Talk:J. K. Rowling

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021

Under heading 2.10 (Cormoran Strike), change the following run-on sentence:

In 2017, the BBC released a Cormoran Strike television series, starring Tom Burke as Cormoran Strike, it was picked up by HBO for distribution in the United States and Canada.

to:

In 2017, the BBC released a Cormoran Strike television series, starring Tom Burke as Cormoran Strike. The series was subsequently picked up by HBO for distribution in the United States and Canada. Spcoburn (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 DoneInteresting Geek (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann 15:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

Lede sentence rewrite

Earlier today (at least, in my time zone), I edited the article to change two sentences, both of which were about J. K. Rowling's comments on transgender issues.

I confess that one of them was in error. I should not have added the word offensive to the sentence describing Maya Forstater's comments. Although I am personally offended by them, the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This was in violation of WP:NOR and WP:BLP, and I apologize.

My other change, however, was not in error, and I believe it should be restored. As the burden of proof is on me, I will explain my reasons.

I edited the lede sentence These views have led to controversy to These views have been widely criticised as transphobic, and provided ten citations to reliable sources (see above). While the first two in order were opinion pieces cited as examples of said criticism, eight consisted of factual reporting. The language of the rewritten sentence closely mirrors that found in the cited sources. For example, in a factual news article, The Independent claims Rowling has been "widely criticised for her comments about gender, sex and [the] trans community". All eight factual (non-opinion) sources verify that Rowling faced widespread criticism for transphobia; often, the claim that her views are transphobic is not even attributed to critics but stated as if it were a fact itself. For example, NBC News notes "Rowling's history of sharing transphobic opinions online" and linking to a "transphobic Medium article", while Vox describes her views as "blatant transphobic rhetoric". Vanity Fair speaks of "J. K. Rowling's transphobia" in a news headline, saying of Rowling "she's transphobic" in the body of the article. It doesn't really get more explicit than that.

This is not WP:WEASEL, this is explaining what reliable sources say. This is not WP:LABEL, this is using the terminology reliable sources use. WP:BLP sets a high standard for inclusion of information in an article on a living person, and the claim that Rowling's views are widely criticised as transphobic meets it. WP:BLP tells us to be "conservative", but also not to make understatements. Saying her views, which have been repeatedly and consistently criticized as transphobic, have "led to controversy" is the understatement of the decade.

I rest my case. Your move, User:Crossroads.

Sincerely, Regina Lunarum (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Vox is a newer outlet that routinely mixes news and opinion in its articles. Both the Vox article and the Vanity Fair one are clearly opinion articles, appearing in "culture" and "style" sections repeatedly, with the author expressing opinions throughout. They are not written in factual news style like an actual news article. Per WP:RSOPINION, they are not reliable for claims of fact. The NBC News article is part of their "Out News" brand, which focuses on LGBT issues and perspectives, which should be taken into account when evaluating the WP:WEIGHT of their statement in their own voice that she is transphobic.

As I said above, slapping a WP:LABEL of transphobia with a WP:WEASEL-word attribution of "widely", 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- 04:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The precise ratio of factual news to reliable source opinion is irrelevant to my argument. Transphobia is the precise term used in all ten cited sources. The phrase "widely criticised" is both a direct quote from The Independent and a summary of the factual information contained within the sources. "Widely" is not always a weasel word; if you think it's inaccurate, take it up with The Independent, who reiterate that Rowling faced "widespread public criticism" in two separate factual articles. The lede should adequately explain how her remarks were actually perceived, instead of sugarcoating their toxicity. Regina Lunarum (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

References

We can't cherry-pick outlets for favored terminology. Let's look at a wider selection of highest-quality news sources to see how they describe this:

The Harry Potter author wrote a personal essay last year which included examples of where she believes demands by transgender activists were dangerous to women, which were described by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups as divisive and transphobic. (Emphasis added, The Guardian)

JK Rowling has once again come under fire from transgender rights activists... CNN

It was at this point that LGBTQ groups like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, and even the actors who brought her work to life, began to speak out against her. CNBC

She has been under hefty scrutiny about her thoughts on transgender identity from the LGBTQ community along with Eddie Redmayne and Daniel Radcliffe, who starred in the Harry Potter film franchise. ABC News

Rowling was quickly accused of being transphobic, initially by activists, although she argued it “isn’t hate to speak the truth”. The Observer

Rowling provoked anger in June last year... (i.e., no 'widely criticized as transphobic', The Times)

BBC, nothing about "widely"

Evening Standard, no "widely", "transphobic" only in two quotes

Et cetera. There does not appear to be a consensus of the sources to use the word "transphobia", and definitely not to say "widely considered transphobic" or the like. I did offer to bring back wording akin to that we used to have, something like "these views have received criticism from LGBT advocates and support from some feminists", and this more accurately summarizes the sum of sources on the topic. We could also keep it brief like it is now and have people read the section.

Your comment about "toxicity" makes me think that some of this is about getting a particular WP:LABEL in a prominent place in the article. That is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

How about "These views have been criticised by LGBT advocates"? Mentioning "some feminists" is WP:FALSEBALANCE and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a particular sect, contrasting it against the mainstream LGBTQ community. Said feminists do not represent contemporary feminism and are outside the mainstream. It would be like citing late Einstein about quantum indeterminacy or Linus Pauling about megavitamins. Regina Lunarum (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(Trying to keep a low profile here, I was somewhat involved in multiple tiring discords on this subject and compromises.) (Strike Out following}Crossroads I might be wrong, but I seem to remember to me a much clearer case of single article cherry picking by yourself. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Bodney, I sense that you're on "my side," so to speak, but can we please avoid fallacious arguments like tu quoque and focus on building consensus?

I find the current sentence to be an understatement and the previous wording to be outright misleading. Because there is insufficient support for my original edit, These views have been widely criticised as transphobic, I have proposed an alternative, These views have been criticised by LGBT rights advocates, without an equal mention of so-called "gender critical" feminists in the lede. Does anyone object to this? Regina Lunarum (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally i do favour both of your suggestions and i agree with your reasoning, but I am also conscious that I was part of the previous compromise after numerous long debates. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Regina Lunarum, comparing political debates to scientific views is a false analogy. Wikipedia is supposed to describe political debates clearly and accurately, meaning that we know what sides there are and who is on them. Depicting Rowling as though she was only criticized is not accurate, nor does it represent the body of the article, and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. WP:DUE is based on sources, and sources report this; when reporting political debates it is not based on which views we or those we agree with personally consider fringe even though sources report on their existence amongst societal factions. What we can do is another version; one like this had also been present before I'm pretty sure: These views have been criticised by LGBT rights advocates and some feminists, and supported by some other feminists. This makes clear that there are also feminists who oppose Rowling's views.

Bodney, thanks for crossing that out, but I don't recall focusing on one source like that. Maybe I considered the wording of one to do a good job of balancing the topic, and maybe I wasn't as clear at the time. But this tangent should be dropped. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation of the relevant policies agrees with Newimpartial's, but I am still a novice so I assumed that Crossroads was correct and that I had made a misunderstanding. I see that I was not in error. In addition, only mentioning criticism in the lede does not imply that she was only criticized, but that only the criticism has enough WP:DUEWEIGHT to be mentioned in the lede, avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE. A few fringe feminists are not equal to the broad consensus of WP:RSOPINION. It is specifically the criticism that carries due weight. Due to this, it is safe to say that a new WP:CONSENSUS has been established (WP:CCC), and I have WP:BOLDly restored the former lede sentence, with a minor correction in one citation. Regina Lunarum (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Crossroads, the idea that WP:RSOPINION-compliant sources criticizing something as transphobic are not evidence that that thing has been criticized as transphobic is an absolute travesty of our sourcing policies and takes WEASEL to a whole new level. Each of those sources is in fact direct evidence that the thing has been criticized as transphobic, and it is not necessary to name each critic individually. You are twisting our policies into pretzels to fit your POV - please don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Quit the personal attacks or you'll find yourself at ANI. The claim is that she was "widely criticized" as tranphobic. If "widely criticized" is based on the text of the opinion pieces themselves, then they are being used as a statement of fact, and that is against WP:RSOPINION. If the idea is that "widely criticized" is appropriate because of the number of pieces, then that is WP:Original research.
  • Even regarding just "called transphobic", in other articles, opinion pieces are routinely removed as sources because there are numerous opinion-havers and they lack WP:Secondary sources to indicate significance. They have no WP:WEIGHT for the desired text. Per WP:LABEL (emphasis added), where "transphobic" is explicitly named, labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources, the label is only sometimes mentioned and only rarely in a source's own voice, and "considered" is not proper WP:In-text attribution but a clear WP:WEASEL word.
  • There are also numerous opinion pieces instead praising Rowling's "courage" and feminism for standing up to the "trans lobby" and suchlike. I'm sure we all agree that those should be avoided, but the reason for that is we avoid relying on opinion articles in an encyclopedia. Neither of the last two comments address the fact that I demonstrated that numerous RS do not describe her the way that the two of you wish to, so that is cherry picking.
  • The claim that the support she received is not worth mentioning in the lead even though the the criticism would be, is special pleading and POV. Neither of you have addressed how this falsely makes it look like she was only condemned, nor WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and how WP:DUE is based on how sources report on the topic, not on personal opinion of what is important or correct. The body states, Rowling has received support from actors Robbie Coltrane[273] and Brian Cox,[274] and some feminists,[275] such as activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali[276] and radical feminist Julie Bindel.[275] The essay was nominated by the BBC for their annual Russell Prize for best writing.[277][278] The Observer reports, Arrayed on Rowling’s side are some of the veteran voices of feminism... The BBC reports, What is the reaction to JK Rowling's statement? Dr Kathleen Stock, professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, told BBC Radio 5 Live that JK Rowling is "right to want to protect women-only spaces". Feminist blogger Claire Heuchan said she had "a whole new level of respect for her courage and compassion"....singer Alison Moyet added: "Regardless how I feel about anything, I always hated a pile on since schooldays. Even against those that've been hateful to me. As it happens JK Rowling is not hateful. I see a woman convicted and hung and wonder where the same venom is for the men that do actual harm to all womankind." Obviously, these sources also note the negative reception. But I am not the one advocating to mention only one POV. I could list more, but the many sources I've already posted have been ignored in favor of ganging up and personal attacks.
  • I will be notifying the BLP noticeboard and MOS:WTW of this discussion. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
    • You keep assuming these are all opinion pieces. They're not. The Independent article is factual and literally states Rowling has been (emphasis added) widely criticised for her comments about gender, sex and [the] trans community. Also, why on earth does an article containing an opinion mean that the facts in it don't count? If it's in an op-ed, does the NYT editorial board matter as much as the Gateway Pundit? WP:RSOPINION is about opinions, dude. There are plenty of factual, non-opinion statements, even in opinion articles, to the point that she has been widely criticized. Saying that she has been widely criticized as transphobic is a neutral fact. The criticism has much more WP:WEIGHT than those who support her when she says things (like insinuating that trans women are men) that WP states are wrong in WikiVoice, not to mention being far more represented in reliable sources. If we follow your precedent, we won't be able to mention that Donald Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist. Regina Lunarum (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      • You are repeating your unsourced opinions as though they carry weight. Allegedly "factual, non-opinion statements...in opinion articles" are not allowed. The guideline is extremely clear. And I never claimed these were all opinion pieces. What is going on is cherry-picking in favor of a preferred narrative, with every source, policy, and guideline I cite being ignored. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
        • When you twist policy in service of one side of a POV dispute, you should expect for the resulting pretzels to be ignored, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Coming from WP:BLPN. I support Regina Lunarum's version. The sourcing is solid enough and widespread enough that at least this short mention is due in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • And with no mention of the support she received as noted in various RS? Or with that in addition? And how can you say it is widespread enough when the claim "widely considered" appears only in a tiny minority of sources, which survey of sources I laid out above? How can that possibly meet WP:LABEL's requirements of "widely used" and with attribution? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
    • That Rowling has been widely criticized is practically a SKYBLUE claim at this point. How much do RS emphasize the support she's received? If it's as compelling as the sources mentioning criticism, then yes, I'd also support a brief mention in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

      Responding to Crossroads' LABEL citation, added as I was responding: that guideline is clear that specific attribution is necessary in the body, but summation is fine in the lead. It also notes that we can drop the specific attribution if reliable sources are doing the analysis for us, which is the case here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Crossroads, we must take into account that in the quoted support you noted above, you have carefully excluded the criticism of Rowling given in those very same sources. Not that you have a POV on these issues, or anything...
    • Personally, I think has been widely considered is a red herring, and we should simply be discussing the remaining text with :has been criticized as" in place of "has been widely considered". Newimpartial (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Firefangledfeathers, WP:BLUESKY is an essay. How about WP:NOTBLUE. BLUESKY certainly should not be applied to handwave the need for sources for condemnatory labels to BLPs, per actual guidelines. I posted several sources above already that note the positive reception, as well as WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. May add more later if I have time.
      • Newimpartial, I specifically said exactly why I quoted only that portion. Unbelievable that you speak as though I did not. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
        • The sky stuff was not the substance of my view on the subject. I'm just pointing out that existing sourcing is fine for a claim that is practically indisputabe. I can also look for something of a level with "widely criticised" but on the support side, if you're actually interested in a compromise here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC) amended 04:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Crossroads: you mean Obviously, these sources also note the negative reception? That is what I call a handwave. I don't see how anyone could claim to assess DUE by quoting at length one side of a dispute (and the minority view, in this case). All mainstream sources on this emphasize the criticism of her views, not the support she received, AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I did not "assess DUE" based only on that. I am not the one arguing to mention only one side in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
            • No, you are the one defending the whitewashed summary These views have led to controversy in the lede, which is not a reasonable or balanced summary of, really, any of the available RS. That phrase fails WP:NPOV and is, itself, euphemistic and WEASEL. Newimpartial (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
              • IMO These views have led to controversy is an unworkably strange and vague statement, but I don't think anyone in this discussion was directly arguing for it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) To say that someone has been widely criticized or widely considered transphobic for something, that needs to be established in reliable sources, it is not enough to find criticism and say therefore it is obvious that this is how someone is generally viewed. I'll note that in the one source brought to the above discussion that actually justifies that wording, The Independent, the relevant material comes in the subhead, which is not usable per WP:HEADLINE. So we actually have zero sources brought to this discussion that justify that wording, as far as I can see. Justifying OR in saying that a BLP subject is widely considered transphobic through WP:BLUESKY (i.e. we don't even need a source for it) is ridiculous.

      Similar to Newimpartial, I would be happy with something to the effect of have been criticized by [...] or have been characterized as transphobic by [...], or something similar, in the lead. (For transparency I also came in from BLPN). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

      • • To clarify again, neither I nor anyone else is actually proposing putting this in the lead without sources. You're right that the bit we've been quoting from the Independent is a subheading, though that source does go on to say "received widespread public criticism". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Oh, I didn't see that – thanks. Reading that article in full does sway me a little, though where the other sources e.g. Crossroads quotes from have introduced criticism through "criticised by activists/human rights orgs/advocacy groups/the LGBT community/etc", I would still be wary of it. To me "widely considered to be X" means that they are generally viewed to be X, so for instance we say that Lionel Messi is widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time because people generally would put him on their "Top N footballers of all time" list. Where in RS both opposing views are discussed, or where criticism is introduced as coming from a subset of people, or in general where there isn't a preponderance of RS that describe something as the general/most common/widely held view, then I don't think we can present it as such. Obviously it should still go in the lead, but I don't think we can say "widely considered". ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Whaddabout, "There has been considerable debate about whether these controversial views should be described as transphobic", or something? Tewdar (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Reuters puts "transphobic" in scare quotes, nbc is careful to say "critics have called transphobic", indy says "attracted accusations of transphobia" and "widely criticised for her comments about gender, sex and [the] trans community"" (so not 'as transphobic'), bbc says "Critics accused her of being transphobic" (with quotes from lots of folks who disagreed)...I certainly don't think we can say "widely criticised as transphobic" here, and certainly not without mentioning the opposing views at all. Tewdar (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this from Tewdar. Seems like a balanced outlook. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 11:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Shhhhhh! Don't say that, now everyone will oppose it! 😉 Tewdar (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am not opposed to mentioning the minority view (that the views Rowling expressed aren't transphobic or anti-trans) as well as the majority view (that they are). I also am not hung up on the word "transphobic" itself, though it is certainly widely used in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, great! I love looking at statistical data! Comma-separated values file is preferred, but even .xls will do if you have nothing better. Tewdar (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I'm pretty biased here: forcing Terry Pratchett to go into the future to steal all her 'original' ideas, indeed! Grr! Even so, we probably need a good source that says, "majority say this is transphobic" rather than ORing. Tewdar (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to mentioning the minority view either, as long as it is made clear that it is the minority view. For example, I would be open to this statement: These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations, but have received support from a minority of feminists. I admit I don't have a citation for the latter part yet, but you get the idea. I am concerned about WP:FALSEBALANCE. Nevertheless, I would prefer it not be mentioned in the lede. At this point, my preferred sentence is: These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations. Regina Lunarum (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with most of "These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations, but have received support from a minority of feminists", but the only problem is that "minority of" seems to be WP:Original research since I am not aware of any sources that say that part regarding Rowling. However, as I said before, we could append something like "some feminists" to the criticism side as well to make that clear. Thus: "These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists." Crossroads ^-talk- 15:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I would be pleased with that wording if "criticised by... some feminists" were changed to "criticised by... mainstream feminist organisations" or the like. Regina Lunarum (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, Crossroads - it's important that we don't give the impression that Rowling is being criticised by [all] LGBT orgs and supported by [all] feminists. I'd also support that sentence as modified by Regina Lunarum. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Regina Lunarum, I don't see sources which support that, especially the "mainstream", because it is a very politically laden label. Even just "organizations", I'm not sure if any weighed in, though they very well may have and I forgot. There are also "GC/TERF" organizations, which probably supported her, and probably secondary sources which mention this, so it seems POV to just mention "organizations" on one side. I would rather just stick to "feminists" and sidestep that. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent upon mentioning support for Rowling? The lead section is for the basic details of the situation. The criticism she received was notable for the lede. The support is not.

For example, look at Donald Trump. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist, and many as misogynistic. Do some people think he is not racist or misogynistic? Of course! The linked articles mention that. But only the criticism is notable for the lead. Same here. Regina Lunarum (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are just asserting that it is not noteworthy, and there is no policy or guideline that suggests justifying choices at one article simply because another article does something, rather than pointing to actual policies as I have. The Rowling-Trump comparison is absurd.

Just a couple comments ago I proposed "These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists." You said you were "pleased" with that with one caveat, which I replied to and you ignored. Another editor gave me conditional support, and my proposal was after multiple other editors expressed seeming support (and one, neutrality) toward mentioning the support she received. You going back to "no mention" is going backwards. Please don't do that. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly added this sentence to the lede: These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and feminists, but have received support from other feminists. It's better than what we have now and the 2020 version from before. It's not perfect but it's a good compromise. Regina Lunarum (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this compromise and am glad that we could get this worked out. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I was actually editing the page as you were to say I liked it! Glad you do too. Regina Lunarum (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I would refrain from stating that anyone or anything has been "widely criticized", because there is no way to determine what the "widely" means. Is it all LGBT organizations in every nation, of every language? Is it all organizations, including non-LGBT? I've read opinion pieces that oppose JKR, and I've read opinion pieces that support JKR. We can't write a BLP that doesn't include both sides of the matter -- and it must be done with neutrality. Whether an editor loves or hates JKR is irrelevant. There is no room for POV in a BLP article, and no room for exaggerated statements that stem from that POV. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, do you actually agree with this edit? You think it should only mention opposition and not support? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

For my part, I was restoring her changes to your text, so I understood that it was an edit to which Pyxis would "agree". Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this, are you denying that a consensus was reached in the above discussion? Can you point me to the policy which says it's okay for one editor to edit war back in another version (boldly tried by another editor), disregarding that earlier discussion that reached consensus? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC) clarified Crossroads ^-talk- 21:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you ask that again in English, or were you speaking rhetorical?

Yes, I am denying that the passage has consensus, because at least three editors have made changes to it before the ink could dry on your LOCALCONSENSUS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has been loosely following this, I'd just like to endorse this compromise edit. I was pleased to see the above agreement and would like to see it reinstated, and ideally avoid recent edit warring. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 21:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Came here from WP:BLPN, it's just taken me a couple of days to get up to speed. I do not agree with the "but have received support from other feminists" wording. It's stylistically awkward in its use of English. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is difficult to apply here. It is right that we say that the views have been criticised as transphobic, and by whom. And it is also right that we say she has also received support for those views. However the amount of support she has received is smaller than the amount of criticism. And I think that distinction needs to be made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads – I wouldn't have edited the sentence as I did if I didn't think it was a more neutral way to phrase the statement. "You think it should only mention opposition and not support?": I think the implication made with the word "some" is that there has been support, otherwise the wording would be "all LGBT organizations" and "all feminists" (which would be untrue, because if you've been following the response to JKR's opinions about transgender matters you'd know that she has received support from many individuals and organizations). A balanced, neutral, biography should mention a few of the organizations and individuals that have opposed her, as well as individuals and organizations that have supported her. It doesn't matter if opposition is 75% and support 25% -- the 25% is relevant, too. And considering the way issues regarding gender are moving fast in England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, it would be judicious to be as neutral as possible regarding allegations. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Here from MoS. I would suggest that if the criticism is included in the Lede, the support should also be. I would support wording along the lines proposed earlier:

"Since late 2019, Rowling has publicly voiced her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These views have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and Gender Critical LGB groups."

Alternatively it could be left out of the lede and explained in detail later. It's worth remembering that, for the people who care about this issue (on both sides) this is vital information about Rowling, but for most readers it will probably be less important than what cafe she wrote the first book in. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Funny how articles become opinion pieces when they support Rowling but when they critique her then those types of articles are considered valid. Everyone but Crossroads has a blatant anti Jk agenda. It is known. To pretend that Jk only got critique and zero support is blatant bias in favour of transgenderism. I thought Wikipedia was about coldly stating facts rather then trying to spread weasley worded anti rowling propaganda. Information should not be censorsed to appease small minded Fools. Hpdh4 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)