The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting, and read through the list of highlighted discussions below before starting a new one:
J. K. Rowling's ethnicity/nationality has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Current consensus is that she is British, and that whether she is also English, Scottish or Welsh has no bearing on her work or her biography, and is best not discussed.
The topic of her middle name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Her full name is simply Joanne Rowling; she contracted the first name and chose the middle initial K from her grandmother's name, Kathleen, in order to remove the gender association from her own name.
Her married name has been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She uses her married name, Murray, for private business, but her maiden name, "Rowling", is used here, as it is the one by which she is most widely known.
The pronunciation of her name has been discussed here, here, here, here and here. She has commented that her name is pronounced like bowling and not like howling.
Allegations that she supports communism in the series have been discussed here, here, here, here, here and here. She has not publicly espoused any such views; attempts to describe such views in her works have been rejected as original research of published material.
If you have a question relating to the spelling in this article (such as "instalment"/"installment") remember that this article is written in British English.
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Putting aside the misrepresentation of Rowling's issue here, and the fact that her comments on Banda are not even related to trans issues, the article does not classify Rowling as an 'anti-transgender activist', meaning it is not appropriate to put the article in such a category.Daff22 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Daff22. Arbeiten8, please have a look at a broader sampling of unbiased sources, along with the scores of times the same discussion has been had on this talk page, and in particular, the high quality sources required for a Featured article. And I believe we have the same situation with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rowling is the textbook definition of what is transphobia. She has
#Misgendered trans people
#Misgendered cis people who she perceived as the wrong gender like India Willoughby
#Authored the book Troubled Blood & The Silkworm claiming that trans women are supervillains wanting to rape women casting "trans women as a threat" according to GLAAD
Rowling, meanwhile, has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona. On Sept. 10, she posted the U.K. open casting call for the roles of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley to her 14.2 million followers on X. That was an exception: Over the next two months, Rowling posted or reposted more than 200 times (excluding replies) about trans-related issues to support her conviction, as she posted on Oct. 7, that gender identity “is defined by little more than a person’s subjective feelings, or (more accurately) their claim to feel those feelings.” Within the same time frame, she posted or reposted about Harry Potter just eight more times, [...[
The industry has never quite faced a scenario in which the sole creator of a beloved, multibillion-dollar global franchise has plunged so unabashedly into one of the culture’s most contentious social issues. She’s effectively made herself toxic to many within the core fandom, whose devotion began 25 years ago when they were children and has sustained the franchise long after the books and the film series concluded. It’s placed those fans in a vexing dilemma: How can they engage with the new show, or any other iteration of the franchise, if they vehemently disagree with Rowling’s views on gender identity?
This debate has been had a number of times now, and it has become abundantly clear that there is no consensus for adding that label. TBicks (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know we've had this discussion multiple times before and the consensus prior is that, despite Rowling's actions over the past few years, it doesn't relate much to her overall career and ongoing notability. As of yet. And the latter sentence was noted in those discussions as well. I do wonder, though, at where that line is and how long is needed of her continuing this ongoing bigotry that had been all she's gotten reporting on for years now before we can actually change or add to the article about this being a new main part of her ongoing notability. There is a time amount and line where that would be true, right? SilverserenC00:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably? Assuming reliable sources start commonly calling/alluding to her being an anti-transgender activist, I don't see why not.
The problem in past discussions seems to have boiled down not to whether she is anti-transgender (I think she's made her gender critical views clear by this point), but to if she is an activist. Few of the RSs previously discussed actually describe her that way, and there's no consensus thusfar as to if simple speech on Twitter constitutes activism (especially given the absence of campaigning elsewhere).
Anyhow, it's only been a couple of months since the last time this was discussed, and in the absence of new developments, we can't keep reigniting this every time someone wants to link some poor quality sources (LGBTQ Nation is hardly unbiased on this issue). TBicks (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rowling also indicated that Trump's 2024 electoral win is because of the triumph of transphobia (Kamala is for they/them): According to her, the only reason that she couldn't positively declare ""Trump's win was down to the gender stuff" is because she isn't an American voter
Also, would I be wrong in stating that if Rowling were a WP user engaging in this unrepentant rhetoric, then she' be banned?
We have articles like [[Nick Fuentes]] claiming that the subject is a white supremacist in spite of Fuentes's denial. On the other hand, when Rowling is accused of transphobia, she retorts that she doesn't care and is "indifferent to your disapproval."
I think people can common sense. We don't need a hundreds sources to run a headline to the effect "Rowling is the great transphobic author of all time in human history" to decide that 2+2=4 Arbeiten8 (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the goalposts keep moving. We have reliable sources directly talking about it now. But they'll probably insist on peer-reviewed papers, and if those are presented, will say they're not as good as ones from 10 years ago, which don't mention her transphobia. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little more AGF, please, Adam Cuerden. At least a few of us insist on good sourcing because we believe in enforcing FA standards - please look through the FAR archives, if you believe I am doing so out of some loyalty to Rowling. I note that we last exhaustively revised the relevant section five months ago. Has Rowling done enough since then to merit another revision? I'm inclined to think not. Also: the splashiest headlines of the last few months have been ostensibly unrelated to trans people: she has criticized Imane Khelif and Barbra Banda for not appearing feminine enough, despite them being cis-women, as far as the world knows. This could arguably be worked into her views, but it would really be stretching a point to use this as justification for "anti-transgender activist". Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Adam Cuerden... although featured articles should have a higher quality requirement for sources, as long as the preponderance of reliable sources (of any variety) suggest something, there is no reason not to add it. The goalposts have remained firmly in the same place.
As already mentioned, there is little mention of her being an activist in reliable sources. I don't think people are seriously suggesting that she isn't anti-trans any more, but to label her an activist requires more than just RSs pointing out that she says mean stuff on twitter. TBicks (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like, the Variety piece says anti-trans activity is the central focus of her online persona. I don't think that's particularly ambiguous, and if the only objection is exact wording, we could literally quote theirs. "In 2024, Variety wrote that Rowling 'has made her campaign against trans identity the central focus of her online persona.'" Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs.15:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to adding that sentence into the relevant paragraph on her trans views.
That's different to actually labelling her an "Anti-trans Activist" in wikivoice, which is what was suggested by Arbeiten8. As I mentioned, simply quoting a single RS like Variety would be insufficient for that change - it would require much more significant usage in RSs than has been presented thusfar. TBicks (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually opposed to inserting that quote in the body, because it is summarizing what the popular press has to say about her online presence in a way that most sources don't do. It remains insufficient for the "anti-trans activist" label, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a general overview of her comment on this topic should be added to the main page. It garnered considerable attention from both the general public and media. This holds as much relevance as other inclusions, like her disaproval of the phrase "people who menstrate." My suggestion would be to add the following statment, including the Telegraph article as a source as it lacks bias against Joanne. Although, it does contain some mischaracterising of events about the reasonings of Brown to defend Rowling's comments so I would be open to an improved source as it does bias towards Joanne.
I don't know what that sentence even means. She 'questioned it'? The Nazis were a pretty questionable bunch[citation needed]! I think I see what you're getting at but even so, she didn't explicitly say "That Nazi book burning of the research into transgender healthcare at the Institut für Sexualwissenschaftevent was a fever dream", neither does your source say that's what she meant, to read that into it is WP:OR. JeffUK23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Rowling had last month questioned a claim made by one social media user who said: “The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”"
It uses the term "questioned" in the article and refers to the Nazi book burning. The only thing being "read into" is that it's only about the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. We should make the statment more general then as needed. We should then add a new source to show the connection between trans research and the Nazi book burnings. The Wikipedia article for the institue should have a source that would suffice (not the article itself as that doesn't suffice) as it has sourced that one of the focuses of the institute included trangender healthcare.
Also, I am still open to a better source as the telegraph is biased towards Rowling. Open to suggestions.
-
In March 2024, Rowling questioned whether or not the Nazis practised book burning in regards to research into transgender healthcare as a "fever dream" in reply to a user on Twitter, officially known as X. The Nazis did burn the research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, which had a focus on transgender healthcare. Pink Pyra (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In March 2024, Rowling questioned the claim that Nazis burnt research on transgender healthcare, referring to the claim as being a "fever dream" in response to a user on Twitter, officially known as X. The Nazis did burn the research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, which had a focus on transgender healthcare. Pink Pyra (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance this strikes me like "nothing burger" and misrepresentation of the given source (being primarily about false holocaust denial claims). So presumably she was not aware that that transliterture/research was burned at the book burning as well and due to her antitrans bias assumed it was not the case and dismissed an according claim offhand without checking? Is that the core issue here? I neither really observed much of "considerable attention" (outside a social media bubble maybe) nor do i see any eny encyclopedic value. This article needs to shortly summarize her antitrans views and not collect any individual antitrans remark she makes.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that denying recorded Nazi crimes is a "nothing burger" just because she may have actually believed she was in the right due to ignorance. We potentially shouldn't assume the motive behind her action, but if we do assume that, the core issue would be her non-retraction and continued rebuttal of criticism. This would show pertinent "antitrans" views in her unwilligness to admit error when trans people are concerned which I believe would still warrent mention. Pink Pyra (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion was already underway at the sub-article, and already mentioned on this talk page in the section just above this one. This article is a broad overview of JKR, and conforms to Featured article standards in terms of summary style and high-quality sources. Due weight is given according to reliable sources. In an article with 8,800 words of readable prose, of which 250 words total were dedicated to JKR's politics (due weight in accordance with high-quality and scholarly sources), 117 to her relationship with the press, and 488 in the transgender issues section, these edits added 209 words on a subject that is mostly absent in mainstream sources, and not treated at all in scholarly sources as far as I can tell. Due weight for the sub-article-- much less this article-- has not been established. Pink Pyra when you have been reverted once -- and particularly on a contentious topic which is also a BLP and also a Featured article -- you should avoid edit warring and not reinstate without consensus. It will take much more than a few reliable sources to establish due weight in this broad overview article; you should first work on whether the content belongs at the sub-article, where even there it appears UNDUE in terms of the number of sources that mention it. You were reverted once, yet reinstated content without gaining consensus on talk. Please take greater care when editing a Featured article; I suggest pursuing the discussion already underway at the sub-article before continuing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already acknolwedged my error and shortened my proposed addition so I'm not sure why your response is towards only my prior (very lengthy) error on my part.
The Telegraph article gives direct quotes to the original tweet and her response quesioning it. What claim am I giving undue weight by noting what happened? Comments relating the whether or not a person deny the recorded actions of Nazis are a thing that should be mentioned. Pink Pyra (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
