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 the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
HP fansites' statement on Rowling's anti-transgender activism
I inserted the following:
- In July 2020, the MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron Harry Potter fansites jointly announced that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about achievements outside her Harry Potter fiction, as her views are "out of step with the message of acceptance and empowerment we find in her books and celebrated by the Harry Potter community," and describing them as "harmful and disproven beliefs about what it means to be a transgender person."[1][2]
It was immediately reverted by Crossroads, stating "Removing excessive material per WP:NOTNEWS. The RfC at BLPN is addressing the length of this section and most such comments favir brevity. The WP:ONUS to get consensus is on those who wish to add material".
I contend that two of the biggest HP fansites jointly taking this action is notable and is certainly worthy of coverage; that the now moribund RFC was not called to discuss length; and that the excision of anything from this and related articles that could in any be viewed as critical of TERF positions, with a cry of "WP:ONUS!" is now bordering on tendentious editing - Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! Yet, here we are. Line up, usual sides... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights". The Guardian. 3 July 2020. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
- ^ Chilton, Louis (3 July 2020). "Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender comments". Independent. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
- I obviously oppose this material for the reason I said in the edit summary. WP:NOTNEWS states,
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of...events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia.
And yes, the RfC has 6 editors besides myself saying the section should be brief, with some of those even favoring removal (which I do not). It is being addressed there (and it is not "moribund"; it will be officially closed like all RfCs). Excessive length on this matter on Rowling's biography is WP:Undue and WP:Recentism. The section is not going to be a POV repository of each and every condemnatory opinion that got mentioned somewhere in the gossip press. And no, the opinion of some Harry Potter fans on the internet is in no way significant. Crossroads -talk- 00:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads -talk- 00:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- The RFC wasn't about this latest addition, which happened after the rfc, nor was it about the lenght of the text. NOTNEWS doesn't apply either, since these fansites are large enough to be notable and this is a permanent development. So crossroad's point is completely moot. If you guys want to improve the flow of the text by moving it around do that, and don't just revert because me no likey. I favour inclusion of the fact that this happened and you guys are free to figure out a way to better include it if you feel inclined to do so. Just keep in mind that there's nothing counterfactual, grammatically incorrect, or unencyclopedic about what is currently written in that alinea. Crossroad's personal preference is not an argument for reverting a change.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs its own lengthy paragraph at this time, but IMO it would be appropriate/due to expand the current sentence
Several actors known for portraying Rowling's characters criticised her views or spoke in support of trans rights, including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Eddie Redmayne, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leung
to add[...Leung], as did the fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron
. -sche (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)- I think this is a good way to do it.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- -sche, agreed there is no need for a lengthy paragraph. One sentence would seem resaonable? Crossroads, if the RFC has drifted off=topic that's unfortunate, but if you want it to be discussing something other than the particular questions which have already been put, then maybe you should point that out there, openly? The fact is, the whole topic of Rowling's attitude to transgender people and issues is now very notable and is not going away. There are additional related issues that should probably also be included. Whatever whitewashing or censorship mission you're on - stop? Expecting a talk page section for every new addition simply is not on and is not how wikipedia works. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose the addition of that paragraph too. It gives undue weight to recent events; and you end up with the section "Transgender issues" being mostly about the reactions of other people/organizations, rather than describing Rowling's views. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, yes? that's how that works? if someone says something controversial, people's reactions to it are a good way (and the only acceptable way) to illustrate that without violating wiki policy--Licks-rocks (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC).
- Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences. It doesn't make those consequences irrelevant to the article. YuvalNehemia (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really think that "Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences" is an appropriate tone to have a productive discussion here. And the "consequences" that Rowling faces are not all negative (there's more on this at the RfC). With regard to the reactions to her essay, there were very many of them, and we must choose carefully and give due weight to what we add here, both with regard of whose opinions we add and with regard to how much the discussion on others' opinion can take from that section. Just because these things are now all over the news, that doesn't mean we must throw everything here indiscriminately because WP:NOTNEWS. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, it's not even about consequences or anything as arcane as that, it's a basic principle of wikipedia. If you don't want OR in your articles, which we don't, citing other sources' reactions to something is the only legitimate way to actually include the fact that something happened on wikipedia. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Rowling chose to publish that manifesto, and she now faces the consequences. It doesn't make those consequences irrelevant to the article. YuvalNehemia (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I mean, yes? that's how that works? if someone says something controversial, people's reactions to it are a good way (and the only acceptable way) to illustrate that without violating wiki policy--Licks-rocks (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC).
- I oppose the addition of that paragraph too. It gives undue weight to recent events; and you end up with the section "Transgender issues" being mostly about the reactions of other people/organizations, rather than describing Rowling's views. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Batsun. Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets or that she deleted a tweet praising Stephen King after he showed support for trans women may fall under WP:NOTNEWS. But these are two significant websites (combined they are about as popular as Pottermore), significant enough to have Warner Bros. send them movie materials before release. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unencyclopedic. YuvalNehemia (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- You should really have in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Your claim "Saying that Rowling liked pro-conversion therapy tweets" is deeply misleading because it implies that Rowling supports conversion therapy (in its original meaning, that is practices trying to change a person's sexual orientation). That tweet was about a Canadian law that dealt with children's biological sex and how it related to a child's gender identity and what can therapists say to that child about biological sex. 2A02:2F01:5DFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5250 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's what's being reported. Would you care to log in, 2A92:ipv6? You appear to have forgotten to. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It's clear there's a consensus for inclusion. I would prefer a distinct sentence (single - it doesn't need a paragraph), but including it as part of the other reactions is fine. Of equal import, though, is the seeming marker bring drawn by Crossroads, which seems to be saying nothing gets included without them removing it and forcing a discussion, per WP:ONUS (which is a subsection, let us remember, of the Verifiability policy, not the notability policy!). To my mind, that is gaming the system; and equally, the reference above to the RfC, which apparently is now also about the length of this section, even though that's not addressed in any resolution in that RfC. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Again. Bastun has done the right thing. I disagree that consensus is clear. I suggest proposing an edit here and we'll see if we can find sth we're happy with.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- That already happened. Considering the fact that you don't acknowledge this I am starting to feel that you are acting in bad faith by suggesting we go through the process again. Do you even know what the version you are reverting says? --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, the user did something similar on Talk:Graham Linehan, participating in a discussion about making a change and even supporting the change, as enough other users also did to establish consensus, but then claiming the change had been made without discussion or support. I assume good faith, though, despite being mindful of the WP:DUCK/Sealion test. :) -sche (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- the user just way too hastily dropped a 3rr admin request on my head after triggering an edit war with me (which stopped at excactly three revisions), so make of that what you will. (so hasty in fact that nothing on the form has actually been filled in besides my name) --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, the user did something similar on Talk:Graham Linehan, participating in a discussion about making a change and even supporting the change, as enough other users also did to establish consensus, but then claiming the change had been made without discussion or support. I assume good faith, though, despite being mindful of the WP:DUCK/Sealion test. :) -sche (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- That already happened. Considering the fact that you don't acknowledge this I am starting to feel that you are acting in bad faith by suggesting we go through the process again. Do you even know what the version you are reverting says? --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Again. Bastun has done the right thing. I disagree that consensus is clear. I suggest proposing an edit here and we'll see if we can find sth we're happy with.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Someone boldly adding something and me reverting it as not encyclopedic is not gaming the system, it is the system, per WP:BRD. Crossroads -talk- 00:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- it also says you should err on the side of caution when choosing what to revert, something you certainly aren't a shining example of. let me remind you that BRD is not an excuse for tedentious editing, nor for reverting changes you don't like. BRD is never a reason for reverting, and I quote: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." which, despite all the random WP:pages you drag into it, certainly appears to be what you are doing. I recommend you stop doing it and take a good read through what WP:BRD is NOT before you press that undo button again, because I for one am seriously getting fed up with your antics. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there be inclusion of the fact the the sites did more than merely criticising her? I mean, removing pictures of her, not linking to her site and practically ignoring her existence after 2007 is quite big. YuvalNehemia (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. I liked the original version better for that reason, but since there seems to be a bit of a spanish inquisition present on this page I elected to be conservative in what the consensus version was. Feel free to try to add it to the current version, but I expect we'll have to deal with another bullshit revert-and-complain cycle immediately afterwards. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020
"change Transgender issues to Transgender people" JKISEVIL (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- What justification is there for this change? — Czello 20:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Already done Rummskartoffel (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Transgender people vs transgender issues
There appears to be a slow moving edit war both here and on Rowling's politics page about whether the heading under #views should be "Transgender people" or "transgender issues". The 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. — Czello 21:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
It's just come to my attention that this edit war is thanks to Paris Lees' very unhelpful canvassing. Semiprotect status has been requested. — Czello 21:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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. ~ BOD ~ TALK 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: [1][2] And reliable sources show that it is not about people but about political questions: [3][4] 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. Crossroads -talk- 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. --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 better, but still less than ideal. 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. — Czello 22:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyboyExeter (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyboyExeter (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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. — Czello 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 --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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. — Czello 06:57, 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 here and here. 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. Crossroads -talk- 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; NYT "Ms. Rowling’s anti-transgender comments", BBC "comments about transgender people",Variety "Anti-Trans Tweets", Associated Press "JK Rowling’s tweets on transgender people", NBC "her controversial stance on the transgender community", The Guardian "her beliefs on transgender rights", USA Today "her recent anti-transgender comments." It seems like RS support that het comments pertain to transgender people and transgender rights. 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.) 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".) -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.[5] 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".[6] Ward20 (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just rename the subsection to Cissexism. gobonobo + c 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. — Czello 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.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. Crossroads -talk- 14:51, 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.2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:56B8 (talk) 12:47, 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. 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. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with this point; I think it encapsulates why I'd prefer it to be "issues". — Czello 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~. --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.--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? — Czello 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. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I can accept this as a compromise if it comes to that. Crossroads -talk- 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"? — Czello 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Issue (noun) = a subject or problem that people are thinking and talking about ~ 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. ~ BOD ~ TALK 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. — Czello 15:19, 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). — Czello 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- if we make it "matters relating to transgender people" I'm fine with that too --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. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- it's a compromise. If it works for them, it works for me.--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:10, 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. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- if we make it "matters relating to transgender people" I'm fine with that too --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:45, 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). — Czello 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(out)The "issues" are about "transgender rights" or "transgender law reform" or "gender identity"[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Any of those three could be a reasonable compromise. "Issues relating to transgender people" is not 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". 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. Ward20 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect, literally no one would read it the way you just did.--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 "transgender rights" or "transgender law reform" or "gender identity of trans people. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:14, 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. 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. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:13, 7 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. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:56, 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Bodney for making that more clear to me. 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. 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? 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you are entitled to your own views (namely that "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"), but the article must abide by WP:NPOV, which means that Rowling's views (including the view that, in certain situations, there is a conflict between certain demands made by trans activists and women's rights) must be presented in a neutral way, without taking 'sides'. The responses to Rowling's views must also be presented with due regard to all wiki policies (which includes attribution, and not writing in Wikipedia's voice). 2A02:2F01:58FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:54C6 (talk) 04:44, 16 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 coverage in the reliable sources I've read.
- It is up to the editors 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. 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020
"=== Transgender people ===" to "=== Transgender issues ===", using 'Transgender people" makes no sense in the article. As these are her views, and the only reason why the said change was made was because of the transgender community taking offence to Ms. Rowling's views. Brakesahib (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not done - Brakesahib, this is already being discussed in the previous section. You are welcome to comment there to help us reach a consensus. Crossroads -talk- 02:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
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? --Reschultzed|||Talk|||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. Crossroads -talk- 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. 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 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. But what should the sentence say? -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. — Czello 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. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Some top level sources :-
- Telegraph Trust me, JK Rowling is spouting dangerous nonsense about trans people ~ BOD ~ TALK 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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. — Czello 15:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel that her views on this issue are a sufficiently-defining characteristic to (as yet) warrant a place in the lede. Esowteric+Talk 16:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I feel the same about her recent career as a screenwriter and producer, but reliable sources disagree... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Radical feminist?
In 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... -sche (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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. — Czello 18:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't, so I'll remove that one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Here is one source 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). ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, there are many more for the TERF category. Some have even been discussed previously. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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?) — Czello 18:39, 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.[1] She has received support from some feminists, such as Julie Bindel.[2]
- 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 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? Ward20 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Three more articles, Vanity Fair calling her a "British feminist", all three just shy of calling her a TERF.[14][15][16].Ward20 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @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. 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:16, 9 July 2020 (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.
- ^ Thorpe, Vanessa (14 June 2020). "JK Rowling: from magic to the heart of a Twitter storm". The Observer.
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:...
J. K. Rowling template at top of talk page
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."
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. 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. Serendipodous 23:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Part of the problem was 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 tried to revise it to reflect what the linked discussions (and intent of the sentence prior to the recent broadening) were about. -sche (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020
Add (Redacted) on the External links section. It is the most complete source of all J.K. Rowling's writing, forewords, articles, and publications. 101008a (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not done per WP:COPYVIOEL (and a shady-lookin' website anyway). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Editorialisation
I removed the following words, as they are not from the sources: 'prejudicial' and 'along with misgendering a person' in regard to the court's ruling. None of the first sources says 'prejudice' and none of the other sources mentions 'misgendering' as relates to the court's ruling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=967331858&oldid=967235607
@Rab V: reverted the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._K._Rowling&diff=967339534&oldid=967331858
They wrote: 'both are in sources immediately linked'. I have read the sources and they don't say either of these things.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! They aren't word for word repeated in sources but the ideas are directly covered. The first source after the word prejudicial calls the comments transphobic in it's title. I'd be fine using the word transphobic instead of prejudicial before. About misgender, the Guardian source directly after that sentence includes this “Judge Tayler held that ‘the claimant’s view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others’. He observed that the claimant was not entitled to ignore the legal rights of a person who has transitioned from male to female or vice versa and the ‘enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering a person." Rab V (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- For NPOV it's normally better simply to say the comments, not attach an unsourced editor's adjective to them. So I think simply removing the adjective is clearly the best solution. The link was broken to the other one. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets
NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- It was sourced, the Guardian one was broken, so I repaired it and added a sedcond source, The Telegraph ...both RSs confirm that “Judge Tayler said in his judgement that "the claimant’s view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others’. He observed that the claimant was not entitled to ignore the legal rights of a person who has transitioned" and the ‘enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering a person’. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- The link was broken (as above). The prejudice adjective should be removed, however.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- By the view only direct quotes can be fair wikipedia would be nothing but quotations. Unless there is significant dispute among RS on this point, NPOV actually supports just wikipedia presenting what RS say without direct quotes. The CBS article and a court of law seem to agree though about the comments being prejudicial or transphobic. Rab V (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Judge Tayler said. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” and that her views were“incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others". That is describing Forrester's prejudice. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- The link was broken (as above). The prejudice adjective should be removed, however.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- I would be fine with changing "prejudicial" to "transphobic" to use the exact word the source does, though it is not per se a problem to paraphrase (and here, use of "prejudicial" instead of sources' "transphobic" appears if anything to water the sources down somewhat in MF's favour). -sche (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Would anyone like to explain how this is permissible per WP:LABEL?
Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
Of the 3 sources for this sentence, no term is even used in the Independent source. In any case, WP:In-text attribution would be needed. Why not just remove the label, and let the next sentence describe the comments? Crossroads -talk- 05:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Would anyone like to explain how this is permissible per WP:LABEL?
- Agree. We shouldn't be labelling anyone in this way, only saying "X was described as Y by Z". — Czello 08:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also agree with NEDOCHAN's views above. There seem to be some editors in this thread who want to make an interpretation that Forrester is prejudiced by effectively saying "well, the source basically says this". Let's just report on what has been directly said rather than editorialising. — Czello 08:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The current sentence is an accurate summary of the events. We could replace "prejudiced" with "transphobic" because there are multiple reliable sources that describe Forstarter's tweets thus. And you can read exactly what the Judge's verdict on her remarks was. That's how wikipedia works. There seem to be some editors on this page who want to make an interpretation that everything and every one connected to Rowling is entirely innocent of everything. But multiple reliable sources disagree. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- If the sources say "transphobic" then that's fine -- that's my point. Also I don't think anyone here is trying to say "everything and every one connected to Rowling is entirely innocent" -- some of us are just concerned with WP:NPOV violations sneaking into the article by otherwise well-meaning editors. — Czello 09:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sources on Forstater's transphobic prejudice, many of the sources paint Rowling with the same transphobic prejudice.
- J.K. Rowling’s latest tweet seems like transphobic BS. Her fans are heartbroken.
- The U.K. Has a Transphobia Problem and J.K. Rowling Is the Latest Offender
- This is why JK Rowling is being accused of transphobia
- J.K. Rowling's Maya Forstater tweets support hostile work environments, not free speech
- [J.K. Rowling facing backlash after supporting researcher who lost her job over transphobic tweets
- Is not the very clear and unequivocal trans exclusionary and absolutist belief in the non existence of transgenderism at the fundamental core of radical 'Gender Critical' feminism transphobic? Gender Critical = Transphobia. If so, add -
- J.K. Rowling Criticized After Tweeting Support for Anti-Transgender Researcher
- Test case rules against Maya Forstater, tax expert sacked over transgender tweet ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am happy with either prejudicial or the more specific and sourced transphobic as they are somewhat interchangeable. ~ BOD ~ TALK 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Again, WP:LABEL:
in which case use in-text attribution.
We can't say "prejudicial" or "transphobic" in WP:WIKIVOICE, period. For good reason too - it's obviously telling the reader what to think. And let's avoid cherry picking, please - many other sources about Rowling do not use these labels, so they don't even qualify as "widely used" as WP:LABEL requires; e.g. [17][18][19][20][21] And about Forstater specifically: [22][23][24] Let me know if you need more. As forThere seem to be some editors on this page who want to...
, since two sides can play that game, let's focus on content, okay? Maybe Guy Macon would kindly help us to do that here like he has at Politics of J. K. Rowling. - Since it was ignored above: Why not just remove the label, and let the next sentence describe the comments? Crossroads -talk- 14:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Again, WP:LABEL:
I would be in favour of removing the label and letting the next sentence do the job, as Crossroads says. — Czello 15:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The article could easily state instead that several reliable independent sources referred to her actions as transphobic, backed up with the supporting citations. I was trying to concentrate on Forstater, but the are plenty of reliable sources that do refer Rowling herself with more clarity in the same way, the cherry tree is burgeoning with ripe fruit ~ [[ https://www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-president-alphonso-david-responds-to-j.k.-rowlings-latest-transphobic-b HRC President Alphonso David Responds to J.K. Rowling’s Latest Transphobic Blog Post]], [[ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/12/j-k-rowlings-handprints-vandalised-accusations-transphobia/ J K Rowling's handprints vandalised after accusations of 'transphobia' ]], [[ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/jk-rowling-tweet-women-menstruate-people-transphobia-twitter-a9552866.html JK Rowling criticised over ‘transphobic’ tweet about menstruation]], [[ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557 JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism]] to start with. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- These prove my case. The first one is a blog by an advocacy group and could be matched by a blog by a 'gender critical' advocacy group. None of the other three call anyone a transphobe in their own editorial voice. We're left with 'some called her transphobic', but then that leaves us open for a "who?" tag; also, some people didn't call her that, and many sources don't even give any weight to the label. It's also unwieldy, and the nuances are already well explained without reference to transphobia, so yet again:
- Why not just remove the label, and let the next sentence describe the comments? Crossroads -talk- 15:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- True The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the largest LGBTQ advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the United States. I am not sure whether they can be equally matched by a blog by a 'gender critical' advocacy group saying she was not. Another source [[ https://www.indiewire.com/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobic-trans-hollywood-reacts-1202236865/ Trans Hollywood Reacts to J.K. Rowling’s Latest Anti-Trans Rant: ‘It Is Plain Old Bigotry’]]. Regarding Forstater we could quote the judge that her actions violated "their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” and that her views were “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others" ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Re: request for help
Re: "Maybe Guy Macon would kindly help us to do that here like he has at Politics of J. K. Rowling". let me ask the editors here; do you want help from an experienced editor who really has no opinion on anything related to J. K. Rowling? You can see the kind of help I am able to give at talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling. It's perfectly OK to say no to this offer. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I was broadly happy with your help on the other page, and would welcome it here (if you're willing). The fact that you have "no opinion on anything related to J. K. Rowling" is exactly why you're in the best position to help out here. — Czello 15:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- As the person who pinged you, yes please very much. The editing environment became way better after you showed up there. Crossroads -talk- 15:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I am more interested with human and civil rights and prejudice than I am with general opinions on Rowling herself, and my view is every editor has opinions on such matters. That said I do value your experience as a Wikipedian (as i have respect towards other editors here) and welcome your involvement here. ~ BOD ~ TALK 18:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I also approve --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Unwarranted and criminal Vandalism of Jk Rowling handprints and Critique of Fansites
Apparently Rowling's handprints in Scotland were vandalised by either an LGBT person or allie . Shouldn't this be added . One could interpret it has a threat to Rowling or her family or that Rowling has blood on her hands ( which is absurd as people who kill anyone do not need the perspectives of critically acclaimed bestselling authors to do so ) .
Also fansites are profiting of the Jk Rowling brands and have faced critique from creators of those fansites like the mugglenets original creator. Shouldn't something be added regarding the hypocrisy of the situation. Also the support of Emmerson the creator of mugglenet fansite should be included . Hpdh4 13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)
- Please provide sources and refrain from wild speculation--Licks-rocks (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- You're familiar with our policies on WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:RS? I mean, if I can't write that some survivors of cancer, those who've had a hysterectomy and post-menopausal women were outraged at Rowling's "people who menstruate are women" remarks, then no, you can't include the above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not speculation if the media reported the vandalism or the support of the creator of the fansite which outweighs what the current idiots running mugglenet think Obviously neutrality of some editors are in question. Hpdh4 12:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)
- "speculation" refers to your third sentence, for example. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is speculation if you are saying that vandalism of a sculpture "could be interpreted as a threat." If there are reliable sources saying this, please list them. It's nothing to do with neutrality. Seriously. Come on - you've been around long enough to know how Wikipedia works. We report on what the sources say. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Should 'Views' be changed to 'Controversies'?
In other biographies on Wikipedia (to use a recent example, Steven Pinker) a lot of what is found under 'Views' is usually under a 'Controversies' header. Why is 'Views' used here? Vic Zimmer (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia; I see this is your very first edit. The reason is because it's about her views, much of which is not controversy. Having a prominent heading of "Controversies" is not allowed per WP:LABEL, since it is unattributed and not widely used in sources. It states there:
Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy
. Also, the sensationalism of it certainly goes against WP:BLP. Regarding Steven Pinker, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Crossroads -talk- 20:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Controversies" sections are "usually"/"generally" avoided; see WP:CSECTION. As Crossroads says/quotes, it's usually preferable to present controversies in context. The 'Views' section is not all about controversies, anyway (though it's impressive how much of it is). -sche (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020
I want to change J.K Rowling’s age. She’s 55. 220.253.120.43 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)