Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Should we mention the controversy over her remarks on trans people in the lead paragraph?

I've been trying to mention the controversial nature of Rowling's opinions on transgender rights within the sentence at the end of the lead paragraph, since I think it would help the article flow better and give some necessary context. Unfortunately, I've had two misses in trying to include it thus far, so I'd like to know whether or not the rest of you consider it necessary to mention the controversy within the lead paragraph, or if a reference to her opinions is sufficient and references to the controversy should be kept to the "Views" section. J. Martin Velez Linares (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it should be added - it’s what she’s most famous for now. Also the section about “transgender people” should be renamed “transphobia”. It isn’t about ‘people’ at all, it’s about her transphobic views and the title should reflect that. Zylo1994 (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Titling the section "transphobia" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Half the commentary on this arose after Rowling received significant levels of misogynistic abuse online, including numerous violent threats. On top of that, many people dispute the notion that her comments are inherently transphobic (transphobia=A fear or disgust of trans people, something which Rowling was accused of but also defended against), or that her comments were leading to violence against transgender people (the majority of anti-trans attacks are carried out by violent men, who are seldom likely to listen to feminists of any flavor, etc). The usage of the much-criticized acronym "TERF" against Rowling was also rebuked by some (as Rowling is not a "radical feminist" to the best of my knowledge) and defended by others. This is what the sources represent, which is what we go on. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
While I personally believe that Rowling's comments absolutely can be described as transphobic (as IMO she does display a notable dislike of/disgust with transgender individuals), I do agree that the section should continue to be titled "transgender people", at least for the time being. I don't believe it's general Wikipedia policy to outright call someone anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. in the title of a sub-section, unless said bigotry is extremely explicit and widely agreed upon to exist (you know which individuals I'm talking about). Despite the widespread backlash to Rowling's comments, it doesn't appear to me as if she meets either of those standards yet (and very well never may). For now, I say let's follow the same editorial standard that is applied to, say, Billy Graham's page.
That said: should I still mention the controversy on her views on trans people in the lead paragraph? I'm not going to bother unless there's widespread enough agreement, as I don't feel like getting in an edit war. J. Martin Velez Linares (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree we may personally consider her transphobic or as a TERF, but we must keep Wikipedia neutral, and not use it as an attack vehicle. We do not write about our opinions but base the article on information that comes from what are considered reliable secondary sources and we would need several high level citations for a strong heading like that. It took several edit struggles to get the current title to reflect that fact that she was talking about real people. Transphobic would just stat another edit war. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Regards mentioning in the Lede definitely, again the have been edit struggles here on the lede, I prefer how its neutrally written at the end of the lede on Politics of J. K. Rowling. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I changed the lede sentence, i was thinking of this when i reverted your version J. Martin Velez Linares, I believe it to be neutral ...once we start including sides ...it escalates as each side of the debate adds more, so best keep it simple. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not a "lede" because it's not journalism or the printed press. Try "opening paragraph" or "introductory text". 2.28.151.215 (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Lede which admittedly automatically turns into the simpler Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the introductory text has and is universally called the Lede or Lead section on wikipedia. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It is my view that we should not include it in the lead paragraph. I have often attempted to include extra information about somebody’s political views but have had it removed for the purposes of “keeping it for the ‘Politics’ section”. The same should apply here. I have been informed however that an Archive of this chat ruled for inclusion? I do not see it anywhere. Could somebody please direct me to it? Otherwise I shall remove that sentence. RogerBuchanan (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I really wouldn't pre-emptively threaten to edit war against consensus, if I were you. There's a search box at the top of every talk page that has archives, that'll help you find what you're looking for. In this case, it's the last section in Archive 8. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's OK in the very neutral way it is now [1], but I wouldn't go any further with it in the lead. Softlavender (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling didn't win the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award, she won the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award. They are not the same


Read the final paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling#Transgender_people. Here are some relevant sources: https://rfkhumanrights.org/news/u-s-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-writer-j-k-rowling-environmental-activist-wendy-abrams-and-livongo-health-executive-chairman-glen-tullman-to-receive-2019-robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-ripple-of-hope-award https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-lifestyle-europe-58c2513e756215577fd4764516740a8b, and https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53944773. The 2019 recipients of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award were La Unión del Pueblo Entero, Angry Tías & Abuelas of the Río Grande Valley, and Detained Migrant Solidarity Committee. Source here: https://rfkhumanrights.org/awards/human-rights-award/laureates. I don't know if I'm doing this right, sorry. I would make the edit myself, but I can't.

Change "In August 2020, Rowling returned her Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award," to "In August 2020, Rowling returned her Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Award."

InezSerrano (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done, thank you. Crossroads -talk- 05:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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".[1] 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",[2] while Vox describes her views as "blatant transphobic rhetoric".[3] 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.[4] 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

  1. ^ O'Connor, Roisin (10 June 2020). "JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments". The Independent. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
  2. ^ Madani, Doha (14 September 2020). "J.K. Rowling's new book raises more allegations of transphobia". NBC News. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
  3. ^ Romano, Aja (19 December 2019). "J.K. Rowling's latest tweet seems like transphobic BS. Her fans are heartbroken". Vox. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
  4. ^ Robertson, Grace (12 June 2020). "Where J.K. Rowling's Transphobia Comes From". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
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.[1][2] 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

  1. ^ O'Connor, Roisin (10 June 2020). "JK Rowling reveals sexual abuse and domestic violence in open letter defending transgender comments". The Independent. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
  2. ^ Petter, Olivia (17 September 2020). "Mermaids writes open letter to JK Rowling following her recent comments on trans people". The Independent. Retrieved 4 October 2021.
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)
Please note that, as shown by the article edit history and further discussion below, this text does not have consensus. There appears to be confusion on this point, for some reason. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 11 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    • Do you have a reliable source for the support for Rowling from a gender critical LGB group? Plus the is zero equivalence in size and reliability between the very well sourced critical main stream LGBT organisations compared to the unsourced minority group that is said to be supporting Rowling, we should remain careful not to mislead the reader in suggesting that the organisations have equal weight. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Concur with Crossroads throughout, and Boynamedsue just above. Also PyxisSolitary: "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." It also matters that opposition is more common from US than UK commentators; Rowling's viewpoint is more common in the UK than in the US (primarily because of finer-points differences in the ways the socio-legal debates have evolved in the two jurisdictions).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • WP:NPOV While we must present a neutral article and include the minority view point, we should not present a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

      WP:PROPORTION An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

      If different sides of an unequal debate can be regarded as different aspects, views, points, outlooks, positions ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I also support Regina Lunarum's version, which was a significant improvement of this article. There is pretty much universal agreement among sources worldwide that her views are transphobic, and that she is the most prominent person on the planet to voice transphobic views. The only ones defending her views on trans issues specifically are fringe/extremist groups. Many would probably argue that she is increasingly becoming known primarily for anti-trans activism (with many reports of libraries and bookstores now boycotting her books). Probably the majority of newspaper articles about her these days are about transphobia rather than her past literary work.
  • I would also like to note that the wording that speaks of "support from other feminists" is misleading; while she is supported by self-declared "gender-criticals", they are a fringe movement widely seen as aligned with the far right and that is not considered feminist by anyone else, so it should be changed, at the very least, to "support from trans-exclusionary radical feminists" (or perhaps self-described gender-critical feminists).
  • Also, the idea that we should treat her differently because she is British, or write about her from inside a "British bubble", is preposterous. This is an encyclopedia for the whole world, including the US, and she has a huge presence in the US and other countries as well. Her cultural influence in other countries far outweighs her UK presence. We don't write about Hungary and its infringement on the rule of law or LGBT rights solely from the perspective of the Hungarian right-wing press either. The UK is broadly comparable to Hungary in being an extreme outlier (compared to the rest of the Western world) as far as LGBT issues are concerned, so the opinions voiced by the British right wing doesn't outweigh the global consensus or the consensus among English language scholars and media combined. She is a global figure, who takes active part in a global controversy, and she should be covered here based on how she is treated by sources globally, including US sources. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The comparison between the UK and LGBT rights in Hungary is absurd. The UK has both gay marriage and legal gender change. Hungary has neither. Hungary's government also supports "traditional gender roles", which the UK has said nothing about and which the feminists you speak of wish to abolish. And how we describe the support we received is how WP:Reliable sources support it, and we go by those, not personal or partisan opinions of 'what is real feminism' (compare the endless real-world debates about "real Christianity"). The version currently in place is very similar to the compromise version reached after much discussion that included Regina Lunarum and which she happily agreed to. And further discussion and editing only confirms that this works well and follows WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Crossroads -talk- 16:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
You mean the compromise version that, as I noted above, does not have consensus in this discussion? That "compromise version"? Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The current wording ...

These views have been criticised as transphobic by many LGBT rights organisations and *some* feminists, but have received support from *other* feminists and individuals. ...looks potentially misleading to me some followed by others could suggests that the former is a minority of feminists, while the mainstream is in the others group, which is not the case. ~ BOD ~ TALK 20:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I favored "some other" before. I did this now. Crossroads -talk- 05:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The Christmas Pig- Own article

I think it is time to write an article on The Christmas Pig on its own. Agree or disagree. Nerguy (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC).
Agree. It has certainly received enough media coverage to be notable enough for its own article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I have started working on the page. Help expanding it would be appreciated.Nerguy (talk) 00:47, 22 October 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)
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,[2] 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

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;
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"[3]? 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)

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"[4]. 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 am suggesting that you make a course correction in light of your own apparent values. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The options you are referring to were only mentioned on the fly as possibilities to illustrate what form such an addition could possibly/theoretically take. They were not formal proposals, nor an exhaustive list of alternatives. Obviously the final wording would need more consideration, including consideration of what kind of language that is best supported by sources. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
But my point is that, if you don't recognize and work constructively with the difference between, say, "transphobic tweets" and "tweets that have widely been considered transphobic", you are playing into the hands of your apparent "enemies". Newimpartial (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC below

I have made an RFC below that more closely follows the guidelines than unnamed anon's. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 16:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Should post-nominals be in the lead?

I'm not going to make another RfC over the question I asked in the section header. Don't worry about that. I just want the edit war between @Blobsvolta, @Crossroads, and @Sideswipe9th to stop showing up in my watchlist. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • For the record, the only one who is personally edit warring is Blobsvolta, the rest of us only reverted once each. Blobsvolta, don't hide the postnominals again. They are standard for lead sentences for those who have them. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I obviously agree with Crossroads here. While I appreciate the argument that it can be a navigation impediment, consensus site wide is to include them in this style. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I support the removal. Introducing her as "Joanne Rowling CH, OBE, HonFRSE, FRCPE, FRSL" is absolutely ridiculous and those abbreviations mean nothing to people from other countries, and that kind of material is not what readers from most countries are typically looking for in the first sentence. It is by no means mandatory to include them. Articles on high-profile figures who from a UK perspective might be entitled to post-nominals don't always include them (e.g. heads of state of other countries who have received dozens of honours from various countries don't include 10 or 20 or 30 post-nominals in the first sentence). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't see an issue with them, they are standard. See Winston Churchill, for example. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As a foreigner I think it looks really weird there too, to be honest. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to war edit, I just wanted a reason for the revert. However, I agree with Amanda A. Brant. Honestly, I don't believe you if you tell me that it doesn't look a bit weird to you. As a reader: I don't even know (or care lol) what those mean, and putting them in the first sentence is too much to me. But! I respect the majority's opinion. Greetings. Blobsvolta (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the inclusion of postnomials is one of Wikipedia's most ridiculous conventions. But the site-wide consensus on this doesn't show any real sign of changing yet; it is what it is. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Τhere is absolutely no reason to break with convention about postnominals specifically in the article about Rowling. Taking into account the extreme passion exhibited from both sides in discussions related to Rowling & trans persons, one can only conclude that the suggestion to remove the titles from her article is nothing more than a sorry carry-over from that combat. There is nothing in Wikipedia against listing postnominals; on the contrary, Wikipedia explicitly permits their listing. To quote MOS:POSTNOM : When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section. And that has been the long-established convention. If anyone feels strongly against the inclusion of postnominals in biography articles in general, then they should post up a proposal in the MOS:POSTNOM talk page. -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, The Gnome. For the record, it wasn't my intention at all, but it is true that this is a controversial article and this proposal—or potential decision—may be misinterpreted. Blobsvolta (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • While they are permitted, there are many examples that demonstrate that they are not mandatory (e.g. articles on heads of state where the inclusion of all post-nominals they may theoretically be entitled too would make the entire first paragraph look utterly ridiculous). I oppose post-nominals in any article. In this case we're not talking about one, widely known post-nominal, but a long list of mostly obscure post-nominals that people from other countries haven't heard of. Why do readers need to know about an obscure honour from the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh before we learn anything about her, even before we mention Harry Potter? --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Greetings, Amanda A. Brant. Your objection to having postnominals in biography articles in toto should be brought up, as I wrote, in another forum, such as the Village Pump. This is just the talk page of the "J. K. Rowling" article. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
As I said, there are many examples that demonstrate that they are not mandatory. Since this is the talk page of Rowling, it's the appropriate venue to decide that post-nominals aren't appropriate in this article, for example because half a dozen obscure post-nominals are not what readers are typically looking for in this article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
It'd help the discussion, Amanda A. Brant, if we address the points actually made by the other party and not irrelevancies. Case in point: I never suggested inclusion of postnominals is "mandatory," so your remark about "many examples" demonstrating they're not is irrelevant. If you want to object to this article listing the subject's postnominals, you should start here an RfC for that. Have in mind, though, that since including postnominals is allowed (not mandatory but allowed) and is also the prevalent convention in Wikipedia, you'd have to support your proposal by something specific to this article. You already suggested that "half a dozen obscure post-nominals are not what readers are typically looking for in this article" (your emphasis) but there are a lot of issues with that line of argument:
(a) Rowling's gongs are four and not "half a dozen."
(b) A lot of postnominals are indeed obscure but I'd doubt any reasonable person would think of the Order of the Companions of Honour, the Order of the British Empire, the Royal Society of Literature, or the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh as "obscure". Still, one could always argue for obscurity, I suppose.
(c) Postnominals are listed as informational asides. It might be a rare reader indeed who comes here actively looking specifically for titles but a title is obviously something notable in a biography.
Finally, a note: Since we're inundated by the lava-like debates abt Rowling and trans-persons, we should not think of postnominals as according some kind of extraordinary prestige or credibility to their recipient. One could simply wade through the list of other such recipients to see my point. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain. As per MOS:POSTNOM, these are regularly included and removing them seems fairly pointless. We open pretty much all our biographies with the formal titles of people, and that includes the post-nominals. If we want to get rid of them, it's probably best to open a site-wide RfC to remove them from all biographies. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61A0:3400:7046:E3A3 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I *completely* agree with the statement that "They are absolutely ridiculous and those abbreviations mean nothing to people from other countries, and that kind of material is not what readers from most countries are typically looking for in the first sentence", and I also oppose them in any article; and we should keep them nevertheless. Because that's what the WP:CONSENSUS is, and that's how things work around here. Get over it, and go improve some article somewhere. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless you get a global consensus to stop using them in the lede. To say you don't like them anywhere, so they shouldn't be used here is putting local consensus before global consensus, which is something we don't do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Per my comment in the section below on philanthropy citing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I wonder if this too is a discussion that's more relevant for a noticeboard as it affects multiple articles. Again WP:BLPN looks like the obvious candidate for such a discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain OBE. The rest seem like overkill. Just because MOS:POSTNOM permits inclusion of an acronym/initialism here doesn't mean that it must be included.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain OBE, remove the rest. Excellent suggestion by SMcCandlish. Looking at what MOS:POSTNOM actually says: "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section" (my emphasis added) then whatever about the 'CH' and membership of the Royal Society of Literature, the honorary ones clearly shouldn't be there! Nobody associates Rowling with being a physician, and she doesn't claim to be! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Retain As per MOS:POSTNOM, these are regularly included. Not seeing a huge reason to remove them though if she recieves anymore it may become unwieldly. OBE should certainly be kept as most noted one on there.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling/Archive_9&oldid=1065324534"