Wikipedia

Talk:J. K. Rowling

(Redirected from Talk:JK Rowling)
Latest comment: 58 minutes ago by Vanamonde93 in topic Draft 7
Learn more about this page
Featured articleJ. K. Rowling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008, and on June 26, 2022.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 8, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
April 15, 2022Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 31, 2017, July 31, 2021, and July 31, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Death threat

edit
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A man has been sentenced for making death threats against J K Rowling and Rosie Duffield. [1] I think this should be added to this article, but I don’t want to interfere with any redrafting, etc. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • I agree. Incorporated in draft #7, below.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Draft 7

edit
Latest comment: 58 minutes ago44 comments8 people in discussion

Suissa and Sullivan are out, and Glenn Mullen is in. As there's no good faith dispute at all over whether J. K. Rowling was insulted and threatened for her views, I've left that in.—S Marshall T/C 10:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Draft 7.1: 403 words Historical: 429 words
Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights

Rowling has [some contributors want to add a qualifier here] gender-critical views.[1][2][3] She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women.[4][5][6][a] She opposes gender self-recognition[11][12][b] and suggests that children and cisgender women are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages.[14] 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".[15]

Friction over Rowling's gender-critical writings surged in 2019 when she defended Maya Forstater.[16] When Forstater's employment contract was not renewed after Forstater shared gender-critical views,[17] Rowling wrote that trans people should live in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][c] According to Harry Potter scholar Lana Whited, in the next six months "Rowling herself fanned the flames as she became increasingly vocal".[23] In June 2020,[23] Rowling mocked the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[25][17]

Rowling's views have affected her reputation.[26] She has been the target of widespread condemnation,[9][27][28] insults, and threats, including death threats.[29][30] Despite the controversy, sales of Harry Potter books grew during the COVID-19 lockdown.[31][32] Criticism came from Harry Potter fansites, LGBT charities, and leading actors of the Wizarding World.[33][34][35] and Human Rights Campaign.[4][36][37][38] 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.[39]

Rowling rejects these characterisations and denies being transphobic.[13][40] In an essay posted on her website in June 2020 – which left trans people feeling betrayed[11][33] – Rowling said her views on women's rights sprang from survivorship of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[41][42] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans 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.[42][43][44] 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".[45]

Main article: Political views of J. K. Rowling § Transgender rights

Rowling's responses to proposed changes to UK gender recognition laws,[4][5][d] and her views on sex and gender, have provoked controversy.[9] Her statements have divided feminists;[6][46][47] fuelled debates on freedom of speech,[48][49] academic freedom[8] and cancel culture;[27] and prompted declarations of support for transgender people from the literary,[50] arts[51] and culture sectors.[52]

When Maya Forstater's employment contract with the London branch of the Center for Global Development was not renewed after she tweeted gender-critical views,[17][18] Rowling responded in December 2019 with a tweet that transgender people should live their lives as they pleased in "peace and security", but questioned women being "force[d] out of their jobs for stating that sex is real".[18][e] In another controversial tweet in June 2020,[34] Rowling mocked an article for using the phrase "people who menstruate",[24] and tweeted that women's rights and "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real".[54][55]

LGBT charities and leading actors of the Wizarding World franchise condemned Rowling's comments;[37][38][f] GLAAD called them "cruel" and "inaccurate".[61] Rowling responded with an essay on her website[13] in which she revealed that her views on women's rights were informed by her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault.[42] While affirming that "the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable ... Trans people need and deserve protection", she believed that it would be unsafe to allow "any man who believes or feels he's a woman" into bathrooms or changing rooms.[42][62][63] Writing of her own experiences with sexism and misogyny,[64] she wondered if the "allure of escaping womanhood" would have led her to transition if she had been born later, and said that trans activism was "seeking to erode 'woman' as a political and biological class".[65]

Rowling's continual statements – beginning in 2017[9][66][67] – have been called transphobic by critics[68][69] and she has been referred to as a TERF.[69][70][71] She rejects these characterisations and the notion that she holds animosity towards transgender people, saying that her viewpoint has been misunderstood.[13][68][67] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[72] and the charities Mermaids,[34] Stonewall,[73] and Human Rights Campaign.[74] 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.[39]

As Rowling's views on the legal status of transgender people came under scrutiny,[8] she received insults and death threats[75][76] and discussion moved beyond the Twitter community.[77] Some performers and feminists have supported her.[77][78] Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her".[79]

Sources

edit
Sources

References

  1. ^ Whited 2024, p. 7. "But in June 2020, Rowling's manifesto led some people to label her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), a term first used in 2008 that has more recently evolved as 'gender critical'.".
  2. ^ Steinfeld 2020, pp. 34–35. "Just ask JK Rowling and other women who have been labelled as Terfs".
  3. ^ Schwirblat, Freberg & Freberg 2022, pp. 367–368. "This sparked a heated discussion within the Twitter community, one side buttressing Rowling's statements, and the other espousing her as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)".
  4. ^ a b c Milne, Amber; Savage, Rachel (11 June 2020). "Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore?". Reuters. Retrieved 6 April 2021.
  5. ^ a b Brooks, Libby (11 June 2020). "Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender debate?". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  6. ^ a b Kottasová, Ivana; Andrew, Scottie (20 December 2019). "J.K. Rowling's 'transphobia' tweet row spotlights a fight between equality campaigners and radical feminists". CNN. Retrieved 5 May 2024. Cite error: The named reference "Kottasova2019" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Pedersen 2022, Abstract.
  8. ^ a b c d Suissa & Sullivan 2021, pp. 66–69.
  9. ^ a b c d e Duggan 2021, PDF pp. 14–15 (160–161).
  10. ^ Watson, Jeremy (18 February 2024). "JK Rowling donates £70k for legal challenge on defining a woman". The Times. Archived from the original on 17 February 2024. Retrieved 5 May 2024.
  11. ^ a b Whited 2024, p. 7.
  12. ^ "JK Rowling backs protest over Scottish gender bill". BBC News. 6 October 2022. Retrieved 5 May 2024.
  13. ^ a b c d "J.K. Rowling writes about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender issues". JK Rowling. 10 June 2020. Archived from the original on 10 June 2020. Retrieved 10 June 2020.
  14. ^ Duggan 2021, p. 161.
  15. ^ Brooks, Libby (3 April 2024). "JK Rowling's posts on X will not be recorded as non-crime hate incident". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  16. ^ Whited 2024, pp. 6–8.
  17. ^ a b c Pugh 2020, p. 7.
  18. ^ a b c Stack, Liam (19 December 2019). "J.K. Rowling criticized after tweeting support for anti-transgender researcher". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 13 June 2020. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  19. ^ a b Faulkner, Doug (10 June 2021). "Maya Forstater: woman wins tribunal appeal over transgender tweets". BBC News. Retrieved 26 March 2022.
  20. ^ a b Siddique, Haroon (10 June 2021). "Gender-critical views are a protected belief, appeal tribunal rules". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 March 2022.
  21. ^ Pape 2022, p. 230.
  22. ^ "Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules". BBC News. 6 July 2022. Retrieved 6 July 2022.
  23. ^ a b Whited 2024, p. 6.
  24. ^ a b Gross, Jenny (7 June 2020). "Daniel Radcliffe criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-transgender tweets". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 7 June 2020. Retrieved 6 January 2022.
  25. ^ Duggan 2021, pp. 14–15.
  26. ^ Whited 2024, p. 8.
  27. ^ a b Schwirblat, Freberg & Freberg 2022, pp. 367–369.
  28. ^ Pape 2022, pp. 229–230, 238.
  29. ^ Whited 2024, p. 9.
  30. ^ Burnell, Paul (4 June 2024). "Internet troll threatened to kill JK Rowling and MP". BBC News. Retrieved 9 June 2024.
  31. ^ Pape 2022, p. 238.
  32. ^ Sweney, Mark (21 July 2020). "Harry Potter books prove UK lockdown hit despite JK Rowling trans rights row". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  33. ^ a b Henderson 2022, p. 224.
  34. ^ a b c Petter, Olivia (17 September 2020). "Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people". The Independent. Archived from the original on 15 June 2020. Retrieved 26 March 2022.
  35. ^ Hinsliff, Gaby (3 November 2021). "The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars". New Statesman. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
  36. ^ "JK Rowling's tweets on transgender people spark outrage". Associated Press. 7 June 2020. Retrieved 4 May 2024.
  37. ^ a b Waterson, Jim (23 July 2020). "Children's news website apologises to JK Rowling over trans tweet row". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 March 2022. Rowling's comments on gender were condemned by LGBT charities and the leading stars of her Harry Potter film franchise.
  38. ^ a b c Lang, Brent (10 June 2020). "Eddie Redmayne criticizes J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets". Variety. Retrieved 28 March 2022. Eddie Redmayne, star of the Fantastic Beasts franchise, is speaking out against J.K. Rowling's anti-trans tweets, as the controversy surrounding the author and her beliefs continues to swirl.
  39. ^ a b Flood, Alison (28 August 2020). "JK Rowling returns human rights award to group that denounces her trans views". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 August 2020.
  40. ^ "JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy'". BBC News. 22 February 2023. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
  41. ^ Duggan 2021, pp. 160–161).
  42. ^ a b c d Shirbon, Estelle (10 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling reveals past abuse and defends right to speak on trans issues". Reuters. Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  43. ^ Gonzalez, Sandra (10 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash". CNN. Retrieved 16 September 2023.
  44. ^ Garrand, Danielle (11 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making 'anti-trans' comments on Twitter". CBS News. Retrieved 16 September 2023.
  45. ^ Whited 2024, pp. 6, 8–9.
  46. ^ "JK Rowling responds to trans tweets criticism". BBC News. 11 June 2020. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
  47. ^ Ferber, Alona (22 September 2020). "Judith Butler on the culture wars, JK Rowling and living in 'anti-intellectual times'". New Statesman. Retrieved 26 March 2021.
  48. ^ Pape 2022, pp. 229–230.
  49. ^ "BBC nominates J.K.Rowling's controversial essay of trans rights for award". DW News. 22 December 2020. Retrieved 22 December 2020.
  50. ^ UK, US, Canada, Ireland: Flood, Alison (9 October 2020). "Stephen King, Margaret Atwood and Roxane Gay champion trans rights in open letter". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 April 2022.
  51. ^ Rowley, Glenn (11 June 2020). "Artists fire back at J.K. Rowling's anti-trans remarks, share messages in support of the community". Billboard. Retrieved 7 April 2022.
  52. ^ Culture sector:
  53. ^ "Maya Forstater: Woman discriminated against over trans tweets, tribunal rules". BBC News. 6 July 2022. Retrieved 6 July 2022.
  54. ^ Duggan 2021, PDF pp. 14–15.
  55. ^ Moreau, Jordan (6 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling gets backlash over anti-trans tweets". Variety. Archived from the original on 7 June 2020. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
  56. ^ a b Hibberd, James (17 March 2021). "Ralph Fiennes defends J.K. rowling amid trans controversy, says backlash is 'disturbing'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 26 March 2022.
  57. ^ Lenker, Maureen (10 June 2020). "Every Harry Potter actor who's spoken out against J.K. Rowling's controversial trans comments". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 1 April 2022.
  58. ^ Baska, Maggie (20 May 2021). "Stephen Fry defends 'friendship' with JK Rowling: 'I'm sorry that people are upset'". PinkNews. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
  59. ^ Evans, Greg. "Helena Bonham Carter says Johnny Depp 'completely vindicated' in defamation trial, and J.K. Rowling 'hounded' for transgender stance". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved 18 December 2022.
  60. ^ Yasharoff, Hannah (30 December 2021). "How the 'Harry Potter' reunion addresses author J.K. Rowling's anti-trans controversy". USA Today. Retrieved 2 April 2022.
  61. ^ Yasharoff, Hannah (10 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling reveals she's a sexual assault survivor; Emma Watson reacts to trans comments". USA Today. Retrieved 27 March 2022.
  62. ^ Gonzalez, Sandra (10 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling explains her gender identity views in essay amid backlash". CNN. Retrieved 16 September 2023.
  63. ^ Garrand, Danielle (11 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling defends herself after accusations of making "anti-trans" comments on Twitter". CBS News. Retrieved 16 September 2023.
  64. ^ Cain, Sian (11 June 2020). "JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
  65. ^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (10 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling defends trans statements in lengthy essay, reveals she's a sexual assault survivor & says 'trans people need and deserve protection'". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved 5 January 2022.
  66. ^ Jacobs, Julia (9 February 2023). "Hogwarts legacy can't cast aside debate over J. K. Rowling". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 July 2023.
  67. ^ a b Spangler, Todd (14 February 2023). "J.K. Rowling addresses backlash to her anti-trans comments in new podcast: 'I never set out to upset anyone'". Variety. Retrieved 14 July 2023.
  68. ^ a b Breznican, Anthony (12 April 2023). "J.K. Rowling will oversee a new streaming Harry Potter series". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 14 July 2023.
  69. ^ a b Rosenblatt, Kalhan (10 June 2020). "J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a 'transphobic manifesto'". NBC News. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
  70. ^ Steinfeld 2020, pp. 34–35.
  71. ^ Schwirblat, Freberg & Freberg 2022, pp. 367–368.
  72. ^ "Harry Potter fan sites distance themselves from JK Rowling over transgender rights". The Guardian. Reuters. 3 July 2020. Archived from the original on 3 July 2020. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
  73. ^ Hinsliff, Gaby (3 November 2021). "The battle for Stonewall: the LGBT charity and the UK's gender wars". New Statesman. Retrieved 24 November 2021.
  74. ^ Brisco, Elise (8 October 2021). "Dave Chappelle says he's 'Team TERF,' defends J.K. Rowling in new Netflix comedy special". USA Today. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
  75. ^ Suissa & Sullivan 2021, p. 69.
  76. ^ Qiao 2022, p. 1323.
  77. ^ a b Schwirblat, Freberg & Freberg 2022, p. 368.
  78. ^ Supporting Rowling:
  79. ^ Flockhart, Gary (28 September 2020). "JK Rowling receives support from Ian McEwan and Frances Barber amid 'transphobia' row". The Scotsman. Retrieved 2 April 2022.

Notes

  1. ^ The laws and proposed changes are the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill; related also are the UK Equality Act 2010[7][8][9] and the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.[10]
  2. ^ Rowling wrote in 2020: "The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law."[13]
  3. ^ A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK Equality Act.[19][20][21] In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe) ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.[22]
  4. ^ The UK laws and proposed changes are the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the related Equality Act 2010.[7][8][9]
  5. ^ A tribunal ruled in 2021 that Forstater's gender-critical views were protected under the 2010 UK Equality Act.[19][20] In July 2022, a new tribunal decision was published (Forstater v Center for Global Development Europe) ruling that Forstater had suffered direct discrimination from her employer.[53]
  6. ^ Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint,[56] Eddie Redmayne[38] and others expressed support for the transgender community in reaction to Rowling's comments;[57][58] Helena Bonham Carter,[59] Robbie Coltrane,[60] and Ralph Fiennes supported Rowling.[56]

Discussion

edit
Is that meant to be titled as Draft 6.3, or is it a mistake? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fixed.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Busy for the rest of today, but I should be able to enter my commentary (as promised weeks ago), by tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
PS, this might provide an updated source to replace her website essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
S Marshall, thanks for doing this & huge apologies for being awol (there's another article where I'm in over my head & my time for Wikipedia keeps shrinking). A couple of comments to get started:
  • I have some as-yet-very-muddy-thoughts about the first sentence & the phrase gender-critical so I'll try to flesh those out later.
  • Minor point, but there's some repetition of "She, she, she" in the first para that needs wordsmithing.
  • For people with no clue, have been wondering whether we should try working in a link to Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe
  • "affected her reputation" should be cited to Whited page 8
  • Good to see the draft less wordy; I'm wondering how others feel about putting back the sentence "Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." that's in the historical draft? The end of that sentence mentions includes " "lived reality" would be "erased" if "sex isn't real", which is another way of saying sex is immutable. Should that be clarified?
That's it for now. Victoria (tk) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • In draft 7.1, I've attempted to address points #2, #3 and #4 that you raise, and I await further input on #1 and #5.—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Much appreciated! Agreed that input from others is needed. Just to spin my thoughts out a bit more. Re the first sentence, I've realized that one reason it's been bugging me is that the term gender-critical may mean something very different in the US than in the UK. Recently I read an article about someone running for congress whose opinions about women are, shall we say, a bit archaic. Beyond that this person claims the LGBQT+ movement was created by radical feminists. So we need to be clear in terms of where links are going & what exactly we mean for a global audience.
      Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with ""Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc." ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made. Also I've not had time for a full examination of the essays in Whited (Project MUSE book 111748} or Konchar Farr {Project MUSE book 99615), which in my view needs to be done. Anyway, let's see what the others say. Victoria (tk) 23:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
      • Yes. On the wildest, most far-flung fringes of the US right, there lurk certain characters who do indeed like to burst out of their swamps, yell things like "the LGBTQ+ movement was created by radical feminists!" and then slide back into the mire, waiting for the next gloriously unhinged thought to turn up. Like you, I'm often refreshed and challenged by their unique perspectives and their idiosyncratic ways of putting things. I think my personal favourite is "blame the gun". Presumably someone who thinks you shouldn't be allowed to drive without a driving licence is "blaming the car".
        I don't think we can use language the way those people do, and I also don't think we should be trying. Conservapedia is thataway ----->. I feel that as encyclopaedists, it's our task to summarize things in simple and clear terms, even (especially!) when the things we're trying to summarize are complex and difficult; and we should use normal, natural language in its usual meaning; and, despite what the US right might think, it's quite possible to be supportive and tolerant of gay and lesbian people, but intolerant of trans people; and that J.K. Rowling is; and that "gender-critical" is succinct, accurate, and neutral. It's not a pejorative.
        But I can see that "gender-critical" is an uncomfortable thing to say about someone. Even though it's not a pejorative, it's a pungent term. It reeks of repression and segregation and prejudice. It's scrupulously accurate, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
        • I knew I wouldn't be able to make myself clear & that's why I have trouble engaging here. Being told to go off to Conservapedia doesn't want me to engage. To try to clarify: can we not just say she's a Gender-critical feminist whose views align with Maya Forstater (i.e the #IStandWithMaya tweet) & then tell readers who don't know (or who do know) those views are x, y and z (including that they believe sex is immutable). I think we're close. So just ignore me. Victoria (tk) 14:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
          @Victoriaearle If we call J.K. Rowling a gender-critical feminist in the article, do we need to clarify what that means? Surely the page it would link to would give people an idea of what those views are without having to reclarify here? Alpha2 5232 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
          Yes, I think we should because this is her biography & the article is about her. But I need to step away to refamiliarize myself with the sources & don't have time for that at the moment. Victoria (tk) 16:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
          My thought is this: J.K. Rowling uses the term herself, e.g. here. I think we can safely call her gender critical - ideally with an explanation - because it's language she seems to accept as a description of the group she belongs to anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
          Basically I was only wondering if we needed to gloss the term & failed to explain myself at all well. Stricken a bunch above. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
          I have been stalled by real life matters on coming back to this, but I'm concerned that the process is not engaging WP:WIAFA 1c; yes, we're updating to Whited, which is a good thing, but that's only one high quality recent source, and it's not apparent whether we're working towards a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Instead, we seem to be working towards preferences of individual editors, which won't render this in compliance with FA standards.
          I don't have easy/full journal access, so can only access that which is freely available, but that (limited) survey continues to support the most NOT-NEWSY, NOT-RECENTISM, and likely to endure statement that was once in the article, and is mentioned by Victoriaearle at 23:56 June 15: "Regarding the sentence in the historical draft, which begins with 'Her statements have divided feminists... etc., etc.' ... it occurred to me the newish literature address these debates & so those points should be made."
          I've been hoping the other FA writers of the FAR version would find time and inclination to weigh in here so we could address the WIAFA issues, including any updates needed to the literary portions of the article based on Whited and more, but I don't feel like I should ping them again.
          I have other (more minor) concerns about the draft, but if we aren't working towards meeting WIAFA, I'm unsure what the value of time spent here is ... so I haven't yet spelled those out. Ideas ?? Most certainly, that one deleted sentence is warranted by what I can access as a survey of the relevant literature (scholarly articles restricted to 2024), and is likely the most enduring of the section, so I hope it comes back with updated citations. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
          With all respect, you seem to be objecting to change by holding standards that are not apparent in the original version of the section, which, if anything, is far worse. If this fails WIAFA after the changes, it fails it without the changes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
          I (and others) have explained several times that the FAR was constrained by the results of a very recent, and very well attended, RFC, and that all acknowledged we would have to revisit after some time had elapsed from that RFC ... so I won't repeat all of that again. Please do reread the archives of discussions already had with you. Now that we are revisiting, we should be keeping WIAFA in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
          From a high quality sourcing point-of-view, I'm not convinced there's enough yet to revisit. The search function at the top of the page of The Wikipedia Library goes to Ebscohost. If sorted by newest the first page shows results only from Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Hollywood Reporter, Business Wire, USA Today, and so forth. Sorting by "peer reviewed" does show much and nothing I'm seeing that can be used, on a quick perusal. That said, anyone can search there. Whited is a start, but not much of a start & only published a few months ago. Waiting is not the worst option; agree that the understanding was that the section would be rewritten when high quality sources come available. Victoria (tk) 23:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I believe the draft as written constitutes a considerable improvement on the current text. I'm certain it can be improved further, but we ought not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I do think the sentence beginning "Rowling rejects these characterizations..." needs some reworking specifically because we've lost the reader on what those characterizations might be. I'm also not certain the statement is broadly true; she denies being transphobic, and rejects the "TERF" label (though nobody really embraces it, do they?), but if there's evidence she rejects "gender critical", I've yet to see it. I'm also noting I don't have time to engage deeply here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Her statements have divided feminists...

edit

This sentence was cut because:

  • It's not about J.K. Rowling's views; and
  • There was pressure to cut the word count.

I don't object to restoring it if we feel the extra words are justified in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The proposed word count now (400-ish) is approaching 10% less than what was in the article historically (430-ish); IIRC, any pressure to reduce the word count was when the section on transgender rights was hovering around or at times above 475 words (eg here, although I think at one point we were near 500). I propose we have room to bring back one sentence, but that if we did, it could be updated and cited to newer scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bastun re this edit, WP:WIAFA is linked in the discussion just above this one. It stands for What Is A Featured Article, also abbreviated as WP:FACR, Featured Article Criteria. It is separate from Featured Article Review; it is not clear to me that S Marshall was suggesting (yet) that we need a trip to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given the sources for the "divided feminists" sentence are 2019 and 2020, I don't think this should be used without very explicitly putting some context as to WHEN feminists were divided. Though the sourcing then adds additional problems:
  • one source is explicitly about her comments on Maya Forstater. It'd be a great source to use in the context of Forstater, but not to use as if it applied to anything else Rowling said. It's also pretty clearly the main source for the statement; neither of the other two have "feminists divided" as a clear reading.
  • One source is just probably not very good: A single tweet by (non-academic) blogger Claire Heuchan is literally the only evidence of feminists supporting Rowling presented.
  • The third source is... honestly a great article by Judith Butler, but she explicitly says "...I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen." A source that says gender critical is WP:FRINGE is a poor source to use for a statement that presents the views as equal within feminism.
----
So... aye. I'd probably say that, without modern, mainstream sources talking about a division in feminism, that sentence is dead in the water. And, let's face it: Even if we did find sources, if we kept the text exactly the same, then we wouldn't be summarising modern sources, we'd be using a summary of a source about the reaction to her commentary on Maya Forstater, treating it as if it covered all Rowling's comments since then, and retrofitting sources onto it) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, this is straightforward. Her statements haven't so much divided feminists, but rather, feminists were already divided on trans issues, and they've split on Rowling according to tribal lines. Those feminists who're gender-critical like Rowling and those who're gender-inclusive dislike her. Her statements have certainly prompted debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech, and they've certainly given rise to declarations of support for trans people from various actors and pressure groups. Nobody who's read the sources could possibly deny any of that, could they?—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean, I'm only commenting on that one sentence (as written) and its poor sourcing. I don't disagree with what you just said, but what you just said explicitly rejects the statement I'm commenting on, and what you said, that already gender critical / TERF people supported her, is sky-is-blue stuff that probably doesn't need said. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Probably does need to be said, though, doesn't it. We're an encyclopaedia. Imagine we're writing for an intelligent and curious, but totally uninformed, teenager from a village in rural India. If you want reliable/recent sources for this stuff, you don't need to look further than the BBC, which has published so many pieces about J.K. Rowling that she has her own dedicated topic page, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c50znx8v82dt.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Featured article criteria (WIAFA)

edit

Without changes to this section the article is outdated. Without the proposed changes it represents a historical version of what J.K. Rowling is famous for, and it's consequently drawing attention from people who want to update it piecemeal. A wholesale rewrite from the best sources available is the least bad option.—S Marshall T/C 07:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Choosing to not update it is basically saying this article should not be an FA. If we're not going to do the best job we can with it, then it's not featurable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 22:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
As it happens, I agree with S Marshall. But I also understand the urge to swap newer sources for those the FA writers used some years ago. I wasn't one of the contributors (except maybe a little around the edges) and tapped out with Wikipedia atm. To keep the process on track, do you have any comments to make regarding S Marshall's most recent draft, Adam Cuerden? That's how we keep going. Victoria (tk) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm fairly happy with it. I'm just not happy with - and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is.
There's bits to argue. I think "She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased. But that's not the worst objection, is it? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.)
We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Re and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding - SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we change nothing, and go back to the section as is, yes you are misunderstanding -- I've not said (or meant) that at all. As I stated above, this process has not (yet) fully engaged 1c of WP:WIAFA by engaging in a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and as I've mentioned, there are newer and better sources for redrafting that sentence, which I believe to be one of the most FA-worthy parts of the section (that is, what is the lasting effect, beyond JKR triggering every news cycle, and editors then wanting to insert that NEWS here rather than in the sub-article). My apologies for not having time to delineate them, but repeating, if we aren't engaging the FA criteria, and as most of the FA writers who did engage it originally can no longer engage, I'm unsure where we are headed if we are going to keep filling the talk page discussions with NEWS and RECENTISM.
Victoriaearle, when you stated yesterday that you find little new from your scholarly search to incorporate, were you referring to updating the literary portions of the article, or only the transgender rights section? When I browsed the other day (from the car, so couldn't save the sources), I found indications there is plenty for re-drafting that sentence, although I could only access those that were freely available. I'm relieved to have now heard from VM93, but remain concerned we may not be engaging in an overall way that will lead to retaining FA status. I'm not ready to throw in the towel yet, but it's possible we could get more FA-knowledgeable writers to engage the criteria by in fact going back to FAR, where the off-topic RECENTISM is less likely to overtake the discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This characterization of using material from post-2020 as "off-topic RECENTISM" is disputed.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sandy, I probably misunderstood. I wouldn't call my quick dip-stick search at Ebscohost a scholarly search. I thought you were referring to high-quality scholarly vs. news sources re the transgender section - and no, I didn't see anything that we aren't already using (but I didn't go beyond the first page). Even if you can't save, is it possible to capture links? In terms of updating the rest of the article, there's plenty, but as I mentioned Whited is new & generally lit. articles don't get updated within months of a new publication - at least not the ones I steward. It's always good to wait a bit.
As far as the sentence in question, I'm not wedded to it. It would be better to keep the process moving, imo.
As for as going back to FAR, don't see the need. The only immediate is need an overhaul of the transgender section & given the suggestions overnight think S Marshall's current version is fine. But ... today's article in the Times will need to get incorporated at some point because of the election.Victoria (tk) 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad to be wrong. Thanks, Sandy. I think there's a major tension between recentism and outdated here. We need to include some amount of recent content as Rowling's views have pretty clearly moved to more extreme ones, but we also don't want to merely document the most recent three incidents. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
RE, "the most recent three incidents", that is the tricky part of working on this article (she triggers the news cycle weekly, so how to decide which to include). Re Victoria and S Marshall, when I was browsing from the car, what I meant was that I found plenty of scholar.google sources that could be used to update that sentence and that we don't need to go to news sources -- enough so that the still-relevance of the sentence was shown, which is why I think it the most enduring. The reason I didn't save those I found is that I considered my search (without journal access) incomplete. I could find them again, subject to same constraints, if my real life issues would ever settle down and give me a long-enough break to refocus here (sorry :( . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
To some extent, we don't need to be perfect, as long as we cover fairly typical and/or illuminating events. We're trying to give a flavour of her sort of activity. Ideally, analysis that makes the choices for us would be better, but in the absence of that, we have a little editorial perogative to pick and choose. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This morning's article in The Times

edit

is extraordinarily timely and helpful. I propose that we suspend updating this section for the moment because Rowling's latest little rant will provoke a reaction and, hopefully, some analysis by third parties.—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

...could you please post a link to this article? Or at least the title? Loki (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LokiTheLiar, @S Marshall: There's a summary and context at this BBC article. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Everyone agrees the current draft is much better, and nothing says we have to stop work on drafts once we put something up. If we're going to suspend, let's implement the current draft. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, and would like to point out that while I haven't been a big fan of the allegations of WP:RECENTISM so far, relying heavily on breaking news about Rowling's comments about a currently happening election really would be RECENTISM. Loki (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rowling is in the public eye on this matter. Coverage isn't going to miraculously stabilize at any point. It is likely that we will need to periodically revisit this, especially as scholarly sources come out. That isn't a reason not to adjust the present wording, which is sub-optimal and considerably worse than the draft above. I support implementing it, my quibbles above notwithstanding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

For easy discussion.

edit
Latest comment: 2 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I mentioned this above, but:

"She resists proposed changes to UK law that would make it simpler to transition without a medical diagnosis. Rowling is concerned that easier transitions could affect access to female-only spaces and legal protections for women" is absolutely redundant to the clearer and simpler sentences after it, but less coherently phrased.

I guess the bit about female-only spaces might be worth including, but I'd just add it later. Maybe "She opposes gender self-recognition and suggests that children, cisgender women, and female-only spaces are threatened by trans women and trans-positive messages[refs]. Think the "legal protections for women" bit is pretty unclear as to what it means, so - presuming it's not redundant to all the bits on "women's rights" in paragraphs two and four - I'd expand on what legal rights she claims are infringed, and put it in a later paragraph. (It may be that Rowling's never very explicit as to what she means on that; if so... I'd probably be inclined to classify it as mere puffery/sloganing and just leave it out, but if she does say something concrete, then we should say the concrete thing, not summarise to the point of meaninglessness.) We're losing two sentences of redundancy to do this, after all, so if we need to put one sentence back to cover the subject well, we still have a sentence spare to use for whatever we want.

Footnote [a] is mispositioned, if we accept my change, put it with footnote [b], otherwise, it should be a sentence earlier.

These two sentences come right before a remarkably readable and clear statement of her positions (most of the rest of that paragraph). And they are in no way as clear or readable as those statements. At the least, it shouldn't come first. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&oldid=1230519550"