→Unnecessary editorializing text: little bit more |
|||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
:::::The contested text follows this paragraph "''She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "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", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.[261]"'' This quote is not any "exceptional claim" or "fringe theory", and the source given to "rebut" it is a Reuters article, not some scientific meta-analysis, and it also refers to the situation in the US, and it's [[WP:OR]] to claim it can be applied to any other country/society. The mere fact that a person is cited in an article as expressing an opinion (which may or may not be factually unsubstantiated) does not mean that a rebuttal for such attributed opinion is necessary. The section already explains that Rowling's essay is controversial and has received criticism. And the quote does not present anything "erroneous, especially concerning a minority" as you say, quite on the contrary the quote states ''"while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection."'' Nowhere does the quote imply that trans people themselves are violent (rather it implies risks with allowing "any man" inside). Inserting this new text here is simply uncalled for and out of place. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186|2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186|talk]]) 22:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
:::::The contested text follows this paragraph "''She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "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", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.[261]"'' This quote is not any "exceptional claim" or "fringe theory", and the source given to "rebut" it is a Reuters article, not some scientific meta-analysis, and it also refers to the situation in the US, and it's [[WP:OR]] to claim it can be applied to any other country/society. The mere fact that a person is cited in an article as expressing an opinion (which may or may not be factually unsubstantiated) does not mean that a rebuttal for such attributed opinion is necessary. The section already explains that Rowling's essay is controversial and has received criticism. And the quote does not present anything "erroneous, especially concerning a minority" as you say, quite on the contrary the quote states ''"while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection."'' Nowhere does the quote imply that trans people themselves are violent (rather it implies risks with allowing "any man" inside). Inserting this new text here is simply uncalled for and out of place. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186|2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186]] ([[User talk:2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186|talk]]) 22:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::: '''This section is about her views on transgender people''', the factual, directly relevant, and reliably sourced balancing rebuttal specifically refer to her claims regarding wash-rooms and women only places. Rowling the expert writer and Wikipedia .... Erroneously combining the two separate issues in one sentence causes the reader to very likely to assume that her traumatic assault involved a transgender person. "''She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "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"'' This erroneously passage directly ties together her terrible ''non Trans experience'' with her dangerous claim regarding trans people, it wrongly conflates the two issues and unhelpfully confuses the readers, who might easily think very wrongly that she was once assaulted by a trans person. A falsehood that can easily be drawn by many reasonable people reading Wikipedia that she must have been assaulted by a transgendered person. Regards criticising Rowlings dangerous claims [[WP:BLPFRINGE]] ...{{tq|[[WP:BLP]] policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise ... see [[WP:PROFRINGE]], [[WP:PSCI]], [[WP:BLP#Balance]].}} Rowling's claim that trans people |
:::::: '''This section is about her views on transgender people''', the factual, directly relevant, and reliably sourced balancing rebuttal specifically refer to her claims regarding wash-rooms and women only places. Rowling the expert writer and Wikipedia .... Erroneously combining the two separate issues in one sentence causes the reader to very likely to assume that her traumatic assault involved a transgender person. "''She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "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"'' This erroneously passage directly ties together her terrible ''non Trans experience'' with her dangerous claim regarding trans people, it wrongly conflates the two issues and unhelpfully confuses the readers, who might easily think very wrongly that she was once assaulted by a trans person. A falsehood that can easily be drawn by many reasonable people reading Wikipedia that she must have been assaulted by a transgendered person. Regards criticising Rowlings dangerous claims [[WP:BLPFRINGE]] ...{{tq|[[WP:BLP]] policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise ... see [[WP:PROFRINGE]], [[WP:PSCI]], [[WP:BLP#Balance]].}} Rowling's claim that allowing trans people to use female wash rooms etc is a threat to women and girls is exactly a "exceptional claim" or "fringe theory" which is simply not supported by any evidence. |
||
::::::A single nice sentence while publishing baseless false claims regarding Trans people or any other minority is not balance. Regards it being a 'Reuters article, not some scientific meta-analysis' in Wikipedia we seldom use primary sources, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources that report like Reuters the findings of the primary source. |
::::::A single nice sentence while publishing baseless false claims regarding Trans people or any other minority is not balance. Regards it being a 'Reuters article, not some scientific meta-analysis' in Wikipedia we seldom use primary sources, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources that report like Reuters the findings of the primary source. |
Revision as of 03:25, 29 March 2021
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgs1234 (article contribs). |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Transgender views controversy in lead redux
There was a discussion several months ago about whether or not to mention the controversy around Rowling's views of transgender people in the lead. Seeing the media coverage of the possible TV series, e.g. [1][2][3], I think at this point it's very safe to say that this is a lasting part of her reputation and that it would be inappropriate to continue omitting it from the lead (especially given that we currently mention things like a list of the charities she supports, which has gotten far less coverage). Can we have some suggestions about possible wording, so that we can then find consensus on text to add? Courtesy pinging prior participants @Reschultzed, Crossroads, YuvalNehemia, -sche, Czello, Bodney, Bastun, Esowteric, Licks-rocks, and HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4:. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- How about : In 2020, Rowling expressed alleged transphobic sentiments that were critiqued by many organizations and supported by many feminists and actors such a brian Cox.
- Please note neutrality is important
- No putting baiting language and words like Jk Rowling is a transphobe or terf shit that SJW would be too happy over such additions. Hpdh4 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that it is correct to include a neutral reference in the lead. Just replying at this stage, to the suggestion provided by Hpdh4 with respect I am not sure we have solid evidence of 'many' feminists and actors supporting her, but 'a few or maybe some' clearly do. Also why specifically mention Brian Fox who has zero relevance and not name any of the leading LGBT organisations that do not. That is not neutral ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- How about: "In 2020, Rowling expressed views often described as transphobic, receiving criticism from many individuals and organisations, including intersectional feminists, and receiving support from others, including gender critical feminists." Obviously, that's way too long, but you get the idea. We won't be mentioning individuals in the lead, pro- or anti-Rowling. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the content. Please note neutrality is absolutely key. One might question the good faith of someone proposing an obviously biased sentence for the lead. No using baiting language in the article or this talk page - terms such as "SJW", should be avoided. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- The term
gender critical feminists
isn't used in the article, so I don't see how it could feature in the lede as part of a summary of the article. It also isn't an NPOV term, so probably some other term should be used. I agree with the LEADFOLLOWSBODY approach and that the controversy seems DUE for inclusion. Indeed, it seems likely to reflect the only thing many Gen Z people will remember about JKR. Newimpartial (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)- How about a quick & ugly tiny reword "In 2020, Rowling expressed views often described as transphobic, receiving criticism from many individuals and organisations, including intersectional feminists, and receiving support from others, including feminists who are critical of transgenderism." ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still not keen on introducing labels in the lede that don't emerge from the body. I would prefer "...and receiving support from others, including some feminists" - this follows the body, and has the additional merit of being 100% accurate. Newimpartial (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Labels mmm I was going to suggest we possibly add 'LGBT' organisations to 'receiving criticism from many individuals and organisations' to show relevance to the matter. ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- As long as the text doesn't then imply that most of the individuals doing the criticism were LGBT, because that would be misleading. I suppose most of the orgs probably were. 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yep i meant it to before the 'organisations', sorry i was not clear. ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I also think we need to avoid implying that feminists who commented were all supportive of Rowling, which is absolutely not the case. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yep i meant it to before the 'organisations', sorry i was not clear. ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- As long as the text doesn't then imply that most of the individuals doing the criticism were LGBT, because that would be misleading. I suppose most of the orgs probably were. 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Labels mmm I was going to suggest we possibly add 'LGBT' organisations to 'receiving criticism from many individuals and organisations' to show relevance to the matter. ~ BOD ~ TALK 02:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still not keen on introducing labels in the lede that don't emerge from the body. I would prefer "...and receiving support from others, including some feminists" - this follows the body, and has the additional merit of being 100% accurate. Newimpartial (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- How about a quick & ugly tiny reword "In 2020, Rowling expressed views often described as transphobic, receiving criticism from many individuals and organisations, including intersectional feminists, and receiving support from others, including feminists who are critical of transgenderism." ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- The term
- How about: "In 2020, Rowling expressed views often described as transphobic, receiving criticism from many individuals and organisations, including intersectional feminists, and receiving support from others, including gender critical feminists." Obviously, that's way too long, but you get the idea. We won't be mentioning individuals in the lead, pro- or anti-Rowling. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the content. Please note neutrality is absolutely key. One might question the good faith of someone proposing an obviously biased sentence for the lead. No using baiting language in the article or this talk page - terms such as "SJW", should be avoided. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Still not warranted. Those Vox, IGN, and Insider sources are clickbaity/controversy-mongering coverage largely of random people on Twitter and are clearly opinion pieces, not top-shelf news sources like the Guardian, The Times, NYT, etc. And I see that already the proposed text is full of POV WP:WEASEL wording like "many" and "often". Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if you want top shelf, here's top shelf by your own definition: [4][5][6]. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Those are all old. They aren't a grounds to revisit it again. I don't think "some people on Twitter got mad that HP might get a live action TV series" should play any role in our calculus at all. Crossroads -talk- 05:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Explain what you mean by "those are all old", please? Rowling made most of her comments in 2020, that's when people responded, so that's when the media reported on the controversy. In any case, MOS:CITELEAD - we don't need to include citations in the lead for material discussed and referenced later in the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- However, Rowling's alleged transphobia is also discussed in B Colliver's book, Imagining Hate Crime (2020), A Tudor's article "TERFism is a white distraction" in engenderings, S Popovich's "The Antinomies of Academic Freedom" in The Canadian Journal of Academic Librarianshop and Horbury & Yao, "Empire and Eugenics: Trans Studies in the United Kingsom" in TSQ (all published in 2020). I think it is about time we stopped pretending this controversy is not part of Rowling's lasting cultural impact. Newimpartial (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- The article already has a section on the topic, so the question whether we should cover the subject or not is moot, as we cover it already. The question which scope and detail is appropriate for the coverage. We certainly should avoid bloating the the section to include the latest shitstorm or media campaign.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- That is as may be, but the question asked in this section is whether by now it is DUE for this controversy to be reflected in the lede, following the discussion in the body. I believe the answer is, "yes". Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I concur that this is DUE for mentioning in the lede, but the mention has to be short. "Alleged transphobia" shouldn't be used (there's no debate about her stance), maybe "perceived transphobia" ? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use "alleged transphobia" either, partly out of my generally post-humanist editorial preferences. Bastun has suggested
views often described as transphobic
, which seems fine to me. Newimpartial (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use "alleged transphobia" either, partly out of my generally post-humanist editorial preferences. Bastun has suggested
- I concur that this is DUE for mentioning in the lede, but the mention has to be short. "Alleged transphobia" shouldn't be used (there's no debate about her stance), maybe "perceived transphobia" ? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- That is as may be, but the question asked in this section is whether by now it is DUE for this controversy to be reflected in the lede, following the discussion in the body. I believe the answer is, "yes". Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- The article already has a section on the topic, so the question whether we should cover the subject or not is moot, as we cover it already. The question which scope and detail is appropriate for the coverage. We certainly should avoid bloating the the section to include the latest shitstorm or media campaign.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Those are all old. They aren't a grounds to revisit it again. I don't think "some people on Twitter got mad that HP might get a live action TV series" should play any role in our calculus at all. Crossroads -talk- 05:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if you want top shelf, here's top shelf by your own definition: [4][5][6]. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Include in lead. It's a noticeable part of the article body, so worth a sentence or two in the lead. Pick your words carefully! --GRuban (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Include a sentence or two: the weight this continues to be given in reliable sources, and the amount of space it accordingly receives in both this article (which the lead is supposed to summarize) and its spinoff article about her views, shows it's not just WP:DUE but overdue. -sche (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- include She's been pretty clear about her views and it has been a consistent recurring feature of her more recent activism and writing. Seems appropriate to mention in the lead. And I agree with -sche, One or two sentences should do. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Include - per -sche, this is now overdue. No more than one or two sentences needed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Include, but it might take some rewriting I would say that the statements being covered in the popular media, even making it onto Saturday Night Live, means that it should be mentioned. However, it should be fairly brief, considering that Orson Scott Card's anti-gay views only get a sentence in the lead of his article. An argument against including it would be that her other political views aren't mentioned in the lead at all. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- That may well be true, but Google Scholar shows more academic discussion of transphobia in relation to Rowling in 2020 than there has been academic discussion of Card and homophobia since the beginning of time (well, of Google Scholar). I know this has as much to do with the changing relationship between scholarship and popular culture/genre literature as it does with the underlying issues, but WP is supposed to offer a BALANCEd and DUE representation of the best sources, and that would tend to give these Rowling issues more prominence than the Card issues IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Google Scholar includes many non-RS like theses, predatory journals, student papers, and the like. And "social commentary/critical theory" doesn't require experiments, so it tends to get churned out in these forms pretty readily. Crossroads -talk- 18:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fortunately I parse those sourcing issues when I use Google Scholar, rather than using raw hit counts - my comments here have been based on actual RS, excluding the chaff. And there is no need to take your hierarchy of sources out on me, at least not in such a public forum. Your views on what forms of scholarship are easier or harder to produce don't affect how we interpret the balance of scholarship within a domain. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- That would make sense to me, since Card isn't that well-known outside of sci-fi circles, meaning that he doesn't have that much effect on the discourse around gay rights, while Rowling is probably the most famous author in the world as well as one of the most famous people to espouse views associated with anti-transgender activism, especially so-called trans-exclusionary feminism. Under that argument her views might deserve more mention, especially if her publicity has suffered because of it. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Google Scholar includes many non-RS like theses, predatory journals, student papers, and the like. And "social commentary/critical theory" doesn't require experiments, so it tends to get churned out in these forms pretty readily. Crossroads -talk- 18:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- That may well be true, but Google Scholar shows more academic discussion of transphobia in relation to Rowling in 2020 than there has been academic discussion of Card and homophobia since the beginning of time (well, of Google Scholar). I know this has as much to do with the changing relationship between scholarship and popular culture/genre literature as it does with the underlying issues, but WP is supposed to offer a BALANCEd and DUE representation of the best sources, and that would tend to give these Rowling issues more prominence than the Card issues IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Include I am convinced that this controversy has risen to the level of due weight. However, I would focus on what Rowling has stated rather than characterizations of it. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Include in lede as per GRuban, Bastun, -sche, Licks-rocks and others all point out this both WP:DUE and long overdue. A lede should reflect the detail in the body, this highly reported biographic aspect is not going away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This talk page reads like a page were people come to give their verdict on whether JKR's words qualifies as transphobia on the basis of information provided by trans activist and various media personnel that perpetuate hate culture for clickbait headlines. Also you're verdict means nothing as many people and fans still support Rowling.
Remember who actually recieved death and assault threats and remember the world doesn't cater to wokery. People are allowed to live and present as they want too just not at the expense of FACT and LAW. Hpdh4 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- You DO realise that her article "TERF wars" provides the most damning evidence, in fact it is a textbook example of TERF?
- And about the "belief"-lawsuit of her protegé that started the row, a UK court of law decided that "to believe to not accept trans-women are women" does not qualify as a protected belief because it goes against the rules and customs of a peaceful democratic state?
- So, if "FACT and LAW" are observed, an official UK court of law found by due process that the exact "beliefs" Rowling so vehemently and repeatedly defends are considered hate-speech?
- If that makes an ordinary UK court of law "woke" in your opinion, you may want to join forces with one of Rowling's most vehement defenders, a gentleman named Carl Benjamin. --82.113.106.249 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- That comment does not provide any policy-based rationale for the inclusion or exclusion of material in the lede. Also, WP is not a fan wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not in the lead. This twitterstorm stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject's notability. This is not CancelCulturePedia. (Put it this way: If the lead at Donald Trump covered every "controversy" about something Trump said in social media that pissed off some subset of people, the lead of that article would be 10 × longer than the entire article on every other president.) Regardless, what Buidhe said here also applies to the material in the body of the article: "focus on what Rowling has stated rather than characterizations of it". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
PS: If we're going to include something in the lead about this, then the wording I see right now, "Since 2020, her transgender-related views have received criticism from some LGBT organizations and support from some feminists.", seems neutral, correct, and entirely adequate. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Your view that the statements of the article's subject on this matter are more DUE for inclusion than analysis of them in peer-reviewed academic publications is interesting, to say the least. Care to expand on that? Newimpartial (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Given that I didn't say anything like that, I'm not in a position to "expand on that". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Given that you dismiss the issue as "twitterstorm stuff", in the wake of essays, rebuttals, extensive coverage in mainstream media and in academia, it was a fair question. As pointed out above, the "some feminists" wording is problematic, as it implies she has not received criticism from other feminists - and she has. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish, my argument in response to Crossroads - that the coverage in academic sources made Rowling's statements DUE for the lede - was part of the discussion within which you were !voting when you said
focus on what Rowling has stated
. So no straw was used in the juxtaposition I made; it reflected the actual intervention you chose to make. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Given that I didn't say anything like that, I'm not in a position to "expand on that". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Your view that the statements of the article's subject on this matter are more DUE for inclusion than analysis of them in peer-reviewed academic publications is interesting, to say the least. Care to expand on that? Newimpartial (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- As pointed out above, it is absolutely not the case that feminists exclusively support JKR. Some do. Some stand with transgender people in opposition to her views. It is completely disingenuous to state otherwise in WP's voice. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- The formulation in the lede "Since 2020, her transgender-related views have received criticism from some LGBT organisations and feminists, and support from some other feminists" is not a good one. It is biased, in that the criticism (including from feminists) is presented much more prominently than the support; and it also implies that the only people/organizations expressing views on what Rowling has said are either LGBT organizations or feminists, which is certainly not true. If that paragraph remains in the lede, a more simplified form, such as "Since 2020, her transgender-related views have received both criticism and support" might be more appropriate. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6975 (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, agreed, my contribution was clunky as hell, and made in a hurry when I noticed what had been added without mention here, despite a specific request that that wording not be used, as it is absolutely a breach of NPOV. I'll be bold and replace it with your sentence now; and if people want to revert and discuss further, that's fine too. (Mea culpa for not noticing the change when it happened). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
There is ample of time to come up with an appropriate formulation on the talk page before editing the article. Imho a single sentence along the line "Her views of LGBTQ transgender issues have been croticized by some" or "Her views of the LGBTQ transgender community are subject to controvery" should suffice. Details on who criticizes or supports what of her views need to go in the main text or in the special WP article of that subject.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Her views on the LGBTQ community" is not appropriate because she was referring only to transgender issues; also she was not referring to the "community" as such, but rather to some types of activism. But I do agree that "Details on who criticizes or supports what of her views need to go in the main text or in the special WP article of that subject". 2A02:2F01:5EFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6412 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Rowling has been referred to as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) on multiple occasions, though she rejects the label.[1] Because of the controversy, she became widely quoted by far-right influencers.[2] Her book "Troubled Blood" has been criticised for transphobia because the antagonist is described as a gender non conforming crossdresser, in line with the stereotype of the trans-woman she consistently attacks for intruding into female safe spaces.[3]
The first part is right from the article, only moved to the lead. The second part references her newest hate-speech book to sensibilese for its problematic transphobic undertones. --82.113.99.11 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- We don't engage in WP:OR like this based on unreliable primary sources like YouTube videos. And this is pretty blatantly one-sided and POV. Crossroads -talk- 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Are you joking? In her "Troubled Blood"-article, there are half a dozen magazine articles describing the problems. Those are belittled by "some transgender activists say...", right after that two articles calling those criticisms "libelous". "YouTube videos" are not "unreliable sources" or "reliable sources", but depend on the credentials of the authors (like, eg, newspapers, journals and books do, too).
- The linked video is from Carl Benjamin, a well-known right-wing activist. WP:RS obviously doesn't see his YouTube career, which is the reason why he is known, has been interviewed by the BBC, and has been able to try to enter politics in UKIP in the first place.
- If the linked article in your opinion is also WP:RS, then WP:Be Bold and just pick one more of the articles that discuss the issue in the "Troubled Blood"-article.
- After in her "Terf wars" essay, Rowling sugar-coated a TERF as "brave" and only claiming to "believe in sex" which, in fact, called trans-women "Blackface Actors" who need to "Fuck you", called a trans-woman a "good feminist ally and seriously explained that she wasn't a TERF because her feminism also included trans-men(!), there is no wiggle-room left whatsoever to see Rowling as anything other than a TERF.
- Weasel-Words like "some LGBTQ+-activists" against "some feminists" don't cut it, especially since the term "TERF" was coined by a self-described radical feminist (and not, as Rowling wrongly states, "trans-activists") just to be able to distance herself from self-proclaimed "radical feminists" who excluded trans-women. She later said that the actions of TERFs in fact disqualified them as "feminist" and said a better term would be "TES" (Trans-Exclusionary Separatists).
- So, from all her own words and actions, Rowling is a textbook example of the ideology that is commonly understood as "TERF" and, outside of the UK, derided by the vast majority of self-identifying feminists.
- Could we please stick to the facts, not to Rowling's PR? You know, WP:NPOV? If it walks like a TERF, quacks like a TERF, tweets like a TERF, and writes a lengthy essay about "TERF wars" checking every box of TERFdom, it's a TERF. Regardless of what she herself calls herself.
- --82.113.106.249 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- We don't engage in WP:OR like this based on unreliable primary sources like YouTube videos. And this is pretty blatantly one-sided and POV. Crossroads -talk- 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think it made more sense to say who, broadly, is on each 'side', since it's pretty obvious that there are others on each side besides the most prominent groups. Crossroads -talk- 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- That isn't what you did, though. Your formulation pitted "some LGBT groups" against "some feminists" - which was clearly not the case, as many feminists oppose JKR's views on transgender issues. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- That wasn't my formulation; "LGBT organizations and others" was. Hippo43 then changed it. I don't doubt one bit that some feminists side with the LGBT organizations, but the article doesn't specify that, so I couldn't add it to the lead. And the fact is that "some feminists" is clear that other feminists feel differently, which is why "some" is there. Crossroads -talk- 06:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Some feminists" and "some LGBT-activists" are both WP:Weasel words. Fact is, and you can consult the TERF-article to check it, that the vast majority of self-described feminists are not TERFs and are most certainly not on the "side" of Rowling. One of them, BTW, is Emma Watson ("Hermione" in the Harry Potter films). Even in the article about Troubled Blood, about a dozen references criticise her and source why it is a work of transphobia, and only two references defend Rowling (by deriding all the others as "libelous" or "slanderous"), albeit in the article, they are quoted disproportionately detailed.
- That wasn't my formulation; "LGBT organizations and others" was. Hippo43 then changed it. I don't doubt one bit that some feminists side with the LGBT organizations, but the article doesn't specify that, so I couldn't add it to the lead. And the fact is that "some feminists" is clear that other feminists feel differently, which is why "some" is there. Crossroads -talk- 06:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- That isn't what you did, though. Your formulation pitted "some LGBT groups" against "some feminists" - which was clearly not the case, as many feminists oppose JKR's views on transgender issues. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Rowling called a feminist trans-woman "an ally" and claims "feminism" was not "trans-exclusionary" because it included trans-men - which in practice does exactly what she claims trans-women hurt "female safe-spaces" with: letting quasi-indistinguishable men who have no business there in, and there are ample example of cis-women rejected in women's shelters because they looked more masculine than the "female norm".
- One of the women she vehemently defended and still defends had her appeal to her lay-off rejected because "not believing trans-women are women" goes against the norms and customs of a pluralist democracy and is hate-speech.
- Another she describes as "brave" and "just believing in the reality of sex" (which, BTW, trans-people of course do also) tweeted that trans-women were "black-face actors" and should "fuck" themselves.
- Rowling is an author, and knows how to mince words. The very second you take a broader view, however, you see enough unambiguous reasons in her own articles that make her a TERF.
- Someone else brought up Orson Scott Card. Good example. He is considered trans-phobic, which is in his article, unmarred by weasel-words. Card hasn't given nearly as much reason to consider him trans-phobic as Rowling has proven her TERF-ideology again and again and again, even in an article she wrote to defend against being called a TERF. The facts simply leave no other conclusion.
- --82.113.106.249 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's obvious that we cannot use the term "TERF" in wikipedia's voice. Rowling's views on trans issues are explained in the relevant section, and it must stay neutral. On the employment case of Maya Forstater, I think it's important to add to the article that her employment case is ongoing, as she has appealed the decision, so the final outcome of this case is not yet decided (also her tweets and views were not deemed hate speech by the judge). I want to point out that claims made about Maya Forstater, including on talk pages, also fall under WP:BLP. 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5741 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ López, Canela. "J.K. Rowling wrote a controversial statement about transgender people in response to being called a 'TERF.' Here's what that means". Insider. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
- ^ eg Carl Benjamin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH781lETcyM and other videos
- ^ eg Samantha Lux, "JK Rowling is Transphobic?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUkq7xMOiyA
Well my updates are being reverted, so while this conversation seems to have died down, might as well bring it up in here.
"Since late 2019, Rowling's transgender-related views have received both criticism and support." is wishy-washy two-sidesing worm words. Like the big orange man said, there were people who "criticized" a woman getting run over at Charlotesville, and others who supported those doing the running over, but that's not how you'd phrase an article when the primary response is critique. "Rowling's outspoken views on transgender rights have received criticism/have become a point of discussion" should be fine, or in the very least you need to actually source who is doing the critiquing and who is doing the supporting, because I'd argue that's petty critical. Buh6173 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Criticism and support is neutral, a focus on critique is not. And who is supporting or criticising is not specific either. Lastly, comparing this to Charlottesville displays an agenda driven view. Gabriella MNT (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I mean...what, would you rather me compare it to Planned Parenthood? Would that make you feel any better? You want to avoid sounding vague or wishy-washy. "Trans-rights groups are mad at her, TERFs and right-wing media are happy with her." Want to phrase that in a less biased way then by all means, but "some like her, some don't" doesn't help anybody. It'd honestly be better just to say "Since 2019 Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender issues" and leave it at that. Buh6173 (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021
Change "transgender-related issues" in lede to "transphobic remarks". The former is vague, while the latter is much clearer and in-line with how the reliable sources in the trans section of the body describe her views. Nmi628 (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not done Per WP:LABEL, and, yes, per WP:NPOV, and especially per the consensus reached above. Sources actually vary quite a bit in how they describe the matter and few say "transphobic" in their own voice. Editors can't describe any topic in ways other than the WP:Due weight of sources. Also, the lead says "transgender-related views", not "issues". Keep in mind that an overly stridently written article turns off the people one may want to convince; this is partly why NPOV is important. Crossroads -talk- 05:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021 (2)
Put
at the top of the article.
Neutrality is very obviously disputed. User:Crossroads very obviously isn't impartial, yet answers edit requests. Joanne K Rowling after "TERF wars" isn't just a TERF, she is the most famous TERF at the moment, weighing in on every TERF debate in defence of blatant TERF hate-speech.
This has been pointed out by multiple people in the talk above, yet still User:Crossroads talks about a "consensus". If there is one, it's that Rowling's latest works and publications are textbook TERF and, like eg Troubled Blood, outright transphobic
For as long as no neutral Admin watches over this site, Neutrality isn't given, and not having a NPOV Template above a clearly unbalanced article, taking a position against the obvious majority of the references cited inside, hurts the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.
If you look at article of other right-wing publicists (eg Carl Benjamin or Milo Yiannopoulos - or even the author Orson Scott Card), labels like "white supremacist", "alt-right" or "homophobia" are not by a long shot as well-documented as Rowling's Trans-exclusionary radical feminism opinions and transphobia - even in her own words!
Should a biased admin/mod reject this request, I ask other people to weigh in and give an opinion poll who is in favour of this minimal common denominator and who is opposed. (BTW, normally, if WP:NPOV is reasoned, there normally is no discussion whether a biased article is tagged, but when it is reworked when the tag may be deleted.)
--2003:C8:471C:7800:F0D5:F10D:92A6:CB05 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC) 2003:C8:471C:7800:F0D5:F10D:92A6:CB05 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. If you think there are neutrality issues, then the better option (instead of tagging the article) is to attempt to fix them by collaborating with other editors, not accusing fellow editors of bias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)- Crossroads is not an admin or "moderator" and admins do not have authority over content; their only privileges as admins are to enforce existing community consensus or make uncontroversial actions like blocking trolls. These edit requests are answered by any volunteer who wants to. This request has rightly been declined. Your personal opinion is of no use to us without presenting us with high-quality secondary sources. — Bilorv (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's probably also worth pointing out that due to the above request the OP has shown that they're not neutral in this discussion either, with a very obvious bias against Rowling for this particular topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully I do not think we need to come down like a ton of bricks on the IP just because their request might indicate an opinion, if we are honest most editors have a biases and opinions on things. All we should ask for is clear evidence and neutrality in the article. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Aditionally, the IP has a point. J.K. Rowling's behaviour and stance on policy at this point are functionally indistinguishable from trans exclusionary feminism. After all, she is indeed a feminist, and she also seeks to take away certain rights from trans people. (e.g. the right to go to the appropriate bathroom, the right to appropriate treatment.) In other words, she seeks equality for women as long as they don't happen to be trans. In other words, her feminism is indeed trans exclusionary, as opposed to normal feminism, which is pro trans rights and seeks for trans women to have easier and more varied access to gender affirming treatment options, something J.K. Rowling has openly stated she opposes. It is not strange for an IP to point this out. That being said, I am opposed to adding the template, as it seems more productive to make constructive edits to the article and to make clear arguments for why those changes should be made. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to comment on this, but since the discussion has received a bit of traction, I will note the following:
- * I don't think the template itself is helpful, and prefer not to see it inserted;
- * There was an RfC in 2019 that found that the abbreviation "TERF" should not generally be used in article space without strict attribution;
- * My own observation is that using the abbreviation "TERF" outside of article space generates more heat than light in pretty much all instances;
- * There is no general agreement on WP whether the term "trans-exclusionary", or related terms (like "anti-transgender"), strictly require in-text attribution.
- On this last point, when I say "there is no general agreement" what I mean is "various editors insist there is policy-based consensus one way or the other, but cannot agree what this supposed consensus is" - it is not a case where editors have found it possible to agree that there is no general agreement, for whatever reason.
- As far as the broader question, of whether J K Rowling's position on trans issues - generally understood to be -exclusionary, is due for emphasis in the lede, I have previously stated my position that it is due for inclusion, and my preference that it be referred to with precise rather than vague language. Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully I do not think we need to come down like a ton of bricks on the IP just because their request might indicate an opinion, if we are honest most editors have a biases and opinions on things. All we should ask for is clear evidence and neutrality in the article. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's probably also worth pointing out that due to the above request the OP has shown that they're not neutral in this discussion either, with a very obvious bias against Rowling for this particular topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Crossroads is not an admin or "moderator" and admins do not have authority over content; their only privileges as admins are to enforce existing community consensus or make uncontroversial actions like blocking trolls. These edit requests are answered by any volunteer who wants to. This request has rightly been declined. Your personal opinion is of no use to us without presenting us with high-quality secondary sources. — Bilorv (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Jk doesn't want to take anything away rather shes encouraging caution regarding matters of gender and activism. The kiera bell case proves much of Jk Rowling's concerns as valid . And Instead of just reporting on the controversy Many Wikipedia editors seek to make sure dislike for Rowling is driven in . I'm not going to mention names. They know who they are.
Can't wait for someone to go all monkey when its revealed another actor supports Jk rowling : that actor being Ralph Fiennes. Hpdh4 (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- In your opinion. And while that is your opinion, HPDH4, which you're entitled to hold, you're not entitled to include opinion in the article without citations. As for your last sentence - maybe read WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021
2A01:CB08:13D:8700:430:445:D5F3:A721 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not done Unclear what request is being made. — Czello 08:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary editorializing text
The text "Most hostility in women's bathrooms is directed at trans women and lesbians; 200 municipalities that allowed trans people to use women's shelters saw no rise in any violence as a result.[262]" from the section "Transgender people" should be removed. It is editorializing, instead of presenting Rowling's views in a neutral way (neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with them). Furthermore, the 200 municipalities mentioned in the source are in the United States, not in the UK/Scotland where Rowling lives.2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. However the consensus at Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling is currently in favour of the current wording. — Czello 19:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Politics of J. K. Rowling is a different and more detailed article, whereas the section "Transgender people" here is supposed to be a short summary of Rowling's views on trans issues, so it should contain less detail than the other article. I think consensus must be discussed for this main article too, on this talk page, and it may be different than that at the other article. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also the paragraph in question, regardless of the article where it is added, must be attributed.2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186 (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I Strongly disagree The passage is sourced. It is directly about Rowling's claim and factual reality. It is both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a fan page, if any subject claims something erroneous, especially concerning a minority I think we have a duty to balance it with the facts. By presenting her views without also providing the reader with actual directly relevant information from reliable sources on bathroom violence Wikipedia is contributing to dangerous misinformation. To quote Licks-rocks
"it's not our job to argue against her per sé, we <Wikipedia> do have a duty to be truthful, and by letting her point stand unopposed, we are leaving the implication that it is a reasonable or truthful point to make, which it clearly isn't."
- The claims that Rowling's makes in the first place are factually unsubstantiated. They are not widely held beliefs, a wikipedia should put them in context. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:EXTRAORDINARY / or Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
"the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable source ... a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight'"
Wikipedia:Fringe theories. WP:FRINGE:"there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized."
~ BOD ~ TALK 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I Strongly disagree The passage is sourced. It is directly about Rowling's claim and factual reality. It is both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a fan page, if any subject claims something erroneous, especially concerning a minority I think we have a duty to balance it with the facts. By presenting her views without also providing the reader with actual directly relevant information from reliable sources on bathroom violence Wikipedia is contributing to dangerous misinformation. To quote Licks-rocks
- The contested text follows this paragraph "She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "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", while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection.[261]" This quote is not any "exceptional claim" or "fringe theory", and the source given to "rebut" it is a Reuters article, not some scientific meta-analysis, and it also refers to the situation in the US, and it's WP:OR to claim it can be applied to any other country/society. The mere fact that a person is cited in an article as expressing an opinion (which may or may not be factually unsubstantiated) does not mean that a rebuttal for such attributed opinion is necessary. The section already explains that Rowling's essay is controversial and has received criticism. And the quote does not present anything "erroneous, especially concerning a minority" as you say, quite on the contrary the quote states "while stating that most trans people were vulnerable and deserved protection." Nowhere does the quote imply that trans people themselves are violent (rather it implies risks with allowing "any man" inside). Inserting this new text here is simply uncalled for and out of place. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5186 (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- This section is about her views on transgender people, the factual, directly relevant, and reliably sourced balancing rebuttal specifically refer to her claims regarding wash-rooms and women only places. Rowling the expert writer and Wikipedia .... Erroneously combining the two separate issues in one sentence causes the reader to very likely to assume that her traumatic assault involved a transgender person. "She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "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" This erroneously passage directly ties together her terrible non Trans experience with her dangerous claim regarding trans people, it wrongly conflates the two issues and unhelpfully confuses the readers, who might easily think very wrongly that she was once assaulted by a trans person. A falsehood that can easily be drawn by many reasonable people reading Wikipedia that she must have been assaulted by a transgendered person. Regards criticising Rowlings dangerous claims WP:BLPFRINGE ...
WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure the nature of a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise ... see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:BLP#Balance.
Rowling's claim that allowing trans people to use female wash rooms etc is a threat to women and girls is exactly a "exceptional claim" or "fringe theory" which is simply not supported by any evidence.
- This section is about her views on transgender people, the factual, directly relevant, and reliably sourced balancing rebuttal specifically refer to her claims regarding wash-rooms and women only places. Rowling the expert writer and Wikipedia .... Erroneously combining the two separate issues in one sentence causes the reader to very likely to assume that her traumatic assault involved a transgender person. "She said that she was a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault, and stated that "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" This erroneously passage directly ties together her terrible non Trans experience with her dangerous claim regarding trans people, it wrongly conflates the two issues and unhelpfully confuses the readers, who might easily think very wrongly that she was once assaulted by a trans person. A falsehood that can easily be drawn by many reasonable people reading Wikipedia that she must have been assaulted by a transgendered person. Regards criticising Rowlings dangerous claims WP:BLPFRINGE ...
- A single nice sentence while publishing baseless false claims regarding Trans people or any other minority is not balance. Regards it being a 'Reuters article, not some scientific meta-analysis' in Wikipedia we seldom use primary sources, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources that report like Reuters the findings of the primary source.
- Further to my Context argument above and regards Rowling being in Scotland ... both Rowling and Wikipedia are read internationally, no where does she say that she was just referring to Scotland only. Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader
Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully.
~ BOD ~ TALK 23:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC) edited