Talk:J. K. Rowling

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

12885HA (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC) shes transphobic

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also review the biographies of living persons policy and the neutral-point-of-view policy. Thank you. (courtesy ping 12885HA) — LauritzT (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Though the might be plenty of evidence in her own words and deeds to support such an accusation, editors can not include any accusations unless it is directly sourced from more than one high quality reliable source.

The reality is that in full accordance with Biographies of Living Persons policy's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the are indeed several top quality sources WP:RSP that do support the transphobic claim, and "If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." WP:PUBLICFIGURE and while we should always adhere to due weight of all the sources covering the subject, we should avoid any false balance.

A few sources directly accuse her directly with transphobia, while the majority of the sources simply say critics accuse her of being transphobic/phobia. Personally I believe the is enough supporting evidence from the WP:RSP to state she is transphobic, however based on the citations below I think at the least the is unquestionably solid enough evidence that we can safely say that:-

*Rowling has been accused by critics <in reliable news sources> of being transphobic.*

Telegraph Rowling’s views on transwomen, a strange brew of prejudice, ignorance and paranoia ~ [Trust me, JK Rowling is spouting dangerous nonsense about trans people https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/trust-jk-rowling-spouting-dangerous-nonsense-trans-people/]

Los Angeles Times [Column: J.K. Rowling and the curse of bathroom politics https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-06-18/jk-rowling-trans-rights-bathroom-politics]

BBC [JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557]

Independent [JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html]

NBC News [J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351]

Reuters [Reuters Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn/explainer-j-k-rowling-and-trans-women-in-single-sex-spaces-whats-the-furore-idUSKBN23I3AI]

Independent [Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html]

Vox [J.K. Rowling’s latest tweet seems like transphobic BS. Her fans are heartbroken. https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/19/21029852/jk-rowling-terf-transphobia-history-timeline]

NBC News [J.K. Rowling's new book raises more allegations of transphobia https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-j-k-rowling-book-raises-more-allegations-transphobia-n1240057]

Vanity Fair [Where J.K. Rowling’s Transphobia Comes From https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism]

Reactions? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see this before. The Telegraph, LA Times, Vox, and Vanity Fair articles are all opinion pieces, and fall under WP:RSOPINION - they are not reliable for claims of fact. The others seem to attribute the label to some group or other. Just slapping a WP:LABEL of transphobia with a WP:WEASEL-word attribution which is open to a "by whom?" tag won't cut it. If people want to expand on that again, this wording could be restored, which is in accord with NPOV by not being one-sided. We last discussed this in-depth in Archive 8, and I don't remember why it got whittled down to the current version, but I am quite happy with the current version as well. The WP:LEAD should be a brief summary and for all the nuances, readers should really click down to the appropriate section. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is probably the most biased argument section I've ever encountered. The fact that a "majority" of people say Person X is Y is utterly irrelevant to an encyclopedia, which is a platform of facts. Back in the Middle Ages, a "majority" of people would have said Woman X was a witch. That didn't then, and doesn't now, make it so. What is factual is that "some" people have found JK Rowling's statements to be transphobic whereas "others" have not. It's no one's place here to pronounce the proportionality of those opinions, particularly not by citing Op-Eds from liberal newspapers! There has not been a democratic vote on these issues (Twitter is not a democratic vote) so no one, LITERALLY NO ONE, has any idea how JK Rowling's views align with the majority public opinion. Anyone claiming otherwise is deluded and operating on a self-agenda. Seriously, if you can't leave your biases in your lockers, maybe you'd better stay away from Wikipedia. Respectfully, 2A01:E0A:34F:920:19CB:A9BB:B3C6:CEE8 (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

68.2.222.116 (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

THe current content of this article is not the same as was written 2 weeks ago.

Yes, it is. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"Some" LGBT rights organisations

The lead includes the sentence "These views have been criticised as transphobic by some LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists and individuals."

The use of the word "some" is odd in both instances. I've never heard of any LGBT organisation (that is, an organisation that by definition supports trans people's rights) that doesn't regard her views as transphobic. The use of the word "some" falsely gives the impression that many LGBT organisations support her views. Her views have also been criticised by all the mainstream feminists and feminist organisations that have voiced an opinion. Among self-described feminists she has only received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists (who often describe themselves as gender-critical feminists). However, they are widely regarded as a fringe group, and many/most feminists regard them as anti-feminists, particularly in light of their close cooperation with right-wing organisations such as the Heritage Foundation. In other words, the only "feminists" she has received support from are not really widely recognised as feminists in the feminist community (although they are popular with the radical right). It would be better to be more precise and note that she has received support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists (or self-described gender-critical feminists). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thing is, there is a rabbit hole (more of a semantic vortex, really) that I don't think Wikipedia should go down. If "LGBT" is to be read narrowly in the sense of must promote trans rights and trans inclusion then logically the term "LGB" would have to be resurrected - as the LGB Alliance does - to mean "LGB but not T". I would rather see Wikipedia use LGBT as an umbrella term - as many RS undoubtedly do - to mean any combination of those letters without requiring active promotion of all the relevant causes (how many LGBT organizations are active on bi/pan issues, anyway?), rather than have Wikipedia articles specify in each case whether a particular org or coalition was LGB but not T, LGT but not B, or LBT but not G ... Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if we understand the term LGBT in the way you describe, the word "some" seems like a puzzling understatement, because all the established LGBT organisations that I know of condemn her views as transphobic. The only groups that support her views are new groups of dubious reputation such as the LGB Alliance, which is widely considered a hate group (as the article notes) and which is probably not very representative of the people it claims to speak for (many commentators have noted that it seems to be more popular with cisgender, straight right-wingers than with actual L, G or B people). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would be happy with "most" (though other editors would insist on a source for "most", which is another rabbit hole) or with not using a qualifier at all. I just don't want to see the definitional argument used to settle the issue. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI: the only LGBT rights org mentioned in the body is GLAAD. We should take care to afford the critical orgs due weight, but my guess is that there are plenty of RS to support mentioning additional ones in the body. Firefangledfeathers 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If people want to remove the "some" before LGBT, that is fine with me. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Xxanthippe, I'm eagerly waiting for your promised justification for reinstating "some" here,[1] a word that is highly misleading since literally all established LGBT rights organisations that have voiced any opinion regard her views on trans people as transphobic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Last part of the sentence

Instead of "but have received support from some other feminists and individuals", how about a more precise description such as "but have received support from gender-critical (or trans-exclusionary) feminists" (or some other variant of that)? Really, the only self-described "feminists" who support Rowling's views on trans people are the self-described "gender-criticals". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not so sure that's supported by sources. I don't think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is considered a 'gender critical' feminist, for example. However, we could wikilink to Feminist views on transgender topics where the texts says "some feminists", and anyone can click on that for further explanation. At the same time, they can click down to the section heading and read about it there. Not every detail needs to be in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Having the link to Feminist views on transgender topics in the sentence would be an improvement. However earlier in the sentence we already mention "some feminists" (with a link to feminism), so it's not entirely clear which part of the sentence that should link to Feminist views on transgender topics. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need a wikilink to feminism in the sentence, since the "feminist views" article is a lot more important and people can click through to feminism there if they want. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems very sensible, it would be far more helpful to the reader to specifically link Feminist views on transgender topics on the first mention of the feminist divided opinion. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 09:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

"Should the lead sentence of this article mention Rowling's involvement in controversies about trans issues", and if so, how should they be included? A) Do not mention them in the lead sentence at all. B) Mention them as a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g., referring to "her transphobic tweets" or "her anti-transgender activism". C) Mention the controversy without making a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g. "her statements that have widely been considered transphobic". Unnamed anon (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Most coverage of Rowling in the media over the last couple of years has focused on her anti-trans views. It seems fair to say that she is primarily known as 1) the former author of the Harry Potter book series and 2) for her anti-trans activism and views. In light of that it would be reasonable for the first sentence to reflect that, especially given how it includes far more obscure descriptors such as "philanthropist, film producer, television producer, and screenwriter" (activities that have received comparatively little media coverage). Perhaps some of those obscure descriptors should also be removed from the first sentence, and only be mentioned further down? --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

On the first point, "former author" would be incorrect. She will continue to be the author of the Harry Potter series until she either passes away or sells the right to write more books. Whether she actually writes any more Harry Potter novels is irrelevant. On the second point, I believe this runs into the same problem as the above attempt to get "shes (sic) transphobic" added; a lack of non-opinion piece sources. I can say anecdotally that I don't know anyone away from the Internet that is even aware of Rowling's allegedly transphobic views. You can say the opposite, but neither of us can prove we are in a majority. If we rely on Google, the first result I get that isn't Wikipedia or her own website is her IMDB page with her screenwriting and producing credits. 2A02:C7F:E54C:C200:900B:C4AC:DFF4:3C22 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Anecdotal Google searches aren't reliable for this sort of thing, because the results you get are both heavily dependent on what words your searching for, as well as results being tailored to your own interests and search history. There's also an element of time, as searching just her name today brings up some controversy surrounding alleged doxxing and people possibly protesting outside her home address that has broken over the last couple of hours. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I wasn't trying to suggest Google itself should be treated as a legitimising factor. I feel the suggested edit relies entirely on subjective information--the perception of what a significant portion of society think of when they hear Rowling's name. As we can't prove that either way, we should fall back on the fact that the claim that she is transphobic is based on opinion pieces, whereas her work as a producer, screenwriter, and philanthropist is an objective fact that can be (and has been) sourced. John Bullock (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Her transphobic views are covered in the article. This is not a matter of adding new information but simply of deciding which parts of the article that are important enough to be summarised in the first sentence. For example, why are her activities as a philanthropist and television producer (that receive comparatively little coverage in the media) important enough for the first sentence, but not her anti-trans activism (that seems to be the focus of most media coverage of her over the last two years or so)? --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say because her allegedly transphobic views are harder to nail down. News stories protect themselves by referring to "critics" and other euphemisms. Ultimately, all transphobic roads lead back to an opinion piece, or even just a tweet. Her work as a screenwriter and producer on a movie franchise that contains three of the highest-grossing films of all time is a little less subjective, and we can cite actual numbers. John Bullock (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think this RS, for example, qualifies as an opinion piece. That Rowling has made transphobic statements may be disputed by some, but it can't be dismissed as "just an opinion" as though it weren't also a reliably sourced (if disputed) factual claim. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that brings us back to the question of whether she's "known for" being an alleged transphobe, and additionally whether her work as a producer and screenwriter is insignificant enough to be removed from the lede. On the latter, it scarcely seems worth discussing, given the cultural impact and box office success of the work she is credited as having produced and written for. John Bullock (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

But is she really widely known for "producing" anything? Her authorship of the Harry Potter books is already included in the sentence. The films were primarily made by other people on the basis of her books. And television productions (as opposed to the films)? There are no details about any television productions in the lead (as opposed to anti-trans views), so why is "television producer" – apparently one of her minor and less known activities – included in the first sentence? I would argue that she is, based on how she has been covered in the media over the last years, first and foremost known as the author of the Harry Potter books and for her anti-trans views (being, in all likelihood, the most prominent person to voice such views). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe that is a reference to Strike (TV series), which probably seemed important to someone at some point. Newimpartial (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually you make a good point about "television producer", maybe that should be removed from the lede. I don't agree with removing the film producer and screenwriter references, though. She wrote for and produced some of the most successful films in all of cinema to date. The "anti-trans" addition is problematic, not just because it is based on WP:RECENTISM as pointed out below, but because it would require this page about a children's fiction author to make a judgement on what constitutes being anti-trans. Rowling's rhetoric is concerned with (as she sees it) protecting women's rights, with the supposedly anti-trans views being a byproduct. She has even explicitly supported trans people up to a point. This isn't the place to debate what is and isn't transphobic, but I think it's entirely fair to say that "anti-trans" would be a very debatable descriptor, even if this aspect of her life became notable enough to make the lede. John Bullock (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would we consider an article in the "style" section of Vanity Fair, a pop culture magazine, to be a reliable expert source for sociopolitical matters, or on the topic of feminism or gender, like defining what exactly is "transphobic"? Or to have any interest in staying objective in such matters? Fact and opinion are distinct, and it's clear on which side of the divide such an article lies when making such a statement. I am reminded of how some editors routinely pointed to Rolling Stone magazine to justify whatever label they wanted to apply to some BLP until RSN finally reached the verdict that it is not reliable on political topics.

Anyway, this proposal is based on WP:RECENTISM. Rowling's short essay and some tweets would never have been of interest to anyone had she not already been an immensely famous figure for creating and overseeing the Harry Potter-verse. That is why she is famous. This other stuff about her sociopolitical views is a side issue, and belongs lower in the lead, where it already is and can be explained properly. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The "style" section of Vanity Fair (magazine) reports factually; it is not an opinion section. This seems like a basic point. And what I was pointing to within the linked article is facual reporting, not editorializing. As far as recentism goes, I have already shown that scholarship on Rowling has started to emphasize her anti-trans stances rather than her (rather brilliant) management of the "Wizarding World" IP, but this isn't Kierkegaard (Either/Or). Newimpartial (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Vanity Fair (magazine)'s legitimacy aside, there is still the issue of dispute. For example, her views have been defended by far more prominent trans people than Grace Robertson. Eddie's fame doesn't necessarily make them more correct (though undoubtedly more noteworthy), but it shows the "anti-trans"-ness of Rowling's stances is very debatable. And, as I mentioned above, her concerns are explicitly for women's rights and safety, with the alleged transphobia being a byproduct of those concerns. "Anti-trans" implies she is just out to hurt trans people, something that even the above Vanity Fair article does not try to claim. Even if this aspect of her life was to be added to the opener, it should be termed in a less biased way. I suspect many people would take issue with "campaigning to protect women's rights" being added, and "anti-trans" is no different. It's not Wikipedia's place to pick a side. John Bullock (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The framing that her concerns are explicitly for women's rights and safety is Rowling's framing, and one that she pronounced after making her initial comments that have been described as anti-trans. WP:MANDY probably applies.

And just to be clear, I for one do not agree that Rowling is an anti-transgenser activist à la Graham Linehan (who experienced a marital breakdown seemingly due to his activism), but it seems to me that a non-wikivoice comment that Rowling "has been criticized for her views on transgender people" does belong in the first sentence, since this is the main thing she is known for among English-speakers under the age of 35 or so. Newimpartial (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"has been criticized for her views on transgender people" would certainly be a more suitable wording than "anti-trans" or "transphobic". I still question whether it's the main thing she's known for by any objective metric after only a few years of largely opinion-based coverage. I'll leave it to more experienced editors to hash that one out. John Bullock (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree on WP:MANDY applying. There is far too much uncertainty around what constitutes transphobia for there to be a consensus that she is one. For example, a YouGov poll showed a majority believe people should be free able to identify as a gender other than the one they were born as, but the same poll showed a majority agreement with Rowling that biological males who have not had gender reassignment surgery should not be allowed in female-only spaces. Are they transphobic? Articles like this one suggest that supporting a person's right to identify as the gender they feel comfortable with makes them an ally, and Rowling has supported this. Then again, perhaps the stance on male genitalia in female-only spaces overrides that ally status for Rowling and the majority of the people in those studies. The uncertainty is the issue. John Bullock (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The uncertainty may be an issue affecting what we report in wikivoice, but there is certainly no "uncertainty" that Rowling's views on this issue have been perceived as transphobic by very many people. One trans comedian's view to the contrary should not be used in a WP:FALSEBALANCE manner, or be seen as evidence that maybe people don't see Rowling's views as transphobic. And while consensus among RS might be required to state in Wikivoice that Rowling's comments are transphobic or that she is a transphobe, but as previously stated I do not support such a statement in wikivoice in the first sentence. We have better options, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

What constitute transphobia is as clear as what constitutes racism or any other bigotry, the is no uncertainty in the words of her essay (she is a celebrated writer after all) or that those words have been perceived in a dozen reliable secondary sources as transphobic/anti trans. The Reuters article above clearly points out who is in danger in single sex spaces. I am agreement with Newimpartial and Amanda A. Brant on this. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Her essay was not just about 'single-sex spaces' and was before that Reuters article. Actually, what constitutes "racism" can likewise be quite fuzzy - as can be seen in debates over things like affirmative action, defunding the police, or the use of words like 'blacklist'.

Regarding WP:MANDY, that page is an essay that carries no weight outside those who agree with its premise. In fact, it seems to contradict the BLP policy per Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons#Denials must be included. But even if we take it as authoritative, it does not apply here - this isn't just a case where allegations are denied only by the person themselves, but rather when sources report on it, they overwhelmingly do not put such criticism in their own voice.

Regarding the claim that it is "the main thing she is known for among English-speakers under the age of 35 or so", maybe in Newimpartial's social circle, but that isn't true of mine, nor is it supported by any source.

The first sentence is for what a topic is, not for cramming in some piece of 'here's what some unspecified group of other people think'. WP:NPOV notes that "prominence of placement" can be an issue. Putting this in the first sentence, stripped of the context as it appears lower in the lead, is clearly POV and also violates WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. And no, a mealy-mouthed "has been criticized" does not make it better. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the supposed threat to Single spaces... True her essay is full of other anti trans positions such as her baseless statement regarding the growth in the number of young transmen, Rowling said 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. However the reliable press has concentrated on the 'single-sex spaces' issue. Claiming that trans people are predatory based on no evidence is like saying Black People, Asian People, Muslims or Jews etc are a threat just for being who they are, its undeniable unjust and prejudicial.

Regarding what she is notable for ...We do however follow the reliable sources and it is for these views she has received significant coverage in the last few years. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Unforunately, there is not a particularly overwhelming number of reliable sources actually labelling her transphobic (as opposed to opinion pieces and references to vague third parties), and an editor's conviction isn't enough to go on. I feel WP:RECENTISM is still relevant with regards to mentioning these criticisms in the opening line. Rowling has had a decades-long career writing best-selling novels and producing wildly successful movies, these criticisms are not only recent, but the chosen phrasing could just as accurately be "has been praised for her defence of single-sex spaces". I don't think either should be added to the lede, but if something is added, Wikipedia shouldn't be presented as having chosen a side in an ongoing debate. John Bullock (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Praised for her defence of single-sex places !? ...please provide a single reliable source for such a WP:OR claim. However in contrast regarding the claim the are not many reliable non opinion sources on her anti trans position, the are good number of reliable non opinion sources

• Vanity Fair [Where J.K. Rowling’s Transphobia Comes From https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-transphobia-feminism],
• Vox [J.K. Rowling’s latest tweet seems like transphobic BS. Her fans are heartbroken. https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/19/21029852/jk-rowling-terf-transphobia-history-timeline],
• NBC News [J.K. Rowling's new book raises more allegations of transphobia https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-j-k-rowling-book-raises-more-allegations-transphobia-n1240057],
• New Statesman [The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK’s gender wars https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2021/11/the-battle-for-stonewall-the-lgbt-charity-and-the-uks-gender-wars]],
• BBC [JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53002557],
• Independent [JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-transgender-letter-twitter-trans-people-a9559346.html]
• NBC News [J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto' https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/j-k-rowling-doubles-down-what-some-critics-call-transphobic-n1229351],
• Reuters [Reuters Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-lgbt-rowling-explainer-trfn/explainer-j-k-rowling-and-trans-women-in-single-sex-spaces-whats-the-furore-idUSKBN23I3AI],
• Independent [Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mermaids-jk-rowling-transphobia-transgender-sexual-abuse-domestic-letter-a9565176.html]
• Pink News [The philosopher and feminist Judith Butler has skewered the tenets underpinning trans-exclusionary feminism in an email exchange so magnificent it should be printed out and framed. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/23/judith-butler-trans-exclusionary-gender-critical-feminism-jk-rowling-transphobia/]

The reality is that in full accordance with Biographies of Living Persons policy's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the are indeed several top quality sources WP:RSP that do support the transphobic claim, and "If an allegation ... is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." WP:PUBLICFIGURE and while we should always adhere to due weight of all the sources covering the subject, we really should avoid any false balance of a few individuals compared to national organisations and reliable media. Several sources directly identify her as being with transphobia, while other sources simply say that her views are anti-trans, or that critics have accused her of being transphobic/phobia. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"for defense of single sex spaces" was poor wording, but I struggled to find something less misleading than "she has received support for her views on transgender people". This is essentially the root of my reasoning for why this declarative statement does not belong in the lede. As for sources;

• The Independent JK Rowling: Ian McEwan and Graham Linehan among literary figures to support author amid transphobia row
• The Times John Cleese joins stars backing JK Rowling in trans row
• Entertainment Weekly Eddie Izzard defends J.K. Rowling, says she doesn't believe author is transphobic
• USA Today Ralph Fiennes 'can't understand the vitriol' toward J.K. Rowling after transphobic comments

It's worth noting that these sources are both not opinion pieces and not references to vague third parties, such as "critics" and "some" people. And, as I said, I don't believe this should be in the lede either, but the claim that she is "mostly known" for being transphobic should raise far more questions about the intent of those making the claim and their suitability to be influencing this page than my poorly worded example. John Bullock (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Jbullock, you seem unable to distinguish between what reliable sources say in their own voice, and what they quote celebrities as saying. So USATODAY, in the article you linked, refers to the author's (Rowling's) transphobic comments. EW points out in its lead paragraph that Rowling's controversial comments about the trans community have been widely condemned as transphobic - almost identical to language I proposed above. The Times states that Rowling has attracted criticism for comments on gender identity, but denies she is transphobic. Of all these sources, only The Independent comes anywhere near supporting the contention that criticism and support for Rowling's views are in any way balanced.

Also, I for one have never suggested that this article should lead with a statement that Rowling is transphobic; on the other hand, anyone paying attention over the last three years or so would see that Rowling has been in the news mostly in relation to trans issues rather than, say, the Wizarding World IP. I am not seeing a policy-compliant reason to bury this while subtly promoting the Strike TV adaptation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Bodney's set of sources overwhelmingly does not put the accusations in their own voice either. Do not single out Jbullock83 and cease casting aspersions. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Jbullock83: if you look at the RS coverage available and conclude that the chosen phrasing could just as accurately be "has been praised for her defence of single-sex spaces", then I don't think you should be editing, or contributing to discussions on, this article. And conjuring up a FRINGE/MANDY interpretation as a FALSEBALANCE to what reliable, independent sources actually say should pretty much disqualify you from BLP editing in general, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

See above regarding that specific wording. As for the rest, editing is not a problem--I would never make a contentious edit to a page, that's why I'm here on the talk page. But the fact my raising this disagreement should, in your eyes, disqualify me from contributing to the discussion doesn't exactly instil me with confidence about your ability to make that kind of decision objectively. John Bullock (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see my notes about your slanted use of sources, above. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict, i hope in the correct place) John Bullock These are celebrities and other individuals with no expertise on the subject matter compared to national specialist organisations that are definitely highly qualified to recognise problems in this area and a eminently qualified gender specialist. You can not compare. They are not equal. , eg WP:FALSEBALANCE ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

As this isn't the place to highlight inconsistencies with said authoritative organisations criteria for being "transphobic", and as I've already pointed out that several of your sources are reporting on tweets and "critics", I'll settle for simply reminding you that the primary point of contention was not whether she is transphobic, but whether she is known for being transphobic. Sufficiently known for it to be in the opening sentence. Or, in the case of one claim in this discussion, "mostly known" for it. While the opinion of Grace Robertson on issues of transphobia may be more authoritative in your eyes, it shouldn't be a controversial statement to say that the comments of global celebrities like Stephen Fry and Eddie Izzard are far wider-reaching, thus entirely relevant to a discussion about what she is known for. John Bullock (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we base our editorial decisions on what reliable sources say in their own voice, not on what they quote celebrities as saying. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And how are these reliable sources (including several quoting tweets, unnamed critics, and other celebrities) used to prove that the best-selling author of producer of one of the biggest film franchises in cinema is "known for" something other than those things? Actually never mind. I've already got serious doubts about your impartiality, and if we keep debating this topic you're going to run out of sanctions to give me. I've made my case. John Bullock (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Of the sources you yourself produced, most of them refer to Rowling's "transphobic comments", her "controversial comments that have been condemned as transphobic" or her comments "that have attracted criticism, but which she denies are transphobic" - and these are usually in the lead sentences of the respective sources. Rodney has produced additional sources that document the widespread public controversy over Rowling's attitudes towards trans people. Academic papers have been published on the subject.

This article currently has a first sentence that directs more attention to Rowling having produced Strike (TV series) than the accusations of transphobia. Frankly, I don't think that is DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't care if "television producer" is dropped, but that does not justify insertion of POV in the first sentence. As I noted above, reliable sources generally do not call her transphobic or whatever in their own voice either, so the argument to cram that accusation in the first sentence stripped of the support (which we already agreed on for lower in the lead) is POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The recent, reliable sources generally note prominently that Rowling has been accused of transphobia, and so should we. And the sources saying that "she has been accused by some people of transphobia, but has been defended by others" are clearly a minority compared to those that simply mention the accusations. Insisting on FALSEBALANCE is, in fact, POV, and if that's the kind of encyclopaedia you want to edit I'm sure one is out there waiting for your input. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Xxanthippe, why do you feel the inclusion of "television producer" (a relatively obscure activity not elaborated on in the lead) in the first sentence makes the first sentence "more balanced"[2]? The removal was discussed above in this section. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, please also comment on what people in this section are pushing to add to the first sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• I can't imagine other encyclopedias bothering with this stuff at all. Politics of J. K. Rowling indeed! 😂 What next: Politics of Wayne Rooney? Here, we can start the article using this informative website. Apparently he endorsed Obama... Tewdar (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (To borrow Newimpartial's rightful charge) Yet another splendid example of an editor using an unreliable source about a unrelated individual with no relevance to the discussion at hand that makes it highly questionable whether they should be editing, or contributing to discussions on BLPs or editing in general. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you have failed to grasp the point I was trying to make. Again. And lay off the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions, will ya? Tewdar (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, advocates for insertion of this POV need to stop making attacks and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about competence. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
      • ⊳ I made no accusation of bad faith, I did however undeniably question the relevance of the contribution ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Tewdar, the day I see academic articles about the Politics of Wayne Rooney is the day I might see your argument here as something other than a false parallel and a red herring. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I give roughly equal weight to Rooney and Rowling's political views. They're not exactly Marx and Engels, are they... Tewdar (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I could be wrong, but I don't think you'll find one of these about Rooney... Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Did you search Google Scholar yet? I think I can put the article into draft space within an hour! 😂 Tewdar (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
          • the man's a future Prime Minister! OMG I thought it couldn't get any worse! Tewdar (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Calling her a transphobe in the very first sentence is very POV, full of blatant recency bias, and not what she's known for, plain and simple. The reason why she gets so much coverage for supposedly being transphobic these days is because she was already known as the author of the Harry Potter series. Discounting the fact that she is notable already, this is just the equivalent of somebody being slammed on twitter for not being fully politically correct; with the knowledge of her being notable, it's the equivalent of other notable people expressing their political views such as how outspoken Mark Ruffalo is about the Kyle Rittenhouse case (which also got plenty of media coverage, and is mentioned on his article, but is not covered in the very first sentence because, like Rowling, political commentary is not what he's most notable for). I do think the controversy is important enough to cover in a section of the article, but putting it in the very first sentence just reeks of POV bias. I'm going to open up an rfc to get some more objective-minded people here if the points made by me, John Bullock, Corsaroads, Tewer, that one IP at the beginning, and anybody else I may be missing. Unnamed anon (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The article will not benefit from an RfC without a clear question, neutrally formulated. And nobody has proposed calling her a transphobe in the very first sentence, to my knowledge, so that would not be the relevant question anyway. Newimpartial (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

For some people, and especially younger people, she (at least personally) is better known for anti-trans activism. An article in them (part of media giant Condé Nast) published yesterday called her "Renowned TERF and occasional author" who "is known for penning transphobic rants"[3]. Obviously, nobody disputes that she is an author and that author ought to be mentioned first. The proposal is simply to have a sentence that mentions four (until recently five) different activities also somehow (not necessarily by calling her a transphobe outright) reflect the activity that has received the most sustained media coverage over the last couple of years. Exactly how we would phrase that in a succinct and neutral manner would obviously need careful consideration. Some possibilities: trans-exclusionary radical feminist (obviously), anti-trans commentator, commentator on transgender rights, anti-trans activist etc. etc. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

How about, "She is best known as a trans-excluding transphobic anti-trans activist TERF who has also written a few books."? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

How about none of them? I'm pretty young and I haven't heard about her supposedly anti-trans views until today. This is definitely notable enough to be mentioned on the page due to the controversy surrounding her, but not only is giving her an anti-trans label in the very first sentence only going to open herself up to more harassment, and giving her labels she rejects, it's just not notable enough to be in the lead. Plenty of BLPs who are notable for other endeavors are open about their political beliefs, it gets massive media coverage, and then eventually gets significantly less coverage, which is exactly what happened here. It seems like the controversy was only super widespread in June-September 2020, and only came back up recently because she got doxxed by transgender activists recently. Unnamed anon (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't care how old you are, but please stop trying to attach an RfC ID to something that isn't an RfC. See WP:RFC for information, especially WP:RFCBRIEF. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I did read RFCBRIEF, and this is a textbook example of what an RFC should be for; asking for something in the lead is literally the example there. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". I did not add a statement because Amanda's first comment of this discussion is actually fairly neutral, even if I disagree with what is being requested. If I didn't format it properly, then fix that instead of removing the tag. Remove the rfc tag again and I will have to take this to either 3RR for edit warring or ANI for trying to prevent discussion. Unnamed anon (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead focusses on what makes her notable, not what unspecified people might know her best for. Her trans opinions (which are very much as portrayed and the opinion of others) are not what makes her notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Amanda A. Brant, I think all the options you are proposing - trans-exclusionary radical feminist (obviously), anti-trans commentator, commentator on transgender rights, anti-trans activist - are terrible, and not fit for the lead section, much less the lead sentence. You can find one or two RS each that use a couple of these in their own editorial voice, but that doesn't meet the requirement in WP:LABEL for putting any of them in wikivoice, which seems to be what you are proposing. The lead section is for the notable aspects of the topic, as discussed in the body of the article and reflecting the balance of the RS - it is not for poorly-sourced evaluations.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by going out over your skis and proposing language that goes ahead of what the reliable sources en masse support, which is that Rowling has held views/made comments/expressed opinions that are widely perceived as transphobic - something that is easily sourced and that both her critics and her supporters agree on (except for a few ill-informed or tendentious editors on wikipedia, as one might expect). So I ak suggesting that you make a course correction in light of your own apparent values. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC on lead sentence

Should the lead sentence of this article mention Rowling's involvement in controversies about trans issues (roughly defined) and if so, how should it be mentioned? Option A: Do not mention them in the lead sentence. Option B: Mention them as a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g., "anti-transgender activist". Option C: Mention the controversy without making a direct statement about Rowling's views, e.g. "who has received criticism for statements that have widely been considered transphobic".

Hopefully specific options help clear up the disorganized discussion above.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 15:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)