
::Independent [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments] |
|||
::Independent [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jk-rowling-trans-people-tweets-letter-reaction-bathrooms-a9561871.html J K Rowling, predatory men and the nuance we're all missing out] |
|||
::Telegraph [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/trust-jk-rowling-spouting-dangerous-nonsense-trans-people/ Trust me, JK Rowling is spouting dangerous nonsense about trans people] [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
This is something that has been very prominent now for several months, and various sources have pointed to issues going back much further than December 2019. [[WP:RECENTISM]] can hardly apply any longer. As the lede should summarise the body, brief mention is warranted. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 15:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=====Divided feminists ===== |
|||
:While I'm aware the issue of her views does go back longer than 6 months, I don't think the significance and controversy of her views has been as major as it has been recently. If she remained as controversial a figure in, say, six months' time I think it would warrant inclusion. Including it now I feel is [[WP:UNDUE]] weight. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 15:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
#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. |
|||
#: "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. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===== Freedom of speech and cancel culture ===== |
|||
I don't feel that her views on this issue are a sufficiently-defining characteristic to (as yet) warrant a place in the lede. <b>[[User:Esowteric|<span style="color: green;">Esowteric</span>]]+[[User talk:Esowteric|<span style="color: blue;">Talk</span>]]</b> 16:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
# 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 ===== |
|||
:I feel the same about her recent career as a screenwriter and producer, but reliable sources disagree... [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
# 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 |
|||
* I'm going to agree with Esowteric here: It hasn't reached that level of significance in the public consciousness, not even close. it might one day, but it hasn't yet, and as such, I don't think it warrants a place in the lede. (To be clear, it might take just a day for this to change, if she talks about it on a very large large public event or something like that.) --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks|talk]]) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== |
===== 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 ==== |
|||
In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&type=revision&diff=966700992&oldid=966655791 diff], this article was placed into the categories "English feminists" and "Radical feminists". My understanding (and the policy [[WP:BLPCAT]]) is that such categories need to be supported "by the article text and its reliable sources" (and may also need to be definitional and not just incidental attributes, I'm not sure). There is not presently any text in the article that supports either category. If the categories are appropriate, would someone like to add some text and refs? Otherwise the categories should go... [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 18:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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 was unsure about that too, it seems to be an assumption based on her other views (so, [[WP:OR]]). I think I'll go ahead and remove that -- though I think English feminists should remain. — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 18:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
:I don't, so I'll remove that one. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 18:29, 8 July 2020 (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. |
|||
::Here is one source [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351 J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto'] to start with, the is probably more, (sorry i am busy for next couple of hours). [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:31, 8 July 2020 (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. |
|||
:::Oh, there are ''many'' more for the TERF category. Some have even been discussed previously. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 18:33, 8 July 2020 (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''. |
|||
:::I'm not sure that is a good enough citation for her to be called a radfem. The quote in question from that link is, ''In a tweet sharing the blog post, Rowling simply wrote "TERF wars." TERF stands for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a term which critics have called the author''. Her tweeting "TERF wars" isn't an admission of being a radfem. (Unless there's some other part of that article I've missed?) — '''''[[User:Czello|<font color="#8000FF">Czello</font>]]''''' 18:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::I accept, I just whizzed through over a dozen news articles and her essay. [[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I would say yes on "English feminists" and below borderline (no at this time but could change if more sources support) on "Radical feminists". |
|||
:I'm basing that on present text and citations the in article: |
|||
:*Rowling has been referred to as a [[TERF]] on multiple occasions, though she rejects the label.<ref>{{Cite web|last=López|first=Canela|title=J.K. Rowling wrote a controversial statement about transgender people in response to being called a 'TERF.' Here's what that means.|url=https://www.insider.com/jk-rowling-what-is-a-terf-trans-exclusionary-radical-feminist-2020-6|access-date=5 July 2020|website=Insider}}</ref> She has received support from some feminists, such as [[Julie Bindel]].<ref>{{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 Observer |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:...}}</ref> |
|||
:Bindel says Rowling "has always been a feminist" in the Guardian citation. |
|||
:Speaking about that text. At [[Politics of J. K. Rowling]] consensus supported the term [[Feminist views on transgender topics|gender critical feminist]] for Julie Bindel. The material is similar but condensed slightly as I believe is proper on this main article. But the question is, should this wording for Bindel be duplicated here? [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 18:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Three more articles, <i>Vanity Fair</i> calling her a "British feminist", all three just shy of calling her a TERF.[https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/06/jk-rowling-trans-men-terf.html][https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/09/what-terf-definition-trans-activists-includes-j-k-rowling/5326071002/][https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism].[[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 19:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
:I think she can be safely called a feminist.[[User:Bodney|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;color: #660099 ;"> ~ BOD ~ </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bodney#top|<small style="font-family:Papyrus;color:green;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 19:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
::@[[User:Bastun]]:I believe you were the one to remove the cat "English feminists". Can it be put back, or is there a source that states she is not an English feminist? Thanks. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 05:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, it can be find right next to the source that proves the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. But she would certainly qualify as a feminist if she were to qualify as a TERF. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 08:16, 9 July 2020 (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. |
|||
{{talkref}} |
|||
---- |
|||
== J. K. Rowling template at top of talk page == |
|||
[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." |
|||
One bullet point states, "*The topics of her political values in the series have been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She has not publicly espoused any radical political views and any attempt to uncover such views in her works is very likely to violate WP:OR." |
|||
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. |
|||
That bullet point is out of date, and inadequate about it's warning to possible future events. I think it has outlived it's usefulness and should be removed. I would do it if there is consensus, but I don't know where that template is located. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 21:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I still wouldn't call her a radical; her views on transgender people are fairly mainstream here in the UK, unfortunately. But if you want it, the template is [[Template:JRowling]]. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color: #00b;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><span style="color: #b00;">pod</span></sup>]]<span style="color: #00b;">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</span></b> 23:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Part of the problem was [[Special:Diff/963079284|this recent good-faith edit]], which obscured the fact that those discussions were about people labeling her a secret communist / communist-sympathizer—the changed wording is unclear and overbroad to the point of inaccurate, as noted. I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AJRowling&type=revision&diff=966801526&oldid=966774440 tried to revise it] to reflect what the linked discussions (and intent of the sentence prior to the recent broadening) were about. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 08:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::That makes more sense. I still don't believe the warning should attempt to predict the future. Suggest, "attempts to uncover such views in her works have been rejected as [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Ward20|Ward20]] ([[User talk:Ward20|talk]]) 14:42, 9 July 2020 (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. |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020 == |
|||
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) |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|J. K. Rowling|answered=yes}} |
|||
Add {{redacted}} on the ''External links'' section. It is the most complete source of all J.K. Rowling's writing, forewords, articles, and publications. [[User:101008a|101008a]] ([[User talk:101008a|talk]]) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (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.}} |
|||
:{{Not done}} per [[WP:COPYVIOEL]] (and a shady-lookin' website anyway). –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 00:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: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.—[[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) |
|||
*::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) |
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 ![]() 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)