Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 22

1 Rowling is known primarily as an author of fantasy and children's literature.^[1] Her writing in other genres, including literary fiction and murder mystery, has received less critical attention.^[2] Rowling's most famous work, Harry Potter, has been defined as a fairy tale, a Bildungsroman and a boarding-school story.^[3][4] Her other writings have been described by Pugh as gritty contemporary fiction with historical influences (The Casual Vacancy) and hardboiled detective fiction (Cormoran Strike).^[5]

In my opinion, this is fine enough. It's an introduction to what she wrote.

2 In Harry Potter, Rowling juxtaposes the extraordinary against the ordinary.^[6] Her narrative features two worlds – the mundane and the fantastic – but it differs from typical portal fantasy in that its magical elements stay grounded in the everyday.^[7] Paintings move and talk; books bite readers; letters shout messages; and maps show live journeys,^[6][8] making the wizarding world "both exotic and cosily familiar" according to the scholar Catherine Butler.^[8] This blend of realistic and romantic elements extends to Rowling's characters. Their names often include morphemes that correspond to their characteristics: Malfoy is difficult, Filch unpleasant and Lupin a werewolf.^[9][10] Harry is ordinary and relatable, with down-to-earth features such as wearing broken glasses;^[11] Roni Natov terms him an "everychild".^[12] These elements serve to highlight Harry when he is heroic, making him both an everyman and a fairytale hero.^[11][13]

This is where we start getting into excessive detail. This paragraph is an exact quote from Harry Potter (series). We should be summarising briefly things better described elsewhere; four lengthy paragraphs is way too much. My inclination is to say touch on key things, the moment we start to get into excessive detail, it should cut. This whole paragraph should probably be the first two or three sentences, at most.

3 Arthurian, Christian and fairytale motifs are frequently found in Rowling's writing. Harry's ability to draw the Sword of Gryffindor from the Sorting Hat resembles the Arthurian sword in the stone legend.^[14] His life with the Dursleys has been compared to Cinderella.^[15] Like C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter contains Christian symbolism and allegory. The series has been viewed as a Christian moral fable in the psychomachia tradition, in which stand-ins for good and evil fight for supremacy over a person's soul.^[16] The critic of children's literature Joy Farmer sees parallels between Harry and Jesus Christ.^[17] Comparing Rowling with Lewis, she argues that "magic is both authors' way of talking about spiritual reality".^[18] According to Maria Nikolajeva, Christian imagery is particularly strong in the final scenes of the series: she writes that Harry dies in self-sacrifice and Voldemort delivers an ecce homo speech, after which Harry is resurrected and defeats his enemy.^[19]

This is largely okay, but a lot of it repeats bits from J. K. Rowling#Influences. Why not mention comparisons with Lewis when talking about Lewis in #Influences? Why is this its own paragraph? Why is this article so badly written? Why are related thoughts not next to each other? Why do things get introduced, only to be promptly dropped before being reintroduced later with more detail?

Themes

4 Death is Rowling's overarching theme in Harry Potter.^[20][21] In the first book, when Harry looks into the Mirror of Erised, he feels both joy and "a terrible sadness" at seeing his desire: his parents, alive and with him.^[22] Confronting their loss is central to Harry's character arc and manifests in different ways through the series, such as in his struggles with Dementors.^[22][23] Other characters in Harry's life die; he even faces his own death in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.^[24] The series has an existential perspective – Harry must grow mature enough to accept death.^[25] In Harry's world, death is not binary but mutable, a state that exists in degrees.^[26] Unlike Voldemort, who evades death by separating and hiding his soul in seven parts, Harry's soul is whole, nourished by friendship and love.^[25] Love distinguishes the two characters. Harry is a hero because he loves others, even willing to accept death to save them; Voldemort is a villain because he does not.^[27]

This has absolutely nothing to do with J. K. Rowling, which is weird because there's also a section J._K._Rowling#Inspiration and mother's death which fails to say anything of significance about how her mother's death affected her writing. Why is this article so bad? How was this ever accepted as a featured article?

5 While Harry Potter can be viewed as a story about good versus evil, its moral divisions are not absolute.^[28][29] First impressions of characters are often misleading. Harry assumes in the first book that Quirrell is good because he opposes Snape, who appears malicious; in reality, their positions are reversed. This pattern later recurs with Moody and Snape.^[28] In Rowling's world, good and evil are choices rather than inherent attributes: second chances and redemption are key themes of the series.^[30] This is reflected in Harry's self-doubts after learning his connections to Voldemort, such as the ability of both to communicate with snakes in their language of Parseltongue;^[31] and prominently in Snape's characterisation, which has been described as complex and multifaceted.^[32] In some scholars' view, while Rowling's narrative appears on the surface to be about Harry, her focus may actually be on Snape's morality and character arc.^[33][34]

Wildly off topic deep into the Harry Potter literary analysis weeds. A little of this might be appropriate, but there's way too many examples. Again, most of this should be a "See also"

This article is such a mess. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 12:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have just reverted a removal of literary analysis from the lead. As with most of this article, content that was extensively workshopped at FAR needs active consensus to remove; and I oppose the removal of most of what I added back in, as the reception of an author's work is central to their biography. As I've said before, Harry Potter made Rowling a public figure. Without it we wouldn't have an article about her, and nobody would care about her views on transgender people.
  That said I'm open to trimming some detail from the paragraphs highlighted above, if we're able to move past excoriating it and actually engaging with the substance. The premise that literary analyses are irrelevant to Rowling's biography is plain wrong, but details that cannot be understood by a reader without a detailed recollection of the novels may need trimming. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's more that it's not well-written. As I said, there's things where to understand it you need to combine two different sections no-where near each other. There's a failure to properly use subpages for more detail. It's a fundamental failure of structure.

  Further, it's one of those things where it's very narrow - pretty much entirely Harry Potter - and excessively deep. Only the first paragraph even mentions anything that isn't Harry Potter, but it dives very deep, to the point of a lot of discussion of Snape's arc (mainly only revealed in the last two books) and naming conventions in it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Adam that this is way way too much detail on Harry Potter for an article on its author.

I also think that saying content that was extensively workshopped at FAR needs active consensus to remove is a classic example of what I objected to above as the featured article status makes certain contributors way too cautious about changes. Loki (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, wrt to this specific issue (styles/themes/etc), it was explicitly discussed at FAR. I was from the outset strongly opposed to including themes, styles, etc related to Harry Potter, saying that content belonged in sub articles, and consensus was firmly against my arguments in a discussion that involved well more than the usual number of participants. So, I accepted consensus and we moved forward, with Vanamonde93 and AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel doing the bulk of that work.

Given that the content was founded on a strong consensus against my view (and IIRC I was the only one with that view, but I could be misremembering), and workshopped in a FAR that included a couple dozen other editors, I suggest that Adam Cuerden should cease making sweeping unilateral changes to the article without discussion.

I also see mention that the theme/style content is included in sub-articles; I'm fairly certain it was all first written here as a concise stand-alone summary, and later copied over to sub-articles. As one example of how some of the undiscussed unilateral edits have damaged the article, the deletion of a description of Harry Potter from the lead makes the article less intelligible to readers (like me) who have never touched a Potter book.

Adam Cuerden could you please lower the level of hyperbole here, and work collaboratively with others ? Putting things like Why is this article so bad? in bold isn't advancing collaborative efforts, and you've been around Wikipedia long enough to have seen what BAD articles look like; I suspect you'll find that improvements will proceed more quickly without the unnecessary air of personalization.

I became convinced as the article evolved that styles and themes did fit here, so I do not support removal or tagging of this content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For a featured article, this article is bad. I'm judging it on the standards of other featured articles, not by that of random terrible articles, but I will say, the coherency of this article structurally genuinely is very bad.

Look at the actual context for "Why is this so bad?": The section on death in Harry Potter feels out of place as it has no connection with Rowling. The section on the death of Rowlings' mother feels like it has an awful lot of detail for something that goes nowhere. In most sources I've seen, a path is laid out from the death of Rowling's mother to death being used as a theme in Harry Potter, but this supposedly-Featured-class article doesn't do that, instead splitting the two halves of that thought with several other sections between them, with no connection being drawn. That's what I'm referring to as bad.

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 02:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your tone could be adjusted, as in, more helpful and concrete suggestions, less battleground and hyperbole. Paragraphs of complaining about things you personally don't like don't advance article improvement (in fact, they're more likely to chase off those willing and able to work on those improvements). WP:CTOP applies doubly to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind cutting a sentence or two from each subsection, but I think the overall length and depth of detail is close to where it should be. Good articles about authors should include description of their major works and the themes they write about. I glanced at a few literature bio FAs, and this seems pretty common. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have made these snips to the Style and Themes sections. I am happy to discuss any of them; I am not wedded to any of those changes, but felt they were places were we could trim material that was either too specific for an overview, or so nuanced that a fuller discussion was out of scope. I am undecided about the last two sentences of "Style"; I think the first may be too general without expansion, the second, too detailed; but the christian parallels are a major topic in the sources, so I felt I'd ask first. Five paragraphs is far from excessive for an author whose works have received a lot of critical attention, and I would ask that the tags be removed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  No-one ever seems to pay attention to the substance of what I say. I mention the death-theme section feels awkwardly split from a section on Rowling's mother's death earlier that peters out without making a point, and I get complaints about me saying the article's bad, and some mild trimming. I mention that the discussion of Lewis is all split up, and no-one reacts. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 16:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps there's a reason for this reaction? Since I've already explained multiple times, I won't repeat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't react because I have nothing to add to that; I simply disagree, and I've made my points about article structure at great length here and at the FAR. Since you ask: I don't think material related to Lewis should be grouped ignoring how it fits with the broader structure. A lot of sources discuss death as a theme; very few make the connection to her mother's death. Ideas and influences inevitably crop up in multiple places in an author's biography. This isn't necessarily a flaw; sometimes coherent structure requires it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: The section is a summary of Harry_Potter#Themes. If you'll look at the third paragraph there, nestled between the two paragraphs of it used almost verbatim here, you'll see that the article this is summarising very strongly makes a connection to her mother's death. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 22:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  That content was written by Olivaw-Daneel, who hasn't edited since April; it was cut from here for a reason that would require some work to uncover, absent O-D. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Probably an attemptt at summary style. I meam, the rest seems taken directly from it, amd it cites a well-used source. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  The opposite. It was created in my sandbox; then AP rewrote; then OD rewrote; the Vanamonde rewrote (I was ill & no longer involved) and as #8 on the authorship list have little to no sway. At some point in Feb. 22 it was moved to Harry Potter. Can this discussion please stay in one place? Victoria (tk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Adam Cuerden: in an ideal world, we would have a thoroughly researched subsidiary article for every subtopic of this one. We don't live in such a world. This page was at FAR, and in an effort to fix the complete lack of literary analysis in it, AP, OD, Victoria, Sandy, and myself (and perhaps others I'm neglecting to name) spent considerable effort studying scholarly commentary on Rowling, and then further effort condensing. Some of the uncondensed material was later copied over to subsidiary articles, because it was lacking there. As Victoria says, the similarity is because the material here was written first, not because we did a bad job of summarizing a different page. The subsidiary articles could easily contain three times more material; but nobody has the time or inclination to write it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  This agrees with my memory. Victoriaearle's contributions are sometimes overlooked because she was in and out of the discussions for health reasons. And the appearance of me as the leading editor here is misleading; it's only because I did most of the installs of text that was written collaboratively (and I was always careful to attribute in edit summary per WP:CWW when the writing was not mine), along with all of the MOS and CITEVAR cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good very good 2001:8F8:1D5F:76FF:4930:6938:B376:EFA3 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. I wonder why? (Possibly insert "Am I so out of touch? No - it's the children who are wrong!" Principal Skinner.gif here) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Loki, you wrote here about the Legacy section that

"There's a sentence ... which seems to confuse the underlying issue when it says her statements about characters – for instance, that Harry and Hermione could have been a couple, and that Dumbledore was gay – have complicated her relationship with readers: it makes it sound like fans object to Dumbledore being gay, when the actual fan objection is that Rowling only said that Dumbledore was gay after the fact and not in the books themselves."

I don't have access to those scholarly sources, so can't suggest repairs; can you access them? If not, who can access the sources and help rectify this passage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I found this in Pugh -- will update as I find time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Added, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Re these concerns, my impression from reading Kirk and Smith is that the religious debates largely ended. Eventually? Vanamonde93 I seem to recall you reviewed the sources on Religious debates; can you do anything to clarify the timing per the concerns raised by TompaDompa? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid it will be until next week before I can engage deeply with sources on this page. I suspect there will not exist a satisfactory resolution to that concern, however. Unless someone studied the religious debates retrospectively - and I don't believe they have - sources covered the phenomenon when it happened, and when the debates petered out they stopped receiving attention. As such I'm confident the debate lost steam as the later books appeared, the Christian themes got more prominent, and the lack of any promotion of witchcraft and paganism more obvious; but that's my personal opinion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a re-phrasing will suffice ... IIRC, the main objection was to the word were .. would "have been" work? Doesn't seem so urgent that we can't wait a week or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent bot archival as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with the suggested tweak, but fundamentally I think this is a case of us needing to be okay with not tying everything off neatly; sometimes the source material doesn't allow for it, and that's okay. I just re-read some of the material we use to talk about Christian themes, and AFAICS all they do is to say that those claiming the books promoted Satanism were wrong; there isn't a history of the debates, as such. At some point I imagine a scholar will pick this up for a paper, and we can tie it off when that happens. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I've been re-reading Pugh (do you have the Introduction?) and suggest we might solve this complaint by something like this. From:

• ... Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series.

... to

• ... Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. Criticism of her writing from fundamental Christians also led to religious debates over the Harry Potter series.

That would make it not time-dependent, rather just another matter of literary analysis ... have a look at Pugh? I want to get this one off the To-Do list! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to Pugh at the moment, regrettably; TWL does not appear to include it in their collection. If you have the introduction, perhaps you'd be kind enough to email it to me? I believe you have my address. I did re-read some of the other cited sources, Gupta in particular. I'm generally fine with your change, but there is some mention of Islamic fundamentalists too; so perhaps "religious fundamentalists, particularly evangelical Christians"? I wonder a little about length, but if it would address complaints about vagueness I'm okay with it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 ... I have only that one chapter ... will send as soon as I'm home on real computer. Methinks it a good source to have, as a spate of the deletions in recent months were probably DUE content per Pugh, and I think we need to revisit a lot of what got tossed in non-consensual edits.

Your proposal seems fine, but need to make sure it's sourced in the body somewhere ... can I leave that all in your hands? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The article says In 2012, she wrote an op-ed for The Guardian in response to Cameron's decision not to implement all the inquiry's recommendations. Wouldn't it be more informative to say that she criticized his decision or said she felt duped, rather than merely wrote about it, particularly as the next sentence begins She reaffirmed her stance... but it's unclear what stance that's calling back to? (Is "her stance" that she "has a difficult relationship with the press and has tried to influence the type of coverage she receives", is "too thin-skinned", "had taken more than 50 actions against the press", and/or "dislikes the British tabloid the Daily Mail"? Genuine question; those are the only conceivably stance-ish things I spot in the preceding parts of the section.) The end of the paragraph suggests that the stance we're saying she re-affirmed might be "[safeguard] the press from political interference while also giving vital protection to the vulnerable", but I find it confusing that this mention of her "re-affirming" it is the first mention of her having it at all: it makes the section awkward to parse. Can we improve this?
I also notice that the only source currently supporting that sentence seems to be the op-ed itself. Sure, the op-ed is reliable for the statement that the op-ed exists, and one sentence is not much, but don't we want secondary sources about the op-ed to establish that this, of all the things she has written, is one which is due inclusion in this FA which should adhere most highly to best practices about writing and sourcing? (Or am I mistaken?) I expect such secondary sources do exist: here is a CNN article covering the op-ed which could be added to the references for that sentence, and better/'weightier' sources may exist.
(Given the issues that various prior and ongoing discussions have identified with various sections of the article, I decided to spot-check whether other sections had issues or not, and this was the first section I scrolled to... which suggests it might indeed be prudent to check other sections for things that could be improved...) -sche (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I would go for something like "In 2012, she criticised Cameron's decision not to implement all the inquiry's recommendations and supported the Hacked Off campaign, pushing for further media reform." It would be good to cite both the op-ed and the CNN piece. If we want to add a bit more detail, I think it'd better to focus on the content of her criticism—mainly that Cameron didn't pursue more legislative regulation—rather than the venue of her op-ed and the exact timing of the criticism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's been ten days, and no one has else has opined here; Firefangledfeathers might you have the time and inclination to take on this portion? A scholar.google.com search on "Leveson Rowling" reveals numerous scholarly sources that may prove useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably soon. I inserted my proposal for now, and I'll look into better sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding timestamp to prevent archival, as this is not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That whole bit pre-dates the FAR, and IIRC, there was no specific discussion of that portion during the FAR, although several editors fiddled with it on copyedit (and in retrospect, it appears there was an attempt to shorten it all). Here is how it looked pre-FAR, if that's any help in the rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

See also Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11

Lot's of discussion and suggestions. I understand that we are describing Rowling's stance thus:

Rowling has gender-critical views, and she opposes many proposed laws that would make it simpler for transgender people to transition. These views have attracted widespread criticism and are often described as transphobic or anti-trans, though Rowling disputes this.

Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater, whose employment contract was not renewed after she made anti-trans statements. Rowling wrote that transgender people should live in "peace and security" but said she opposed "forc[ing] women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real". According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal". In June 2020, Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate" and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real". In April 2024, responding to Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order Act, she tweeted a list of trans women, writing that they are "men, every last one of them".

Rowling believes that making it simpler for transgender people to transition could impinge on access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women. She opposes legislation to advance gender self-recognition and enable transition without a medical diagnosis. On social media, Rowling suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.

Rowling's views have fuelled debates on freedom of speech and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts and culture sectors. She has been the target of widespread condemnation for her comments on transgender people. This negative reaction has included insults and threats, including death threats. Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, leading actors of the Wizarding World, and Human Rights Campaign. After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation. Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books have been unaffected.

Rowling denies being transphobic. In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left transgender people feeling betrayed – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from her experience of domestic abuse and sexual assault. While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... transgender people need and deserve protection", she wrote that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms. Writing of her own experiences with misogyny, she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and she said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class". Whited asserted in 2024 that Rowling's sometimes "flippant" and "simplistic understanding of gender identity" had permanently changed her "relationship not only with fans, readers, and scholars ... but also with her works themselves".

The relevant part of the lead reads like this:

Rowling has been vocal about her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights since 2017. Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors.

The latter is supposed to fairly summarise the former. As I said above, I don't think that it currently does. I'd pick on the term "critics" as being the weakest point in the current wording. Others may feel it needs a complete rewrite. I also note that the first passage tells us twice that Rowling denies being anti-trans. I feel once would be enough, or even zero times (she's hardly likely to admit to it, is she?!) So that's another thing to think about.

Thoughts? John (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that it should be expanded a bit, to more thoroughly summarize the section. I wouldn't remove her denial that she is transphobic entirely though, as that would like be skating the line with regards to WP:NPOV. TBicks (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I noted the redundancy (and others) in emphasizing anti-trans weeks ago, but that got no attention; the rewrite of the transgender section was installed before it was polished. The current lead, written during the FAR, was constrained by a very recent (then) but very well attended RFC: see Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11. I think a complete rewrite now is in order, but please be aware it may not be an easy undertaking (see the volume of commentary in the linked RFC). It would be ideal to finish cleaning up the transgender section rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a rewrite, the current consensus for the lead made sense in an attempt to characterize her that follows WP:NPOV considerations, but the increasing outspoken support definitely makes the hedged statement of the lead seem increasingly outdated. I am unsure about how important the part of dividing feminists should be, as it is is described in her article on political positions but is not mentioned at all in this section of the main page, and I wonder if it would serve to instead be a bit more explicit about the general view of that section that her views attract "widespread condemnation" and "criticism", changing her relationship with her works, that I feel is alluded to in the current lead but more through the framing of "debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture", which feels currently too narrow for the current section (of course, with special care given to NPOV) CloakedFerret (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Under the section Inspiration and mother's death it says:

"In mid-1990, she was on a train delayed by four hours from Manchester to London, when the characters Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger came plainly into her mind."

But then shortly after it says:

"Her mother died of multiple sclerosis on 30 December 1990. At the time, she was writing Harry Potter and had never told her mother about it."

Which is it? Did she conceive Harry Potter in 1990 or in the mid-1990s? Could someone fix this discrepancy? Airgum (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized it meant mid-1990 like middle of the year 1990. I misinterpreted it as mid-1990s like 1994, 1995, or 1996. Airgum (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

JacktheBrown could you please explain why you are changing the established style on this article's WP:DASHes, from spaced endashes to unspaced emdashes, contrary to MOS:VAR? Both styles are allowed on Wikipedia. One problem is that, in the change, you missed some, and whichever is chosen, articles should be consistent. The style of spaced endashes was set years ago, so reverting your changes may be the fastest way to repair the misses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, why did you delete alt text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO it’s just a minor content dispute, let’s just AGF :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Re the "minor" part, I agree DFW; I was just going to JTB's talk page to inquire, and make sure they knew both styles were acceptable, when I found the topic ban, and realized I was in a can of worms. But ... actually, these little messes are much more exhausting on this article (and many articles) than the items of substance ... particularly when there are intervening edits that may have to be preserved. The minor distractions can be more disruptive than trying to sort out matters of substance, and take just as much time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Update: JacktheBrown's talk page indicates they are topic banned from GENSEX, so rather than wait for an answer here, I will revert (and recover the intervening edit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: one change was correct: the MOS:GEOLINK; could you restore it? I will abandon the page, although Rowling isn't a trans person. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't edit war, and you already have, so it's up to you or someone else to now repair the rest. You reverted all the rest of the unnecessary changes back in to the article for one GEOLINK rather than just fix the GEOLINK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverted and GEOLINK reinstated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

GEOLINK reinstated.

That’s why you always have my respect :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, both the old style and new style are permissible per GEOLINK. The Buffalo, New York, example approves of the old style. The only real way to fall afoul of the guideline is to separately link a larger geographical unit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (although I doubt it will stick ... not something I routinely encounter :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, @LokiTheLiar, what is wrong, under the "transgender views" section, with the short but heavily - and I mean extremely heavily cited quotation, taken from the Political views of J. K. Rowling - "Some performers and feminists have supported Rowling and condemned comments against her."

Seriously, with all those citations, and being already mentioned in the relevant article, how is this not relevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, the pretty fundamental phrase. -i.e. a clearly relevant thing to mention - from the other article, "even as she has received support from other feminists", was formerly in this article but now it is strangely eschewed.

Do you think ALL notable reception of Rowling's views are negative? Seriously? Does even the slightest mention of the well-sourced defenses by SOME in the performing arts and feminism, strike you as irrelevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see what is wrong with "Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors" in the lede: it was changed only a few weeks ago with very little comment (if you see above); hardly the consensus you describe. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Every aspect of this situation is heavily cited. But not every aspect is WP:DUE. The point of this article isn't to recapitulate every detail of the political views article. That article exists exactly to avoid this article being swamped with every detail of the situation.

The performers who support her are not the main characters, for one, and we agreed to giving only a gist because if we got into specifics we'd be here all day. The feminists who support her are gender-critical feminists, so their support is unsurprising for one, and also firmly in the minority internationally for two.

Like it or not, most responses to JKR are critical, and increasingly so more recently. Loki (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is it in the other article but not this one? It certainly used to be in this article. And it's more than just GCFs coming to defence, e.g. Eddie Izard, Hirsi Ali, and noted feminists in general like Julie Bindel. Why on Earth would you not see that as due. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

" most responses to JKR are critical"; so not all, right? Zilch-nada (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW, "even as she has received support from other feminists" is said in the short LEDE of the other article describing all her political views, but there is purge of it mentioned here. That is wholly and entirely uncalled for. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The other article hasn't been updated in a long time, so it probably could also use some updating. The transgender views section of this article was just updated recently.

Also, politely, you don't need to reply to me three times every time. :P Loki (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

" most responses to JKR are critical"; so not all, right? Zilch-nada (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have restored at least the uncontroversial lede which actually effectively summarises the topic more:

"Since 2017, Rowling has been vocal about her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights since 2017. Her comments, described as transphobic by critics and LGBT rights organisations, have divided feminists, fuelled debates on freedom of speech and cancel culture, and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary, arts, and culture sectors."

The other ending to the lede describes little of the discourse surrounding Rowling (which is probably the currently most relevant thing), whereas this very much describes proclamations of support, reactions of LGBT rights orgs, and culture wars, etc. That is most certainly - at least - something to include. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to that revert as much since I admit that edit was WP:BOLD. But some edit like that has consensus over the status quo; see above discussions including the recent RFC for details. Loki (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:False balance. Acting as if her support is equal or as valid as her opposition is just promoting transphobia, but there's a strong effort in this article to "both-sides" the issue, largely by taking defense of her early, much less egregious comments, and acting as if they counteract the opposition to her much more transphobic later positions. It's a trap it's very easy to fall into, but one we must avoid. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 11:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"Acting as if her support is equal or as valid as her opposition" - no one is doing that whatsoever.

"much less egregious comments, and acting as if they counteract the opposition to her much more transphobic later positions" - clearly nothing here is even remotely suitable for Wikivoice. Zilch-nada (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing discussion with article content.

In the Politics article, "Some performers and feminists have supported Rowling and condemned comments against her" is sourced to exclusively to statements from 2020 and 2021, with the exception of a book from 2022 (The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media), which is also one of our sources for widespread criticism (I would like to see the exact wording there, so it's clear how much weight that book gives; that would probably help guide us). Given the lead time of book publishing, this would presumably effectively be a 2021 source. That still has the out-of-date problem, of course.

Of course, saying that some people who share her views support her kind of ventures into "sky is blue" territory. It's hard to know what counts as notable support when it's just a list of people who said nice things about her in 2020/1. Effectivly, that's primary sources being analysed by Wikipedia, and it's all - even if the exact language is carefully phrased to not state, just imply, is almost certainly a WP:SYNTH violation (which includes implied information) without a secondary source. One of the reasons I'd love to see the exact text of the Emerald Handbook, but not so much as to be willing to pay the over two hundred dollars the book ges for, or over 20 for just the 12 page chapter cited. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 19:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) In the making of the harry potter franchise, she said Hermoine was supposed to be black, all though she wrote in the first book that she was pale, as an African American this doesn't make sense to me. if anyone has any replies they are welcome and appreciated thank you. URGURLNELE (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That was probably a weird way of explaining race-blind casting badly. Now, there's things to criticise her for, including soe weird racial stuff in Harry Potter (See Harry_Potter#Thematic_critique third paragraph), but not sure how much Potter critique belongs here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 20:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If you’re going to write negative assertions about someone, at least bother to provide sources. 80.195.100.226 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hermione would've been Black British, not African American. That said, I think the "pale" bit in HP could describe relative paleness to describe her shock (she was shocked in that part of the story). So I don't buy that part and never did. There are critiques of her work that level the charge of unconscious bias or racism against her work, but I don't think that's the same thing as saying "X is racist". We'd need RSes for a statement like that. Lewisguile (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources to support your claims, I don't think this is the right place (WP:NOTFORUM). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

And talk pages are also subject to WP:BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but only insofar as it's "not related to making content choices". I don't think we should add anything to the article, but URGURLNELE was asking a question about content in the article, and we responded. WP:BITE also applies to talk pages, so let's be nice to the newbie trying to learn, rather than complaining they asked a question in an imperfect way. There's nothing they've said in the part you redacted that hasn't been discussed either in the article or in the sub articles and these talk pages. It may not be nuanced, but it's not accusations we don't report on. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 15:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

If you do a news search for Rowling, 100% of the results will be about her anti-trans activism. Currently, the top results include J.K. Rowling Misgenders Female Olympian as Boxing Controversy Unfolds in Paris, J.K. Rowling Misgenders Female Boxer Amid Olympics Controversy, J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk Criticize Olympics After Algeria’s Imane Khelif Wins Women’s Boxing Match Amid Gender Controversy: ‘A Misogynist Sporting Establishment’, Olympic boxer Imane Khelif is a woman and has always been a woman (no matter what JK Rowling says).

This has been the situation for over half a decade. She is never in the news for anything other than her anti-trans views. Given this, it's absurd that the first sentence doesn't mention what she is known for today – if we go by reliable sources. Instead, it includes the spurious claim that she is a philanthropist (as far as donations go, she is best known for giving money to anti-trans hate groups).

We should remove "philanthropist" and add anti-transgender activist. Not only has it been her main activity for years; she is literally the world's best known anti-transgender activist. The fact that she was famous before is immaterial; so was Graham Linehan, who we also describe as an anti-transgender activist. There is hardly any difference between them today, both spend their lives on Twitter spouting their anti-trans views all day. Perhaps the only difference is that she also gives money to anti-trans groups, so she is even more of an anti-trans activist than Linehan, if there is any difference between them.

Also, considering that this topic has its own paragraph in the lead – making up about a fourth of the lead excluding the opening paragraph – and is covered in depth in the body of the article as well as a separate article on her political views, it would be normal at this point to summarize it in the opening sentence too. The first sentence is supposed to be a concise summary of what she is known for, and this, today, includes anti-transgender activism much more than it includes any "philanthropy". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Partial agree, many foreign language article pages include lengthy descriptors concerning her 'gender critical' activism, and it has made front-page news multiple times in the UK. Considering this effort seems to be what she has been devoting most of her public capital towards over the past six years, I see no reason to not include it at least within the first paragraph. I support keeping the "philanthropist" label though; she famously lost billionaire status for donating to charities (not limited to Doctors Without Borders and Comic Relief), including setting up her own charity that promotes the welfare of children.

As per WP:MOS I don't think there is any dispute that it is a key reason she is notable (especially in the Anglophonic world), nor that it is a noteworthy activity upon which she's undertaken. This also fulfils the reliably sourced material criterion and shouldn't be shied away from just because it's controversial. I also support this change to the opening sentence considering the equal due weight given to her status as a philanthropist and her role as a 'gender critical' activist in the rest of the lead. I refrain from using "anti-transgender" since the article also doesn't use that term.

Propose possible change of "J. K. Rowling, is a British author and philanthropist." -> "J. K. Rowling, is a British author, philanthropist, and trans-exclusionary activist."? Not married to this, obviously. Plifal (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely agree with this. I would second the emphasize she is the literal most well known and influential face of transphobia. The representation in the current lede is absolutely insufficient. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The proposal does not establish a reason for this inclusion. Re the first line in the proposal, please see WP:NOTNEWS and notice that searching for recent news sources renders a faulty analysis; consider looking instead at scholar.google.com. Current leading news stories aren't a long-term reflection of the body of sources. Do you have high-quality sources that describe her as an "anti-transgender activist", much less the sources supplied that are of the quality of Huffington Post? Re the second paragraph of the proposal, I can't decipher what "a fourth of the lead" refers to. And finally, the wording in the lead hasn't even been settled, so trying to add something to the first para is premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

RE. scholarly articles, would these suffice?

Wikipedia is not news, but news is a marker of notability. Nor do we determine these things by Google search results, but again it is a marker of notability. (Cursory results including "JK Rowling trans" and "JK Rowling transgender" yield between double and four times the number of results than "JK Rowling charity", "JK Rowling philanthropy", and "JK Rowling donation"; and this is providing for the most conservative estimation of "transgender" as opposed to the most lenient of "philanthropy"). The news articles quoted are all recent, but you know better than I that to provide a full backlog would be impossible, it's not "just" news now. Besides, if I found myself reducing all those cited by association with the Huffington Post, I would be the first to call myself disingenuous. Based on that objection I would like to ask which part in specific of the WP:NOTNEWS guidelines you take issue with. "Anti-transgender activist" may be unsupported, but a change ought to be made.

Considering the contentiousness of the person and their political views I doubt any full compromise on the lead will ever be reached, I don't consider that a good excuse to discount the proposal. "A fourth of the lead" as I understood it, refers to the final paragraph of the lead which describes Rowling's 'gender critical' activism. The reason for the inclusion of this material is because Rowling is now widely known for her opposition to many of the sought rights of transgender people (most especially women). If @Amanda A. Brant disagrees with any of this interpretation, she is of course free to say so. Given your own length of tenure as an editor here though, I defer to you on matters of policy. Plifal (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

With tens of thousands of scholarly sources about Rowling, no, three aren't convincing.

If "a fourth of the lead" refers to one out of five paragraphs, I'm still confused. On word count, the amount dedicated to transgender rights in the article and in the lead is proportionate to scholarly sources. I'm not seeing the "fourth of the lead" or the article.

Her claim to notability on charity is that there is only one person in the UK who donates more than her -- Elton John -- and her bios give entire chapters to that aspect. Also, whether that should be removed would be more effective as a separate discussion.

In general, the proposal raised here might have more traction if a broad overview of Rowling's entire work described her that way. In that sense, I suggest checking Pugh and Whited (2024); it's been a while since I looked at them so I can't recall with surety, but I don't think they do.

Re your comment below on "political activist", that is likely more workable; her two bios (Smith and Kirk) do go in to that territory (that she used her wealth and fame from Potter to further her views and her philanthropy). Both of those bios were once available at archive.org, but no longer, so I can't help confirm wording, but they definitely went in to how she used her good fortune to further her political views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Those three articles were just a cursory glance at Google Scholar on your recommendation, I advise anyone interested in pursuing the label "anti-trans activist" in the first sentence to continue that work. I would concur with @Vanamonde93 below that the reason she's known for her philanthropy and views on trans rights is because of her work as an author, however my only reservation with the label "political activist" would be that she seems to have a large influence over trans rights discourse in particular. In agreement that more reliable sourcing needs to be found. Plifal (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to revising the wording in principle, but at the moment the proposals above are not a summary of the sources. A lot of the news sources say that Rowling has attracted criticism and controversy; a lot say she has been called a TERF, or equivalent; very few RS actually go beyond reporting soundbytes from the twitterati and actually analyzing Rowling's stances. We're also forgetting that her authorship of HP is the only reason any of the rest is in the news; HP gave her the money that she donates, and HP is why anyone pays attention to her views on twitter. We need better sources to go so far as to call her an anti-trans activist in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given this, perhaps a more general tone of "political activist" would suffice, given that she has made statements on every UK general election and referendum, and given that we already have a page dedicated to her political views. Her engagement in discourse and donations to political causes (with transgender issues being a part--albeit a currently large part of that) is undeniable. Plifal (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I know Smith covered her political activism; I can't recall if Pugh did. If someone can produce wording on her political activism from those bios and broader sources, I could probably be convinced that plain "political activist" might be justifiable, as my recollection of both Kirk and Smith is entire chapters on that. But we need to look at these broader sources and bios first; the reasoning in the proposal above isn't how leads or FAs are written, and we are spending on the talk page of one of history's most successful and prolific authors too much time going over and over one issue in a very broad bio, most often without a thorough analysis of the preponderance of sources and always without first developing the sub-article on her political views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Plifal: I don't see where RS call her an activist, though. That's what I don't understand about a lot of the suggestions calling for rewording. Regardless of what your opinion of Rowling's views is, what has she done about those views besides express them on twitter and making donations? And how do those things make someone an activist? Every twitter user expresses their opinion on the platform; that's what it's for. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Right. I'm not saying this is occurring from Plifal, but we are forced to spend much too much time on this talk page on discussions of opinions that are presented without the level of sourcing required. Discussions here should be source-based ... else they are just WP:ADVOCACY breaching WP:NOTAFORUM, and the extent to which that is occurring is becoming disruptive (again, not saying that general comment applies to Plifal's input). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Plifal, having now re-read the biographical portions of Tison Pugh's book, I can't find anything there that justifies labeling her a "political activist". In contrast to Pugh's more-than-a-page on her "philanthropic endeavors", his paragraph about her political views is basically just a summary that "her political views run strongly to the left", but not positioning her as an activist.

  While re-reading Pugh, I did note that a lot of the recent rapid-fire, non-consensual deletions include well-sourced text, such as her stance on Israel and her use of social media ... a good bit of the content removed from here over the last few months, based on discussions that did not engage sources, needs to be revisited.

  For "political activist", we would need sources, and we might instead add back to the article wording about her active use of social media to promote her political views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sandy, have spent some time yesterday looking through old articles and documentaries, also couldn't find any corroborating evidence to suggest the same. This discussion seems premature, support the re-introduction of material explaining that Rowling uses social media to expound her political views. Many thanks for your dilligency. Plifal (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Plifal, Do you happen to have access to Pugh ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Here's what the article had as the intro to her Views before relatively recent rapid-fire editing; I think we can do better now, based on this conversation, but those are the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sandy, I do not. Plifal (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Pugh has: "Rowling frequently expresses her political views on her Twitter account, with sharp, sardonic, and sometimes snarky responses to political leaders and their pronouncements", but I don't have the other two scholarly sources (that content was developed among four of us). I know the Smith bio covers this territory well, but since archive.org was sued, that book is no longer freely available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, as I concur with @Vanamonde93 that most WP:RS cover her statements in the context of her previous fame as an author, and do not analyse her opinions or describe her as an "activist". The wording of a lead description of her as "anti-trans" or an "activist" or something of the sort is also a serious WP:BLP issue. Her controversial statements are already covered in the article and forked articles.

I suppose a central issue is at what point does voicing your opinions publicly translate into being an activist for something, but in any case we would need sources to label her as such in Wiki-voice.

I am also vehemently against removing the "philantropist" label as there is abundant sourcing for it being true, and we must remember Wikipedia isn't the place for advocacy, or in this case, what I would consider to be sacrificing the factuality of the article to avoid cognitive dissonance

However, as per @Plifal, editors interested in adding the "anti-trans activist" label are welcome to put in the research necessary to do so, with the caveat that, as this is a WP:BLP situation, the bar is set very high for such a contentious label to be added to the very first lines of the article. CVDX (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• "If you do a news search for Foo, 100% of the results will be about ...." is an absolutely terrible' way to decide the first sentence of almost all articles. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, i'm struggling to find any reasonably unbiased sources that explicitly report that she's anti-trans (or an activist on the subject for that matter). They all seem to suggest she "has been accused of being transphobic" (or words to that effect) but the sources cited for that typically seem to be random twitter posts. There are one or two op-eds in high quality publications that call her anti-trans or transphobic, but for the most part they seem to be so biased that they are likely encyclopedically useless.

If there is sufficient (and reliable) mention in the literature of her being an anti-trans activist that I missed, i'm not fully opposed to some sort of wording change to the lead, but innuendo about google results is a terrible basis for changing an article.

Also disagree re: removing philanthropist. You say "as far as donations go, she is best known for giving money to anti-trans hate groups", but do you have the relevant sources or this? There is extensive literature coverage of her charitable donations spanning decades (esp. Lumos, Volant, etc), so this change would require an extremely strong source-derived basis, which doesn't seem to exist at present. TBicks (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• At the very least we ought to remove "philanthropist" per the argument I made on WP:PHILANTHROPIST. It's not one of her primary, or even secondary, or even really one of her tertiary claims to fame; nor is it a defining part of her biography. In fact, glancing down to the related section, I think it probably needs to be retitled and the text edited to use more neutral words like "donations" instead - even most of the sources there, in the section notionally devoted to it, do not actually directly call her a philanthropist as required for a value-laden label; and since the term is non-neutral it needs to be used in the overwhelming majority of sources before we can use it in the article voice, let alone in a section header. A few sources using the term aren't enough; nor is stringing together a bunch of sources on donations and then describing a person using the glowingly positive term "philanthropist" appropriate. Not all donations are philanthropy; using the term implies a particular motivation that has to be overwhelmingly reflected in the sources before we can put it in the article voice ourselves, and applying the term to a person requires overwhelming sourcing that similarly applies it to them as a person. A lot of the other wording in the section is likewise non-neutral in ways that don't actually reflect the sourcing (eg. second-most generous cited to a source that has a much more dry numerical wording.) But at the very least, its presence in the first sentence of the lead is wildly WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The section is not "stringing together a bunch of sources"; please read the scholarly sources which devote considerable length to describing her philanthropy, and which explicitly list all of the individual ventures Rowling started and supports. The other sources/citations have been provided as a benefit to the reader, as Pugh, Smith, Kirk and other scholarly sources aren't always freely accessible. See discussion in a separate section below, as it's a separate matter from her views on transgender rights. The "hate"-based and inaccurate framing of the initial proposal here is outlandish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  On the balance I'm inclined to agree that "philanthropist" shouldn't be in the first sentence. As I get tired of repeating, JKR's notability remains entirely a consequence of her writing; that is the defining feature of her career. Her philanthropy may have gotten some attention in biographical sources, but certainly it's gotten less than her twitter statements, and as I oppose describing her as an activist for that (or any other term that seeks to introduce that material in the first sentence) I must also support trimming "philanthropist". Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Amanda A. Brant. Rowling's in the news seemingly weekly for transphobic hate speech. She isn't in the news for writing novels anywhere near as often. ZoeB (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree per (BBC), (The Guardian) and Post on (X) QalasQalas (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Partial agree. This is what she's mainly known for these days, but it is already in the last paragraph of the (overly long, IMO) lede. I would probably shorten the lede by splitting some of the info off into an "Overview" section, and then move the anti-trans activism stuff back into the lede, so it's nearer the top and not buried. The existing wording is balanced and hard to argue is biased, so I think it would receive fewer objections. That said, I'm not opposed to just using your suggestion in the opening, too, if there isn't consensus for my proposal. Lewisguile (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure if it’s still useful to agree or disagree on this, given that an RFC has already been done and was closed below.Vestigium Leonis (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is interesting. It probably already merits inclusion in the article. We'll need to keep an eye on how it develops. John (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also here (BBC). As you say, WP:NOTNEWS means there's no hurry to include until more details are available in reliable sources. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree that we should wait to see how it develops. It was added to the article, incorrectly stating Rowling was being sued, but I removed it. As of now, a criminal complaint has been made against X, with Rowling mentioned in the narrative of the complaint. As I understand it the whole process may take sometime. Unless Rowling is actually directly charged with something, it is WP:UNDUE for now. Daff22 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So, even though the BBC says it is unlikely that anything will come of this, as happens with this article, everything about JKR is news, and must go in right away ... if history serves, it will be continually added even though it's UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how we can avoid covering this in some form; there's a lot of coverage out already, it's only going to increase in volume, and it can't simply be covered as an example of her views on transgender people - Khelif isn't a transwoman. But the sources used in recent edits aren't good enough, and I don't see how the lawsuit is due weight at the moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we absolutely need to address this issue. She has been named in a lawsuit, which has resulted in an extended period of public silence—something unprecedented for her. The coverage has been extensive, dominating much of the Olympic coverage. Since Khelif is not transgender, it would be inappropriate to include this in the section on her anti-trans views. However, the issue is closely related to those views. The best solution would be to create a separate section immediately following the one on trans people. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus before adding content under discussion. Your conclusion that Rowling's Twitter break is in any way related to the case is pure speculation (and given one her first Tweets on return was doubling down on her previous comments, highly doubtful). A complaint has been made to the police in France. There is no lawsuit, and as of now, Rowling is not being sued, nor has she been charged, nor is she under official investigation. Daff22 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This addition was quite problematic and I agree with Daff2's revert. Amanda A. Brant, this article is BLP and an FA and subject to double contentious topic designations. And the issue was being discussed on talk when you made the unilateral insertion. Listed in this discussion are high-quality sources (BBC and The Guardian), and yet you dropped in highly speculative text, with bare URLs, sourced to lower quality sources. Please take greater care to discuss your edits on talk and gain consensus before making them, and then please edit in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:FAOWN, WP:WIAFA and WP:CTOP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither BBC nor The Guardian—both of which have faced strong criticism for a pattern of transphobic content—are "high quality" in this topic area. The edit was entirely normal editing and reliably sourced. Editors are not required to "gain consensus before making" edits; editing articles is part of the normal editorial process, and the vast majority of edits are not discussed beforehand. The edit was also based on the discussion favoring some coverage of this topic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

When a desired edit is already under discussion, it is convention to reach consensus before editing. Nowhere was it stated all edits require discussion, please don't make false implications. Deliberately adding content before reaching consensus on an ongoing discussion is not 'normal editing'. You may hold a personal opinion on the BBC and the Guardian, but this is not one reflected in Wikipedia guidance. Daff22 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion had stalled a long time ago. A few editors had suggested we should cover this, but there hadn't been much interest in discussing concrete proposals. It was not an "active discussion." Adding something about it in this situation was a constructive edit and entirely normal editing. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I could have viewed it that way had you a) used the higher quality sources, b) formatted the sources instead of dumping bare URLs in to an FA, and c) not furthered undue speculation from one source that didn't add to the narrative and certainly had not been discussed beforehand. Vanamonde93 mentions a cautious addition: I can see one sentence sourced to BBC in the Legal disputes section; the reverted edit was more ADVOCACY than encyclopedic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The formatting of sources has no bearing on whether the material is appropriate. Sources are often formatted after they are added with an automatic tool (refill). The tool didn't respond after I added the sources, which is why I didn't get around to formatting them. Whether you disagree with the edit is not the issue, it was completely reasonable for me to make the edit in the first place. It's important to remember that no single editor has ownership over an article (WP:OWN). We should aim to ensure that the content is well-balanced and not overly reliant on a single, potentially problematic source with a reputation for transphobia. This issue seems to merit more than just one sentence; two or three seems quite appropriate. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The portion of OWN relevant to this page is at WP:FAOWN; please notice the "particular care" part, which is actually good practice on any BLP. This big notice is what you saw before you hit the "Publish" button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

See #Suggestion: Khelif. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

She wrote right Harry Potter books. (Not seven) 2600:1010:B17F:EAAB:0:23:2C66:5B01 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The lede is talking about the main Harry Potter series, which is 7 books. The article also has a section that lists other books she wrote. RudolfRed (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This is only a minor edit request, but her alma mater in her infobox should contain "BA" after it, since she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in French. 2.98.176.93 (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Its doesn't include the recent Olympic Athlete that is in trials do to her transphobic remarks 186.53.82.165 (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 22#Rowling and Musk named in cyber-bullying case; no consensus to add that content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Alarics; thanks for the ref cleanup and the tidying, but the established citation style on this WP:FA is to wikilink publishers. Could you help me understand why you are unlinking only a couple publishers, and adding unnecessary locations on only a few (after I partially corrected that once already?) Featured articles must have consistent citations, and this one has a well-defined style. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The convention I follow is that the location (i.e. the city of publication) should be given for every newspaper unless it is part of the paper's name. This is necessary because there are, for instance, several newspapers around the world called The Guardian. So I don't agree that these locations are "unnecessary". In the case of mainstream newspapers at least, this is a more useful form of disambiguation than giving the name of the publisher, since publishers of newspapers nowadays tend to change because of company mergers, etc., whereas they very rarely change location. The Daily Mirror, for example, is now on at least its fifth owner, but it has been published in London consistently for 121 years. This distinguishes it from the Daily Mirror in Sri Lanka. Also, Template:Cite news says "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)".

I wasn't aware of the "featured article" rule you mention, sorry. I absolutely agree with you about the desirability of consistency within any one article but on this occasion I realised I wasn't going to have time to do everything that needed doing. -- Alarics (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; I understand the logic behind your personal convention, but that's not the CITEVAR used on this article, or agreed upon in many featured articles. If others agree that locations should be more broadly added, we could consider changing the established style, but most of the newspapers used here are well known. I think we're using the work/publisher parameters correctly throughout, but if you see a place where that is not the case, pls advise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

In the light of the above discussion, there is a discussion of the treatment of Rowling's political views at Political views of J. K. Rowling#Comments on trans people in Nazi Germany that may be of interest to editors at this page. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "...is a British author and philanthropist." to "...is a British author, anti-LGBT+ rights activist and philanthropist." Riteofspring1234 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This has been the subject of a lot of discussions recently, and there is no consensus for adding this label. Given the short period of time between the last discussion and now (a matter of days; see the Barbra Banda section for example), I don't think it's worth starting another one for the moment. TBicks (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

h Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. (3OpenEyes' communication receptacle) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 12:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)